Retired Army LTG Michael Flynn is a lightening rod for attack and criticism. Since resigning from the Trump team and undergoing an underhanded persecution by the Department of Justice, Flynn has emerged as public enemy #1 for those who see the dreaded Christian Nationalist under every rock. I watched the full PBS documentary below and found it fascinating.
This from the promo for the documentary:
How did Michael Flynn go from being an elite soldier overseas to waging a “spiritual war” in America? In collaboration with the Associated Press, FRONTLINE examines how the retired three-star general has emerged as a leader in a far-right movement that puts its brand of Christianity at the center of American civic life and institutions and is attracting election deniers, conspiracists and extremists from around the country.
I need to tell you about my journey to Christ, as it is the reason for starting this blog.
For most of my life I was a Christmas (c)hristian. Growing up, I went to Church every Sunday. I was baptized, confirmed, and married in the Church, but I wasn’t a Christian.
About 15 years ago my daughter began attending church on her own. She was in her early 20’s and over the next few years she established her relationship with Christ. We began talking about her experiences and I realized that I really had no idea about what it meant to be a Christian.
Through her guidance, and at times insistence, I started reading the bible and attending various study groups. Through God’s word, I was able to better comprehend the nature of the triune God I serve, and through His great mercy, I began my own relationship with Christ.
My own walk with Christ began only after I was able to set aside my ego and unconditionally accept God. Initially I was subjected to a sense of vertigo where many things that I had taken as gospel, were not.
Along the way, I examined many aspects of my life, especially my career which had some interesting twists and turns. The most unsettling realization I had in this personal examination involved my occupation.
My company delivers training, specifically firearms training to businesses, churches, schools, and communities. Our core competency is training individuals and teams to actively defend against violent threats, which in some cases requires the application of lethal force.
My reading and research generated many questions. Most were about the use of violence, whether it be a “just” war or basic self defense.
I had one particularly enlightening conversation with a pastor who had previously been in the Special Forces. Our conversation centered around the hypothetical situation of a man with a gun headed to your church nursery.
Do we standby and let the murder happen? Or do we employ any means necessary to defend the innocent?
Going further, what about pro-life supporters who are violently assaulted? Pregnancy support centers that are firebombed? Christian Churches in small town America vandalized? Or Christian parents imprisoned for defending their children from sexual grooming by activist educators?
As Christians we are taught to pray. The Lord gave us the model of prayer in the Lord’s prayer. Deliver us from evil, we ask. And through prayer we call on Jesus Christ to defend us from evil.
But what happens when prayer does not repel the violent attack? Is it God’s purpose for the slaughter to happen? What if we could have stopped it? Do we allow the slaughter to proceed?
Does God answer some of our prayers with the means and the ability to defend the innocent? And repel these attacks?
What happens when spiritual warfare results in physical attack? When the fiery darts are real?
Those were some of the questions that contributed to my vertigo.
It took me several months of prayer and conversation to find my equilibrium. I found my answers in the integration of several verses – Nehemiah 4:17 and Ephesians 6:10-12.
Together these verses provided a grounding that lead me to the conclusion that God wants us to engage, he wants us to defend the innocent, to push back the darkness, and most importantly, to learn how to defend his Kingdom.
The purpose of The Wall is to open up a conversation on the topic of Kingdom defense. You will find articles, posts, research, scripture and other items of interest that contribute to the conversation of Kingdom defense.
I have posted many sources I used in my research, both passive and active voices. I will regularly add other resources along with commentary on current events impacting Kingdom defense.
And I will continue to go deep on my cornerstone verses, Nehemiah 4:17 and Ephesians 6:10-12.
Please feel free to contact me directly at smock@defend.center. And comments are open, your input and participation is encouraged.
The story of Joshua has long confounded many Christians because of the violence. In Joshua 5:13-15, Joshua confronts an unknown soldier with drawn sword:
15 “And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come.
New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020)
One of the more debated verses in the Bible is that of Luke 22:36, which has Jesus telling his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword.
Luke 22:36 “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 cloak and buy one“.
Most contemporary theologians bend over back backwards to convince their audiences that Jesus was only speaking metaphorically. I disagree, but then I am not a theologian. Below are several sources that take on Luke 22:36.
As Jesus helps his disciples prepare for the future, he reminds them of the previous instructions he gave them when he sent them out on mission. Now Jesus indicates that a major change has occurred in how the things will fare for them in the future. After his death, Jesus’ disciples will experience hardship and persecution, and they must make certain they are prepared for future difficulties. It is likely that Jesus refers to acquiring a sword metaphorically, but the disciples take his word literally.
22:35 In 9:1–6 and 10:1–12, when Jesus sent out the Twelve and the Seventy, he told them that they did not need to worry about supplies, as God would supply all their needs.
22:36 In contrast with his earlier instructions, Jesus says that the time has come when his disciples need to be concerned about what supplies they have on hand. They need money, supplies, and a sword. It is not clear whether Christ’s instructions are for the immediate future or the ongoing future, but it seems that these words are Jesus’ way of helping the disciples prepare for greater resistance than they have ever faced before.Jesus’ instructions about buying a sword, while taken literally by the disciples, may have been intended metaphorically to describe their need to be on the defensive. Jesus has previously spoken against retaliation and violence and stopped his disciples when they attempted to use swords (22:51).
Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament, Lexham Context Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Lk 22:35–38.
Wikipedia collects a number of opinions and sources for the meaning of Luke 22:13
Sell your cloak and buy a sword is an instruction by Jesus to his disciples during the Last Supper[1] which has been interpreted in several ways.
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
Ellul, Yoder and Archie Penner claim that two swords could not possibly have been “enough” to defend Jesus from his pending arrest, trial and execution, so their sole purpose must have been Jesus’ wish to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12).[2] As Ellul explains:
The further comment of Jesus explains in part the surprising statement, for he says: “It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals” (Luke 22:36-37). The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous. The swords are enough, however, to justify the accusation that Jesus is the head of a band of brigands. We have to note here that Jesus is consciously fulfilling prophecy. If he were not the saying would make no sense.[3]
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, in their 1871 biblical commentary, indicate “…And He said to them, It is enough – not ‘Two swords will suffice,’ but ‘Enough of this for the present’. The warning had been given, and preparation for coming dangers hinted at; but as His meaning had not been apprehended in the comprehensive sense in which it was meant, He wished to leave the subject”.[4]
Motyer, Stibbs and Wiseman in New Bible Commentary: Revised Third Edition (1977) states:
35-38- Finally, Jesus spoke of the new situation. Formerly, when the Disciples had gone out, on mission, they had not lacked anything. Now they would need a purse, a bag and even a sword. The saying is heavily ironical, for Jesus knew that now He would have to face universal opposition and be put to death. But the disciples misunderstood Him and produced weapons. ‘That is enough’, said Jesus to end a conversation which they had failed to understand. The way of Jesus, as they should have known, was not the way of the sword, but of love.[5]
Figurative
Pope Boniface VIII referred to the two swords in the medieval papal bull Unam sanctam, to represent the temporal and spiritual authority of the church. He wrote: “We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: “Behold, here are two swords” [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient.”[6]
Theologian John Gill said in his Exposition of the Entire Bible:
These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn, destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and distress begin in himself. In “seven” ancient copies of Beza‘s, it is read in the future tense, “he shall take, he shall sell, he shall buy”.
New Advent, sometimes referred to as the Catholic Encyclopedia, has summarized several resources that discuss the right of self-defense including that from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. Sources are at the end.
The Right of Self Defense
Ethically the subject of self-defense regards the right of a private person to employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his property or good name. While differing among themselves on some of the more subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, our moralists may be said to be unanimous on the main principles and their application regarding the right of self-defense. The teaching may be summarized as follows:
Defense of life and person
Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one’s own life at the expense of the assailant’s; one may, out of charity, forego one’s right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one’s own life to the utmost on account of one’s duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.
Defense of property
It is lawful to defend one’s material goods even at the expense of the agressor’s life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than humanlife in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust agressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the agressor’s life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive a neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolenproperty provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense.
Honor
Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense of one’s material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher order. With regard to honor or reputation, it is not lawful to kill one to prevent an insult or an attack upon our reputation which we believe he intends, or threatens. Nor may we take a life to avenge an insult already offered. The proceeding would not be defense of our honor or reputation, but revenge. Besides, in the general estimation honor and reputation may be sufficiently protected without taking the life of the offender.
Sources
Zigliara, Summa Philosophica, III, I, iii; St. Thomas, Summa Theolgica, II-II, Q lxvii, a. 7; Billuart, Cursus Theolgiae: in II-II St. Thomae, d. X, a. V.
Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens, loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. NEH 4:17
The Wall is part blog, part journal, part bulletin board, and part archive I set up in order to further the discussion about the use of force in defense of church and community. Learn MORE ABOUT THE WALL.
