Christian Non-violence

Throughout my life, it was always an understood fact that self and others’ defense was a perfectly reasonable and accepted fact of the Christian life. I knew about Christian pacifists, specifically those in Amish communities, but while I understood these groups to be Christian, I always believed them to be more legalistic in their dogma. I mean, these were the same people who said it was “wrong” to wear colored clothes and drive cars. I understood why they did what they did, but I didn’t see those things as wrong, and especially didn’t see them as “sin”. However, in more recent years, there seems to be a much larger growing population of Christians who see themselves as pacifists. When I was writing the book that would eventually become Men of Valor, I did a lot of research into this way of thinking. At the time, our church was following a man named Francis Chan, a pretty amazing teacher of the Gospel and this guy had a friend named Preston Sprinkle, a fun name, I know.

Preston Sprinkle seems to be one of the leading modern voices for this idea of Christian non-violence. In fact, he wrote a book about it, first called Fight, and later retitled Christian Non-violence. Preston is an amazing writer. His level of research is amazing and, in the back of his book, he talks about wanting to grab his shotgun and shooting the thug, he says, “The mere thought of someone harming my family stirs up something fierce.” He then goes on to ask his reader, “… are you 100 percent sure that God won’t intervene?” I’ve been asked this basic question several times. Basically, implying that by stepping back and allowing the evil person to continue unimpeded, you are showing faith in Christ.

To me, this just reeks of the story about a man in a sinking ship. He prays to God to save him. A man comes along in a rowboat and offers to save the sinking man, but he refuses. Two others come and ask him if he wants to be saved, but he refuses each time saying that he is waiting for God to save him. Well, the man drowns. He gets to Heaven and asks God, “Why didn’t you save me?” God replies, “Well, I sent you three rowboats!” God has given man the ability to be a man. “Haven’t I commanded you; be strong and courageous? Do not be afraid or discouraged, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go.” Joshua 1:9

He would not require something of us if he hadn’t also given us the ability to accomplish it. As men, even modern men, we yearn for a time when we can stand up and be counted among the great men of the age. Men often attempt to sate this urge with video games and movies about heroes. However, in these arguments we see Christians trying to get us to ignore this inborn, God-given desire to save those whom we love. This isn’t right. Why would God call us to gamble with our family’s lives? God has called humans to a higher standard. One that compels us to put our own lives on the line to save those we love; even if it means killing an evil person. We wouldn’t want to do it, might even beg the person to not make us do it, but in the end, we would do it, if there were no other option.

In another section of his book, Mr. Sprinkle says, “Do you own a gun? Is it loaded? Are you a good shot? Are you a better shot than your attacker? If you are such a good shot, then why not shoot the gun out of his hand?” This is where Mr. Sprinkle really loses his credibility. He makes several other statements about guns and then backtracks and says he “owns several guns” as if that means he is somehow an authority. I am not an authority in any way but know enough to know when someone is just fear-mongering. The ending crux of Mr. Sprinkle’s arguments really falls apart when he says, “But not all enforced pain is violent. It all depends on the intention.” He is calling for you to beat up an attacker and just not kill them.

I mostly agree with his statement, but not in the context of how he says it. I believe that a person’s intention is paramount. I believe I can kill someone with the pure intent of saving someone else or even myself. Not all killing is done in hate. Also, unfortunately, Mr. Sprinkle does not understand a violent attacker. Specifically, while I have not been involved in a fight for my life, I would say I am an authority on people who are coming down off drugs. I can tell you that I have seen men (and women), who are coming down off drugs, who it took eight full-grown adults to hold down in a therapeutic hold. Even with that number of people, it was still like riding a bucking bull. A person who is filled with adrenaline is a powerhouse! I’m sure we have all heard the stories of moms lifting cars off of infants when filled with adrenaline.

What Mr. Sprinkle doesn’t seem to understand, is that someone hyped on drugs or full of adrenaline is more than a match for a person who is scared. For that matter, most home break-ins aren’t done by single individuals, but by more than one person.

In this instance, it’s at least two against one. You must have an equalizer to have any chance at all. He argues that forcefully killing the attacker is an act of violence and he is right, but that violence is not evil, it is providing justice in love for evil here on earth. Christ always calls us to love first and I find that idea compelling and instructional. I like what César Chávez has said about it, “I am not a nonviolent man. I am a violent man who is trying to be nonviolent.” I also quite like Jordan Peterson when he says, “A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very, very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control.” Violence in a fallen world is a necessity to live a Godly life. Being willing to soil your unbloodied hands and your own innocence is at times necessary to do what is right, to live a life that God has called you to.

I have always had a great amount of respect for C.S. Lewis and in reading Mere Christianity again, I find a nearly perfect quote from him about what it means for a Christian to take a life.

“Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy. I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I still think so now that we are at peace.” He is saying that taking a life for a justified reason, is not the same as murder, not in God’s eyes anyway and it certainly shouldn’t be in our eyes. I also find the idea that some who preach Christian pacifism or Christian non-violence seem to believe that if you believe otherwise, you are somehow not in line with Christ, or that you cant be saved if you believe this way. I find this to be a very dangerous way of thinking. You might believe I misunderstand a Biblical concept, which I certainly do believe if you preach Christian non-violence, but I do not believe you are not a Christian if you believe this. I believe you misunderstand a Biblical concept, but that this concept is not a salvific concept that much be understood right away. You can misunderstand this, and still be a follower of Christ. But to those who preach Christian non-violence though and say if you don’t agree you are not a follower of Christ… perhaps you should back off a step and remove the plank from your own eye.

So, in the end, I’m sorry Mr. Sprinkle, but I love my family, innocents, and the temple of the Holy Spirit (my own body), too much to allow evil to debase or destroy them. I choose love, not hate. Because you would truly have to hate someone to allow the evil of this world to act when you have been given the ability to stop that evil by an all-powerful and loving God. In fact, I believe you become evil in allowing it to continue.

D. Michl Lowe

Abortion Addressed

Abortion; it’s been in the news a lot here lately due to the court leaks and the supposed upcoming overturning of Roe v. Wade. It’s a highly controversial topic with strong opinions on both sides of the aisle, but really, it shouldn’t be. Now, it should be mentioned that I am a white, Christian, middle-class, straight man and have been told quite frequently that my opinion on the matter isn’t wanted, needed, or valued. And I have been told that I need to (in a direct quote) “Sit down and shut up!” and “No uterus, no opinion!”

However, it really shouldn’t be an issue to admit that abortion is a moral issue to many people and in the square of public debate, moral issues are and should be debated by all people, regardless of sex or any other difference. I am also a conservative Libertarian. So when it comes to personal rights or liberty, I am very stern in my thoughts about rights and the values put forth by many libertarian ideals. So with that in mind, I am going to be writing about abortion today.

There’s an app I have been really enjoying lately called Rumble Debate. It’s an app where they give you topics to discuss and then you can have a one-on-one debate with someone who disagrees about the selected topic. Then others can vote on who they believe won a completed debate. For a person like me (who loves a good debate) it’s a fantastically fun app. You might believe that it just descends into complete chaos 99% of the time, like nearly every other argument online, but I have mostly been pleasantly surprised at the civility of the debates I have had so far.

That being said, they recently opened a debate on whether or not you agree with the Supreme Court ruling on Roe and I have been very unimpressed with the arguments I have had from those who disagree with me and have found very few people who are willing to really have a true conversation with me about it. It’s rare that they even have answers to my points and questions. Most of the time, I have presented some of my points and they have just refused to address them. So let me share some of the thoughts about abortion I have gathered throughout the years and see what you think.

1. Abortion ends a human life:

It seems like this shouldn’t even be a point that needs to be made, but I am making it because so many don’t want to actually acknowledge this aspect. Let’s face the reality here, the entity within a woman has human DNA, is a male or female (though most of the time it’s in there), has human features (through the majority of the time it’s in there), and most certainly is alive. From nearly every standard we have, it is alive. So when an abortion happens, this ends a human life.

2. Lack of development is a terrible argument:

The issue with this idea that is often thrown around is that you can extend it to humans outside of the womb. I have often heard it said that because the entity is an embryo, fetus, zygote, etc; it is not ending a human life and is not murder or killing. This is a very weak argument because my son who is only two and a half is not fully developed. I should also mention that he is very expensive and often loud, so am I free to kill him?

He is not fully developed, so does that make it okay? I really hope you say no. Beyond that, the human brain technically doesn’t finish its development until around the age of 28 years, so many of you reading this aren’t fully developed either. Should your mommy or daddy have the right to kill you right now? I mean, technically you aren’t fully developed. You laugh, but it’s completely true.

3. Location is a bad argument:

I have heard said a lot that because the entity is within a woman’s body, she should have the right to get rid of (murder) said entity. However, my personal location does not rid me of my right to live. I recently took a trip to Virginia with the 4th graders of the school I work at. My right to be alive did not end when I passed into a new state.

It doesn’t end when I leave my house. It didn’t end when I took a trip to South Korea several years ago. This is a God-given right that doesn’t end when a person changes locations or is in a specific location. Neither should the human entity within a woman lose its God-given right to life just because of its location within a womb.

4. Dependency is a poor argument:

This is one of the most popular arguments that pro-choice advocates like to make. Because the entity is dependent on the woman for survival, ending that dependency is neither murder nor ending a human life because that life was dependent on another human for its survival. However, that’s a very poor argument because once again, we can extend it beyond the womb.

Let’s take my son again, just a year or so ago, my son was breastfeeding from my wife (which is one of the most amazing things God ever came up with), and I would argue that he was (and still is) completely dependent on her for his survival. Without her body (literally) he would have died. He had to have her to live.

But even without the milk side of things, many people require others for survival. I had friends who had severely mentally handicapped children who completely depend on others for their survival and will for the entirety of their lives. Can we kill these people? They depend on other human bodies to live. I hope you would say no.

5. Consciousness or awareness are flawed arguments:

I haven’t heard this argument made as much, but if you dig long enough with someone, this one might come up. Either way though, it’s a poor excuse for murder. You will hear the pro-choice side say that because the entity is not conscious, or is not aware, it is not murder to remove and kill said entity. It’s a terrible argument because there are many people who don’t have a consciousness or awareness.

Fully grown adults who are in a coma don’t have consciousness or awareness during that time. They still retain a right to life. You can’t just go through and stab people who are in a coma. That’s still murder. Beyond that, everyone sleeps and quite frankly, you are neither conscious nor aware while you are asleep. Should it be fine to stab you while you sleep? I thought not.

6. The Rape/Incest argument does work:

If a person is raped or there is an incestual pregnancy the pro-choice folks will often call the pro-life people monsters for suggesting that the woman be “forced” to carry the child to term, saying that it re-traumatizes the woman over and over again. I’m not going to say that it wouldn’t re-traumatize a woman to carry the child to term. However, saving her from further trauma is not a free license to end the life within her.

If we understand that the entity within a woman is a living human life, then ending her life is morally wrong regardless of the trauma its allowance to live brings others. It continues to have the right to live. The man who committed this evil upon a woman does not and should not give license to murder an innocent child. That child should not be punished for the evil their father committed.

That evil lasts, long after the actual act is done. That evil may even be lasting into the birth of a child that came from that original evil. It’s a terrible thing, but awful things happen in life. All we can do is love and support the woman through the pregnancy and birth of the child. All these pregnancies should be automatically put up for free adoption right after birth unless the woman wants the child.

Closing argument:

I understand why the pro-choice folks are passionate about this. I’m convinced most of them have the best intentions. They want women to be able to lead productive and happy lives and an unexpected child can certainly impact that. However, no one’s life or quality of life should supersede another’s life or quality of life. People have equal rights. All peoples have a right to live, including those entities within a womb.

D. Michl Lowe