Is Being Non Violent Christian or Not?

There have always been people on both sides of the political and cultural fence who will make the claim that using violence to accomplish an end even war is wrong and unchristian. These people are decent and believe they are doing the right thing.The problem is I don't see that in the Bible. I have a very hard time coordinating the admonitions about a man providing for his family, loving his wife (and kids) in Ephesians to the point of giving his life for her and laying down passivly and letting some scumbag abuse his family.

I see in fact the opposite. Yes, I am a gun owner. I believe in armed self defense. I am not at any level a pacifist. I actually don't believe it's ultimately possible to be a pure pacifist. If threatened our instincts kick in and we will make an attempt to preserve our lives.

This does not mean that if Martyrdom comes and I am selected to be martyred that I won't fight and make every attempt to escape and help others to do the same. I will go to the gallows with confidence but not without a fight. There is a difference.

I don't think people who believe in pacifism are bad people. I also don't believe that people who are believers in arming themselves against evil are bad people.

A man who goes by the name of Zig once again wrote a pretty compelling essay based on the question put forth by Arron in the last post of this kind. I have not researched it all but I think it bears consideration. He does not claim as you will see to be a theologian. But he has done some interesting work on it all.

I think as a Christian it's our duty to protect our wives, our family, our community, our nation and ourselves as best as we know how. We can do that with a gun or without. I prefer a gun thank you. My swordsmanship is so much worse now that I'm well over 60. But I can still aim.

What follows are the Words of Mr. Zig and not me:

I am not a man of the cloth, but in response to the questions on your blog with regard to the positive duty of resistance to tyranny, here are some links.

The first, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants, was used as by the Founders as a way of justifying their rising up against King George III and responding to the accusations of treason against the Crown.

Another, brief discussion was put up by WorldNetDaily, entitled Biblical Self Defense

yet another, Self-Defense in Exodus 22:2-3 ... and Luke 22:36

There is another writer, not sure if I wholly endorse everything she says, but she has done some scriptural research and provides the following, among others, to justify self-defense:

In 1 Peter 2:13-15 it says, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors as unto them sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For this is the will of God.” Yes, we are to submit to government authority, unless they contradict God’s laws which were protected and written into the Constitution.

We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Acts 5:29 and 1 Peter 2:13-15 a teach important doctrine concerning the Christians obedience to the civil magistrate and how to respond to tyranny. They instruct us to obey both God and man; but if the commands of men contradict the express commands of God, we must give our obedience to God. Tyranny must be resisted, but only in accordance with God’s Word.

Luke 22:36 is also cited by the [other] NRA:

We must also consider what Christ told his disciples in his last hours with them: “. . . But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack and he who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36, emphasis added). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier—the equivalent then of a military rifle today.

The Christian pacifist will likely object at this point that only a few hours later, Christ rebuked Peter who used a sword to cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high Priest in the company of a detachment of troops. Let us read what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 26:52-54:

Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?

It was not the first time that Christ had to explain to the disciples why He had come to earth. To fulfill the Scriptures, the Son of God had to die for the sin of man since man was incapable of paying for his own sin apart from going to hell. Christ could have saved His life, but then believers would have lost their lives forever in hell. . . .

While Christ told Peter to “put your sword in its place,” He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what he had told the disciples only hours before.

And finally, there always that bit in the Bible where Jesus comes not to bring peace, but the Sword.