What do we make of the killing of a church shooter at West Freeway Church of Christ? The tragedy in White Settlement, Texas, is as lamentable as it is unpreventable. In a fallen world that is increasingly Christ-hostile, such things are bound to happen with an increased frequency.
They are shocking surprises when they occur. Equally surprising was the intervention of a church security volunteer who cut short the carnage by killing the shooter. Some say his actions were necessary because by the time the police would have arrived, dozens could have been dead.
I did not want to comment on this event until more information was available. Not that some time has passed, I would like to comment on this church shooting and the countermeasures taken to stop the shooter. Many pundits and at least one prominent evangelical pastor have weighed in on the killing of the shooter. Some raised the question of “turning the other cheek” and showing this Christian virtue in the face of persecution.
Where does turning the other cheek come into play? Turning the other cheek is a personal decision we are encouraged to make when facing persecution for our faith. It does not apply to a situation like this church shooting. The security volunteer made the right call and took the appropriate action to protect the flock from a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
“Turning the other cheek” was a particular illustration grounded in the culture of Jesus’ day. The slap on the cheek was also known as “the heretic’s slap.” It was a slap of contempt given on the occasion of a false teaching. It was not an attempt to do real harm or take someone’s life. What happened in Texas does not apply to what is popularly understood as “turning the other cheek.” This fact will become clearer as we consider the broader context of Scripture.
To be clear, there is nothing Christ-like about allowing such an event to go unchecked. Imagine allowing a rapist to abuse a woman in the name of persecution, harm a child, or murdering congregation members. A church’s leaders are called to shepherd the flock of God. This involves caring for and feeding the flock. This also involves protection—that’s what shepherds do.
If one looks to the Bible for guidance, examples of lethal self-defense abound. Israel defended herself against her enemies at God’s command and with God’s approval. Consider how many times God raised up judges to confront the nation’s persecutors (read the book of Judges).
This kind of lethal self-defense is not an isolated event but part of a larger pattern. During the exile, when the anti-Semite, Haman, in the time of Esther, sought to wipe out the Jews, King Ahasuerus permitted them to arm and to defend themselves. The Jewish people celebrate the holy day Purim to commemorate this action.
We see this pattern again in the book of Nehemiah. At the command of Nehemiah, the builders armed themselves to defend against attacks by Sanballat and his henchmen. Israel’s enemies tried to prevent the restoration of the Temple, but they were stymied by the armed and ready Jewish defenders.
Some suggest that Jesus condemned the use of force for self-defense. The example often cited is John 18:10-11. At Jesus’ arrest, Peter pulled out a sword and hacked off an attacker’s ear. Jesus does not tell Peter to get rid of his sword but to sheath it. He does not ask him to discard it. It’s not about passivism, it’s about God’s plan for Jesus’ sacrifice:
10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) 11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:10-11)
Some attempt to derive a principle of living by the sword and dying by the sword from Matthew 26:52-54. This is not prescriptive but descriptive of the situation:
Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53 “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 “How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?” (Matthew 26:52-54)
Context is helpful. Passages like this must be read (and applied) in context. There is the immediate context of the passage, the near context in a book or section of Scripture, and there is the wider context in terms of the whole counsel of Scripture, in this case, the gospels. If Jesus was, in fact, prescribing a practice not describing what would happen to Peter and others if they resisted, then Jesus contradicts Himself within the Gospels. In Luke 22:31-35
Jesus teaches the opposite of passivism. At the close of Jesus’ earthly public ministry, Jesus warned of Satan’s attacks upon His disciples (and upon Peter and the Apostles). He also advised them to take steps to guard and defend themselves. While Jesus assured them He would provide for them, He also warned them of their responsibility for their own protection:
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” 33 But he said to Him, “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!” 34 And He said, “I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me.” 35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37 “For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:31-35)
Human beings are people of extremes. Indeed, those who characteristically live by the sword also die by the sword. At the same time, those who insist on not defending themselves or others are likely to die or allow others to die needlessly. Both extremes lack a biblical basis (aggression and passivism). Even Exodus 22:2 allows for taking the life of a burglar breaking in at night. Refusing to defend oneself and others cannot be rationalized on the basis of turning the other cheek.
Indeed, the Church is not to live by the sword. However, neither can the people of God afford to live without the sword in a fallen world. Eschewing self-defense for a misguided, though perhaps well intended, spirituality will lead to needless suffering and death.
When a wolf invades the pasture, the shepherds see to the protection of the flock. They may lay down their lives. Moreover, they will not stand idly by and watch a wolf literally or spiritually tear the flock to pieces. Neither do they flee like hirelings, failing to intervene. They engage.
The idea that Jesus is a passivist is unsupportable in Scripture (Luke 22:31-35 and Revelation 19:14-16). Nowhere in Scripture is the practice of passivism prescribed. Nowhere in Scripture is self-defense ruled out. The opposite is true.
Self-defense is necessary because the police cannot respond quickly enough. What took place in White Settlement, Texas, should be a model for a church protecting the flock. There is nothing spiritual about allowing a murderer to slaughter God’s people for any reason. Such attacks (and such defenses) have little or nothing to do with “turning the other cheek.” We are to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16). In today’s world and context, this entails taking steps to protect itself and others.