Mar 28 2008
“Give Him Your Cloak (Coat?) As Well”
OK… so for a red-meat eating dude with a background in military and law enforcement, I found this NPR article both humbling and convicting. Here’s an excerpt:
But one night last month, as Diaz stepped off the No. 6 train and onto a nearly empty platform, his evening took an unexpected turn. He was walking toward the stairs when a teenage boy approached and pulled out a knife. “He wants my money, so I just gave him my wallet and told him, ‘Here you go,’” Diaz says. As the teen began to walk away, Diaz told him, “Hey, wait a minute. You forgot something. If you’re going to be robbing people for the rest of the night, you might as well take my coat to keep you warm.”The would-be robber looked at his would-be victim, “like what’s going on here?” Diaz says. “He asked me, ‘Why are you doing this?’” Diaz replied: “If you’re willing to risk your freedom for a few dollars, then I guess you must really need the money. I mean, all I wanted to do was get dinner and if you really want to join me … hey, you’re more than welcome.
My wife and I just moved into the city from suburban St. Louis… and my plans for protecting ourselves from crime certainly did not involve this… I carry a knife everywhere I go, for both utility and protection, so I must confess that this was the last option that came to mind as I seek to prevent my wife and I from becoming victims of crime.Jesus asks us to turn the other cheek, but can it go to the extreme into naivety or stupidity? What is the middle ground here?Thanks to Chris for this article referenced on his blog.
Posts
Wow, Diaz’s response in the situation is impressive. As for turning the other cheek when approached by a robber I think that it might also involve if I feel in danger or not.
Middle ground…?
Is your faith so weak you would kill to defend a body that will die anyway?
As a very small woman (a bit overweight, but small nontheless) I am gald my husband is capable and willing to protect me. As a citizen of a country many wish annihilated, I am grateful to you for your sacrificial service, and willingness to protect me.
Is giving one your coat or walking the extra mile, contextually speaking of pacisfism? I don’t think it is anti-biblical to defend your family, others, or property, do you?
I believe Diaz’s response was admirable, and I would hope to have the same foresight in a similar circumstance; but how loving is it to not take care of others when they are being abused?
*glad* I know, you knew I meant glad!!
NorEaster,
“Is your faith so weak you would kill to defend a body that will die anyway?”
As a husband (and someday father), I would not only defend my body, but the bodies, hearts, and minds of my family. If I died alone in a subway station, what would that leave my family with? Would you consider the faith of Joshua weak? David? I just don’t think it is quite so black and white….
Michelle,
You are voicing the exact questions I ask myself. And I think you have a great point… abuse is just the other side of the coin from neglect, and there are other circumstances that must be considered.
Had I been in Diaz’s shoes, I’d love to say I’d have done the same thing. He was able to “read” his assailant and could tell the kid was desperate yet (at some level) rational. If he were frantic, or my wife were with me, I doubt that would have been the right course of action… It’s all so circumstantial!
I really should be answering your questions in a blog (one which has been roaming around my head for quite some time). But, sadly, I am still hibernating. And I must prioritize.
Meantime, consider this. And consider it carefully.
My friend, Britany, was sexually abused as a child. She took her life two years, one month, and two weeks ago. (Yes, February 15th. The day after Valentine’s Day. That is accurate.)
But last summer, I found out that someone I knew was an accused rapist–and pedophile. To make a long STRUGGLE short, I ended up inviting him to a Bible that I have at my house. (All of this is detailed in “When Lightning Strikes” and “A Dark & Stormy Night.)
And why did I do these things? [Smiles] Because God said so. And God didn’t say so because it was right thing to do. But because it was the right thing for ME. And for that man. With grace, everybody wins. But who knows. Maybe you can’t truly understand what that means unless you’ve been there.
But, should I have killed that man instead? Well, let me ask you this–Is there a limit to God’s grace? To His mercy? To His love? To the sacrifice that Christ made for all of humanity? Or…was it all just for the people WE like? Are we not called to be like Christ?
Does it take more courage to KILL a man who pulls a knife or does it take more courage to LIVE your faith by turning the other cheek?
It is very very very easy to speak of grace and mercy and forgiveness. Living it is quite another. But speak and your words vanish into thin air. Be a living sacrifice and you will know joy beyond the riches of satiated avarice.
To quote Keith Green: “I pledge my son…pledge my wife…I pledge my head to Heaven…for the Gospel…”
“If I died alone in a subway station, what would that leave my family with?”
I have two responses to this 1) The same thing I had after losing 22 people. (22 people so far, anyway.) And 2) God’s commands are not hypothetical questions.
“So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today” (Matthew 6:34 NLT).
NorEaster,
Your quote of Jesus in Matthew concerned purely material aspects of worry (clothing, shelter, etc.). Jesus was not asking us to ignore the worries and strife of pain and suffering. I know you aren’t saying that (especially considering your experiences), but that seems to be how you quoted it…
“But, should I have killed that man instead?”
Absolutely not. I’m not saying that at all. I’m not talking about murder, vengeance, or vigilante justice. I’m talking about self-defense. In this case, defending oneself could prevent the criminal from harming others as well…
Again, would you consider David’s faith weak? Or Joshua’s? There are instances of violence and self-defense in scripture that is clearly ok and called for by God. Jesus died to satisfy justice (hence why I am against the death penalty), but never said not to defend ourselves from an aggressor.
It’s just not black and white.
Brad, I am surprised that you found this story so impacting. I thought everyone had heard the idea about offering the attacker help. I don’t mean that in a condescending way. But the story even seems a little old hat to me.
I think the most interesting word choice in your article (post, whatever), Brad, is in the word “convicting.” That made some sparks for me. In using this word, you’ve indicated a revulsion for this man’s choice that I find especially interesting. you seem so impassioned for your personal idea of justice that you find this man’s story criminal. Fascinating.
Especially since man deems himself the disperse of justice, even though many say we should not judge. And man claims this gavel of judgment comes from where? God. I’m not talking about a general idea here. I’m saying that nearly every court system on our world states somewhere in its articles that it derives its power literally from god/gods/God.
I read the other comments, and I understand that you are not talking about meting out justice with your own hands, but in carrying a knife for protection, you are implying, in my opinion, that should someone attack or mug you, it is an appropriate response to stab that person, albeit an instinctive, self-preserving response.
And yet. While humankind is humankind, and therefore still animal, how often does one hear (in all cultures: Eastern, Western, European, African, etc.) about elevating oneself to a higher plane? As if to ascend into godhood. This is especially prevalent in Christianity, which simultaneous says we are flawed sinners, also, and we will therefore never live up to our total divinity.
IT IS SUCH A CONUNDRUM.
Long story short: the paradigm and ideal of justice is an incredibly bizarre thing.
Thanks for writing this, Brad. you’ve stirred some deep things in my mind.
Brad:
I know, full well, that it is not black and white.
Joshua and David were doing what God had appointed them to do for the nation of Israel. Their faith was obviously strong enough to do it.
The Shepherd David killed Goliath out of defense for Israel, but King David had Uriah killed so that he could have Bethsheba.
I’m sure you can certainly see the difference, what with the first being a selfless act and the latter being a selfish act.
“He never said not to defend ourselves against an aggressor…”
He never said take a shower everyday, either.
“It’s just not black and white” (Brad)
I would have to say, if we go by the life and manner of Jesus as the measuring stick, then yeah - violence is not an acceptable thing no matter the cause. I would ask for one place where Jesus defends himself in a violent manner - for the sake of his ‘mission’? One could also go on and check into the writings about John the Baptist, the prophets, Peter, James, John, and Paul. The odd thing in each case is they go to their deaths with integrity - not violently.
The temple thing aside, Jesus was doing that clear the place of people selling spirituality - I rarely see a place at all where violence is esteemed as a suitable action for the defense of the ‘gospel’. So that leads me to believe this was held in high regards in the early community and in Jesus’ own teachings. If I am wrong - I ask to be shown that plain and simply.
As for Joshua and David - well they were defending nation-hood more or less and I would ask for a Rabbinical explanation of their faith - since they hold to the Judaic faith and were not Christ-ians (at least as we know today).
But I’ll say one thing about violence - once you let a little in (an option for it) - a lot can come flooding in quite quickly and the use of violence becomes very skewed and is ruled on by the person per time and place (and that is extremely problematic).
The best standard to hold is the highest one ‘non-violent by any means neccesary’ - and then to deviate from that as neccesary depending on self-defence or as one see’s the time to ‘break’ from the moral code. But at least we see it as a ‘break’ from the best moral standard possible - knowing that violence is not an option we hold our hands out for - but also being aware violence is something the ‘world’ holds up to some esteem thus the problem in the 1st place.
I would say quite easily - name one time in your life where violence serves as the catalyst for basic growth in moral ground? I grew up in a violent world and I have to say - violence never solved my problems nor made my relationships with anyone better - in fact the opposite happened - I was despised for the person I was (and for good reason - I was a bully as a child). I can only go from personal experience and interaction with the texts - and peaceful resolutions seems to work 180% better than solving something with fists or kicks. I have actually helped ’save’ friendships by being the peacemaker.
Brad:
“Love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44)
“Love does no harm.” (Romans 13:10)
So. I will ask you again.
IS YOUR FAITH SO WEAK YOU WOULD KILL TO DEFEND A BODY THAT WILL DIE ANYWAY?
Whoooooo, things are getting WARM in here!
How about some scripture - it just might help…
http://www.gotquestions.org/self-defense.html
NorEaster,
“I’m sure you can certainly see the difference, what with the first being a selfless act and the latter being a selfish act.”
So in what way would defending myself be a selfish act? Especially if done so with the understanding that I am also protecting the hearts and futures of my family?
As Christians, we are agents of redemption in a fallen world. Law Enforcement Officers are just as much those agents as pastors. Here are a few “selfless” scenarios with eternal consequences.
Option 1:
“Thug” attacks, rapes, and kills an innocent woman. He escapes and does so again.
Option 2:
“Thug” commits the same crime, yet said woman is armed with a firearm and shoots him. “Thug” dies and does not get to repeat his crime, yet woman lives to become a loving mother. (Not to mention future victims who are also saved)
Are you telling me that the “right course of action” would be to not protect herself, and to let a “body that will only pass away” be horribly violated and murdered? And if not, you would accuse her of having a WEAK faith?
Until last June I was a Military Police Officer in the U.S. Army. While I was never deployed myself, I wrestled with the eternal implications of my service in Iraq, and the potential I had for killing another human being. The conclusion I came to was that Iraq was a country wracked by spiritual warfare (ultimately), and that I had a Christian duty to conduct security operations with respect for Iraqi citizens. That meant I would also protect them and, if I had to choose, use lethal force. The same went for the soldiers under my command. I’ll be damned if I will stand by and allow my men to be killed while I watch. Also, Rom. 13:1 - “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Should I then not obey my government as an MP, who has authorized lethal force to protect the innocent?
Bottom line: I am not a vigilante. I am against the death penalty. If any aggressor truly repents of their crime and desires to change (they don’t have to be Christian), I am all for forgiving them and loving them to help the change.
However, if in defense of my life or others, I take a life, my conscience is clear before my Lord Jesus. It is NOT my first option, or preference (I like how societyvs phrased it as a “break” from the norm), and I’m a certified instructor of non-lethal defensive tactics so those will be considered my first option. But if it is within my power, I will not allow a murderer to repeat his crime.
God said, “You shall not murder,” not “You shall not kill.” (Exodus 20:13)
societyvs,
“The best standard to hold is the highest one ‘non-violent by any means neccesary’ - and then to deviate from that as neccesary depending on self-defence or as one see’s the time to ‘break’ from the moral code. But at least we see it as a ‘break’ from the best moral standard possible - knowing that violence is not an option we hold our hands out for - but also being aware violence is something the ‘world’ holds up to some esteem thus the problem in the 1st place.”
I like how you phrased this. I can wholehearedly agree with it, and again state that I do not hold violence as a first option. Well said.
“I would say quite easily - name one time in your life where violence serves as the catalyst for basic growth in moral ground?”
I’d use the example of law enforcement (my career before going to seminary). IT happens every day on the streets so we can safely have this discussion from whatever living room, coffee shop, or college campus we do so from.
“And yet. While humankind is humankind, and therefore still animal, how often does one hear (in all cultures: Eastern, Western, European, African, etc.) about elevating oneself to a higher plane? As if to ascend into godhood. This is especially prevalent in Christianity, which simultaneous says we are flawed sinners, also, and we will therefore never live up to our total divinity.”
You had me nodding until this part… Christianity does not see humankind in the same light as animals. While God created both man and animal, we are quite different as we are made in the image of God. That puts us in a whole other category. As far as elevation into a higher plane goes… we definitely believe that we are called to something “higher” as stewards of God’s creation (Genesis 1-3), and enjoy both special privileges and high responsibility, but in no way does that ascension include Godhood. That is absolutely antithetical to Christianity, and is by definition idolatry (in this case, self-idolatry).
Yes, we are flawed sinners, but we believe that because of the sacrifice of Christ, we are “imputed” with His righteousness (a Jewish legal term meaning “given,” or “declared in full status with.”). While we may not be able to live in the fullness of that imputation NOW, we believe that we will once God’s plan of redemption is completed in full. In other words, we live in an “already, but not yet” tension with this.
“Long story short: the paradigm and ideal of justice is an incredibly bizarre thing.”
Absolutely. Especially when considering Romans 13:1. Because we are not to “judge” those outside the church does not seem to mean we are to avoid “justice” altogether.
Michelle,
Thanks for rooting the discussion a bit! I appreciated the link. I’d also add that Calvin and Luther both agreed with the concept of “just warfare” rooted in scriptural integrity for the purpose of “restraining sin and evil in the world.” Their justifications were rooted in how they saw the Law played out in scripture as “fences” that controlled or reigned in sin on a society level.
“However, if in defense of my life or others, I take a life, my conscience is clear before my Lord Jesus. It is NOT my first option, or preference (I like how societyvs phrased it as a “break” from the norm), and I’m a certified instructor of non-lethal defensive tactics so those will be considered my first option. But if it is within my power, I will not allow a murderer to repeat his crime.” (Brad)
But this does smack of vigilantism also - as much as you don’t want it to. I guess a bigger question is - is being a vigilate within the confines of the Law? If not, then we need to respect our governning bodies to secure the laws and respect that process (which is for our benefit)…if they leave no room for vigilantism then we are getting into some ‘dicey’ territory. Cause if I get this right - we are breaking both God’s ordained governance and the laws of society/humanity.
But this is a very tough issue irrrgardless of how we look at it and it changes based on one’s personal living experience. I am a huge advocate of non-violence - since we need to become the change that isn’t present - since this is a very Christian thing to do. If we become the situation that engulfs us - then what use it that? It’s like salt being out on more salt or worse salt with no flavor- bloody useless.
I haven’t struck a person in almost 20 years or so - and never once since I have been a Christian (14 years). I grew up in a violent neighborhood and it’s still violent - but you can’t change those attitudes by acting like the environment that creates it - that’s what I have learned from the gospel if anything. But I have never been persecuted either so we’ll cross that road once we get there.
societyvs,
“But this does smack of vigilantism also - as much as you don’t want it to.”
Webster defines a vigilante as “a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.”
So no, I’m not smacking of vigilantism because I am speaking exclusively of self-defense, which is legal under every aspect of criminal law.
“I am a huge advocate of non-violence - since we need to become the change that isn’t present - since this is a very Christian thing to do. If we become the situation that engulfs us - then what use it that?”
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do not see individual violence as a tool or option for ANY reason than self defense, and even then I would agree that actions like Diaz’s are preferable if the situation allows for it.
Let me try to clarify: I believe that self-defense is ALLOWED and a viable option in certain circumstances.
Now, I will also say that non-violent means (or, if necessary, non-lethal means) are FAR preferable. Depending on the context and the threat level, I have no problem resorting to a lower level use of force.
Here are two examples/illustrations of the “Use of Force Continuum” used by most law enforcement agencies to assess threat level and appropriate response:
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/0/hr/images/useofforcecontinuum.jpg
http://www.aele.org/chart.gif
One other important factor that must be considered:
Will my inaction ultimately CAUSE HARM to others? In other words, I could allow this person to kill me, but my decision NOT to prevent it could literally kill another human being (i.e. my wife who is with me).
My decision… to allow my death… can kill. My non-violence can in fact create more violence. Not always, probably not by a lot… but it can and it needs to be considered when we try to apply a single standard across all situations and contexts.
My intent in posting this article was to state that non-violence is MORE of an option than I generally consider it to be day-to-day, which is a step in the direction of what you guys are trying so vehemently to argue (so cut me some slack). My intent in the ensuing discussion was to defend self-defense as a viable Biblical OPTION (not the ONLY option) when confronted with a life-threatening situation.
So NorEaster, please do not continue to insult me by saying that my faith is “so weak” because I would not automatically allow myself to be killed if threatened as such. You have not engaged in a consideration of contextual factors, nor of other areas of scripture that could potentially support self defense (Luke 22:38, John 2:15, Romans 13:1 for government authorities), nor of the fact that I am talking PURELY of self-defense and would advocate non-violence in every other realm of ethical behavior (or at least every one that I can think of right now…).
“Never wake a sleeping bear.”
Although on the bright side, at least now I know what my first Essay will be about when I am done hibernating.
Ahhh, WORDS! I hate them and love them.
When I said, “ascend to godhood,” I did not mean literally. Or even metaphysically. I don’t think it’s really about that.
But thanks for the response. you’ve helped to mull some ideas around for me. I think my next big youtube video will be about justice.
Hey. I know what imputed means.
hehe
“Ahhh, WORDS! I hate them and love them.”
Haha… fair enough… I figured you didn’t mean it literally, but bloggers (not you) can be notorious for taking things out of context and I try to be clear.
“But thanks for the response. you’ve helped to mull some ideas around for me. I think my next big youtube video will be about justice.”
Ditto for me as well. Let me know when you do, I’d love to see it.
“Hey. I know what imputed means.
hehe”
See comment about bloggers (it’s for everyone’s benefit
).
So NorEaster, please do not continue to insult me by saying that my faith is “so weak” because I would not automatically allow myself to be killed if…
Brad…
…I asked you a question. That’s all. The capital letters were just to show my conviction.
Also, it’s probably worth pointing out that in the original context of the post, the matter addressed was about one individual who was gracious enough to give his coat to a robber.
So far as I can recall, it was not about war or government authority–which is precisely why I never discussed those matters. That is a post I’ll write another time. But it will have to wait until I done with my “Hibernation,” which won’t be for a while because right now I’m “Lost On The Green.”
NorEaster,
“…I asked you a question. That’s all. The capital letters were just to show my conviction.”
My problem was not with the use of capital letters, but that you insinuated that my faith was weak because I would not allow someone to kill me.
“Also, it’s probably worth pointing out that in the original context of the post, the matter addressed was about one individual who was gracious enough to give his coat to a robber.”
Agreed. But again, you did not ask, “Is your faith so weak that you would not give your coat to a robber?” but “Is your faith so weak that you would kill to defend a body that will die anyway?”
“So far as I can recall, it was not about war or government authority–which is precisely why I never discussed those matters.”
Again, agreed. I introduced it as one of potentially several exceptions.
NorEaster, I’m not a hawk or a war-mongerer. But the message I received from you (possibly mistakenly) was that no self defense is a legitimate Christian response. I am also not a pacifist, and I do not believe that scripture calls on us to be one either. I have no problem “turning the other cheek,” but I am not called to stand idly by as sin destroys my family.
Now, if you want to start talking about specific contextual and scriptural guidance, then I’m totally game. But what I had a problem with is a gross generalization that, if I disagreed, insinuated I have a “weak faith.” This is probably more sensitive for me, as I minister to dozens of soldiers every month, many of who struggle with their Christian responsibilities in war. Not ONE soldier struggled because they were worried about losing their life, but because of what it would leave their family with back home. For many of them, it was the strength of their faith that led them to leave their loved ones and potentially sacrifice their lives for the good of future generations in their family. I don’t say this to toot anyone’s horn, but to point out the full implications of what you insinuate.
I would not kill to defend my body, but I would kill to defend my family, who would suffer greatly if I were killed. If God convicts me otherwise, Praise God! But that is where I am now, and I assure you that it does not result from selfish weakness in faith, but loving protection for those I care about.
So I say again, I am very happy and amiable to discuss the “grey areas” with this incredibly difficult issue. But I do resent gross generalizations that do a diservice to not just myself, but men and women who struggle with this REALITY daily.
And there we go. Certainly got that sorted out.
As for my question, perhaps I should have phrased it another way–”Would you die for what you believe?”
Much better, don’t you think?
From my point of view, Brad, every Tuesday night I lead a Bible study officially known as “The Church of Misfits: A Place For The Rest of Us.” We’re supposed to start at 7pm, but no one ever shows up on time. Which is cool. Because we’re Misfits. I’ve had a lot of people come and go since it started, but one man, Chris (whom I wrote about in “The Flood of Alcoholism”) has been there from the beginning.
When Chris was 5, he nearly drowned. But he only ended up with brain damage that affected his fine motor functions and his speech is slurred.
When Chris was 10, his mother died of cirrhosis. And since his father didn’t want him, Chris spent the next 7 years going through foster homes–25 fosters homes, 3 group homes, and 2 reform schools to be exact.
To this very day–which is several decades later–Chris still has a lot of anger about what has happened to him. Actually, it’s more like RAGE to the 68th power.
But because of his slurred speech, people often make the immense mistake of thinking that he is “retarded.” And I got to say, if you ever want to see all hell break lose, just say that word in his presence. He’ll make Hurricane Katrina look like a clear blue summer sky.
And every Tuesday night, I try to teach him the value of turning of the other cheek. It’s no easy task–not against a lifetime of RAGE–but he’s had his moments.
Last year, a drunk held a knife to Chris’s throat and threatened to kill him. But Chris, instead of trying to knock the guy into next week, just said, “Go ahead. I know where I’m going when I die.”
To make a long story short, Chris is alive and well the man who pulled the knife on him is now in prison. 10 with 4 to serve. It would have been 2 to serve, but Chris testified against him. Because Chris turned the other cheek and when he got away he called 911. Which is precisely why we have police and courts and judges and laws.
As for the military, I was born in a military family. On a base, in fact. My father served on the USS JEFFERSON during The Cuban Missile Crisis and my grandfather served in The Pacific Theatre during WWII. All of my uncles and aunt on that side of the family joined the military, too.
And if my father and my grandfather had not done what they did, the West Coast of America would probably belong to the Japanese in the 1940s and the United States may very well have been eliminated in nuclear holocaust shortly after October of 1962.
Living in The North East of America, there is hardly a day that goes by that I don’t see a “War Is Not The Answer” bumper sticker, but Amos Oz makes a wonderful distinction between war and aggression when he writes, “If everyone but The Nazis believed in war in 1939 then Hitler would have been lord of the universe by now.”
So, to break it down simply–and this is from Amos Oz–there are times when war is absolutely necessary. War is not the problem–aggression is.
Do you see where I’m coming from?
Yes, I do see much more of where you are coming from. I greatly appreciate the background. That helps a lot.
It sounds like your friend was used in a pretty huge way that day. I wholeheartedly agree that this would be the ideal standard for Christians in such a situation. But it needs to be weighed contextually, and I don’t want to say that “this way, and only this way” is the Christian standard. I felt like that was what you were saying in answering that question, but again, the background you provide helps.
Good luck with your hibernation and cranking out your book. I’d be very interested in hearing more about it!
Grace and Peace.
i guess self protection is very important as human beings. All of us are going to do it when it comes to our case so i say it ok.
hitwot,
Welcome! Thanks for the comment. The irony of this post is that both my wife’s car and my truck were broken into this week. Not a whole lot stolen (nothing to steal really), but they sure did a number breaking the locks and handles on our doors.
/sigh.