A Thinking Reed

Hart on Self-Defense

Written by

Lee M.

in

In the article I linked to the other day, David B. Hart takes issue with the interpretation of just war theory I’ve been discussing that counsels Chrisitians to abjure self-defense:

[I]t is strange to see Cole attempting to reconcile the developed Thomistic language of charity as a virtue with the older, somewhat more implausible belief advanced by Ambrose and Augustine (and accepted by Cole) that Christians are forbidden to defend themselves in all circumstances from unjust violence visited upon their own persons lest, in so doing, they offend against charity. Quite apart from the exegetical difficulties such a view presents to the theologian (For what purpose were the disciples to use the swords for which Christ prophesied they would sell their cloaks? Was he commissioning them as knights errant?), it is clearly incompatible with the rule that all earthly loves must be made subordinate to the love of God.

It is one thing to turn the other cheek against insult and casual abuse, or even to accept martyrdom, but another thing altogether to permit oneself simply to be murdered to no good end. To love charitably—selflessly—requires that love of self be ordered towards the love of God; to do this, one must learn to love oneself under the rule of justice, and to fail to do so is no less a sin than refusing to defend one’s neighbor. Indeed, defending oneself against unjust violence is one of the few times that one can most assuredly subsume self-love under the law of charity, without egoism or spite intruding at all.

This is partly an exegetical question I am not at all qualified to answer. Does Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek” apply only to cases of “insult and casual abuse” (this would seem to be suggested by the fact that if someone is slapping your cheek he is probably not violently attacking you – you don’t just slap someone you aim to seriously hurt or kill) or is it meant to apply more broadly? What about the command to love our enemies? Does loving someone entail allowing them to kill you if that’s what they’re bent on?

Comments

4 responses to “Hart on Self-Defense”

  1. Camassia

    Well, having read Yoder you probably already know this, but the idea that Christians aren’t supposed to defend themselves rests on more than just the lines in the Sermon on the Mount. It’s also the example of Jesus himself, who refuses to defend himself or let others defend him (the author seems rather obtuse in not remembering what Jesus told his disciples to do with the swords they sold their cloaks for) and submitting to crucifixion.

    Of course, you can say Jesus was a special case because he had the Atonement to perform, but the church immediately after him seemed to regard that as an example to follow. The stoning of Stephen in Acts clearly echoes the crucifixion, especially in Stephen’s Christ-like prayer for the forgiveness of the people attacking him.

    Some have argued that such behavior applies specifically to being persecuted for religious reasons, and not if you’re attacked for some ordinary reason like a mugging. On the other hand, is it really Christian to fight another person for your possessions? And if you’re really behaving as you ought to, what other reason would a person have for attacking you?

    Reply
  2. Lee

    The example of Stephen is a good one – I hadn’t thought of that in connection with this.

    I guess a lot hangs on whether we can draw a principled distinction, as Hart wants to do, between being persecuted for one’s faith and being attacked for more mundane reasons. For instance, some have said that even if I don’t have a duty (or right?) to self-defense strictly speaking, I have a duty to those dependent on me not to let myself be killed for no good reason if I can avoid it. I don’t know if Yoder addresses that distinction in TPOJ or elsewhere – I’ll have to go back and take a look.

    Reply
  3. Joshie

    The distinction between being mugged and persecuted for religious reasons is a false one.

    Jesus himself was not executed for religious reasons but for encouraging insurrection as his manner of death would indicate, he was crucified (a Roman mode of execution) not stoned (the traditional Jewish mode). This despite the spin the gospel writers, particularly Matthew and John, tend to put on it.

    So then Christ who is to be our example in his suffering (1 Pet. 2.21) and humility points the way toward non-resistance, despite the fact that he himself took agreesive action in the temple (Yoder’s view of the “cleansing of the temple” as a peaceful sit-in borders on the absurd).

    Reply
  4. Anatomy of an Obsession: A Collection of Half-Baked Thoughts on Just War and Pacifism | A Thinking Reed

    […] “Hart on Self-Defense” […]

    Reply

Leave a comment

More posts