C.S Lewis, Isis, and the Police: A Biblical Defense for Self-Defense (Part )3

So we've seen a biblical defense for self-defense illustrated by situations Abram, David, and Nehemiah were in, situations that focused on relatives and possessions versus nations and armies.  But what does this have to do with C.S. Lewis, Isis, and the Police?

There was something Lewis said in Perelandra that always struck me.  In the climax of the book, when Ransom is conversing with God (Maledil) about Ransom's purpose on Perelandra, Ransom comes to realize that physical resistance, a physical fight between Ransom and The Un-Man, would be the means by which Ransom overcame evil.  Ransom had always thought in terms of "spiritual warfare," but he realized that the line between spiritual and physical warfare on Perelandra was blurred. I apply this thought to resisting evil, resisting oppression.  I've thought about this when I make the distinction between defending myself according to my faith vs non-resistance according to my faith.  This is where my thoughts about Isis (or slave masters for that matter) come in.

It never seemed to me that Isis (or slave masters) were the "governing authorities" referred to by Paul.  I never perceived Isis (or slave masters, or gang members/thugs demanding submission) were the equivalent of a Nebuchadnezzar commanding Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to bow to Nebuchadnezzar as a god.  So with Isis (or slave masters), I don't see a biblical reason to submit to them, to allow them to beat or kill me.  It seems to me that I could defend myself against them, and indeed that I should.  That it would be sinful not to because I would be yielding to someone God had NOT put in authority over me.  But what about the police, who indeed ARE governing authorities?

Well, in America, a land of the people, by the people and for the people, a democracy with checks and balances, there are laws that address this very issue:

Assault and Battery § 15.4-- excessive force by officer -- right to repel

When there is evidence tending to show the excessive use of force by a law enforcement officer, the trial court is required to instruct the jury that the force used against the officer was justified or excused if the assault was limited to the use of reasonable force by the defendant in defending himself from excessive force.

Though there is great risk involved in a situation where a citizen would use force to resist the excessive force by an officer, the law does make room for this in America.  So I connect this thought with the thought from C.S. Lewis in Perelandra, thoughts about Isis (or slave masters) and thoughts about biblical self-defense, concluding that it is biblical to defend myself, my family, and my home against those who are sinfully seeking to attack me or my family or property, those who have no God-given authority over me; and even those who DO have God-given authority may be resisted in certain circumstances, but not one circumstance in particular.  

In situations where there is a true and bonafide governing authority that puts itself in the position of God and commands citizens to renounce God and worship the government, or the governing authority, I see that I should lay down my life in civil disobedience.  The difference?  I believe David's view of Saul as "God's anointed" helps me here.  Or Gideon's father, who said "let Baal defend himself." In other words, when Nebuchadnezzar, or Pharaoh, or the "man of lawlessness" for that matter, directly challenge God by commanding God's people to bow to them as idols, I believe this is a situation where I would not defend myself because I'm not the one being attacked.  I will "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" in that situation.  Caesar is abusing his God-given authority, claiming to be God, so it is God who needs to defend Himself, not me.  

I consider these thoughts especially relevant for me as a Black man, considering my history, considering slavery, considering police brutality.  For much of my history, it has been assumed by many in church history that slaves in general, and Christian slaves, in particular, should take the beatings and rapings of oppressors.  Fredrick Douglas, a Black Christian who used to be a slave, showed me otherwise.  He made it clear that when he physically fought his master and vowed to physically resist beatings for the rest of his days, he experienced the freedom and God-given humanity that had been stripped from him as a slave.  This is akin to what I learn from C.S. Lewis in Perelandra.  Douglas's spiritual warfare against slavery WAS PHYSICAL, like Ransom's spiritual warfare against the Un-man was physical.  At times this may still be the case for black people in this country who face police brutality, or brutality from racists who want to shoot us for simply going for a jog.  Therefore, until the Government, or some "man of lawlessness" commands us as the government/a governing official to bow to it/him as God, I don't see biblically why I should let anyone put their hands on me.

 

C.S Lewis, Isis, and the Police: A Biblical Defense for Self-Defense (Part 2)

 DAVID

"...David's two wives had also been taken captive..." 1 Samuel 30:5

In this scenario, the wives and children of David's men and David's two wives had been taken, along with possessions.  David strengthened himself in the Lord and did indeed inquire of the Lord.  Yet what I see again in this situation is that wives, children, relatives, and possessions had been taken.  Abram had "trained men," and David also had a significant number of trained men or seasoned warriors with him.  Five kings were responsible for the captivity of Abram's relatives, while a band of raiders was responsible for the captivity of David's wives and the wives and children of his men.  In other words, these scenarios with Abram and David didn't directly involve wartime scenarios for Abram and David but instead involved scenarios where family members and possessions were taken captive.  This is even more explicit in my final example with Nehemiah.

NEHEMIAH

"...I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with swords, spears, and bows."  Nehemiah 4:13, italics mine.

"Don't be afraid of them.  Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your families, your sons and your daughters, your wives, and your homes."  Nehemiah 4:14, italics mine.

These to me are some of the most striking passages in terms of biblical self-defense.  Notice that these are not soldiers or warriors or armies, but families--armed families.  I see these biblical prerequisites for self-defense in the mind of Nehemiah, which also seems to be implied in the situations with Abram and David:

1. Focused faith in the Lord who empowers righteous/lawful self-defense:  "Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome..."

2. Courage:  "Don't be afraid of them."  (God consistently commands strength and courage.)

3. Being armed (as a minimum) or trained/able to defend yourself.  (Abram's trained men, David's mighty men, the swords, spears, and bows given by Nehemiah.)

4.  A righteous cause:  "Fight for your families, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes..."  Notice who is primarily being addressed by Nehemiah, notice who is fighting, and whom they are fighting for-"your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes"--fathers and husbands are doing the fighting.  Though of course sons and daughters and wives have the potential to fight, they are not the ones being called upon to fight.  It is the husbands and fathers being called upon to fight for sons and daughters, wives, and homes.

Again, these are families, fighting as families, for families and homes.  Not warriors, or soldiers, or armies.  

Click here for part 3

C.S Lewis, Isis, and the Police: A Biblical Defense for Self-Defense (Part 1)

I've written on this before, yet I'm thinking about it again as it relates to me being a Black Christian in this country specifically, but also for Christians in general.  I'm thinking about when believers can and should defend themselves according to our faith, versus when we should not defend ourselves because of our faith.  I believe Abram, David, and Nehemiah (and C.S. Lewis) give me a biblical defense for Christian self-defense, while Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego show me when Christians should yield their lives for their faith (and how this relates to Isis and the Police.)

ABRAM

"When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.  ...He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people."  Gen. 14:14,16, NIV

In reading this I notice that Abram did not stop and pray about this situation at all.  Of course, God had promised Abram that whoever blessed Abram would be blessed and whoever cursed Abram would be cursed.  In other words, God had already promised Abram protection.  Nevertheless, Abram seems to assume that he can take his trained men and rescue "his relative" who "had been taken captive."  Abram simply heard about it, then acted.  And he was successful in bringing back not just his relative, but the goods and possessions that had been taken, with others who had been taken as well.  Something very similar seems to happen to David.

Click here for part 2