Anabaptists – Passivism and the Sword

From the Confession of Schleitheim the Seven Articles of Schleitheim were written with Michael Sattler of Stauffen, Germany, as the chief author. The sixth article deals with use of force.

Sixth. concerning the sword:

The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and puts to death the wicked, and guards and protects the good. In the Law the sword was ordained for the punishment of the wicked and for their death, and the same [sword] is [now] ordained to be used by the worldly magistrates. In the perfection of Christ, however, only the ban is used for a warning and for the excommunication of the one who has sinned, without putting the flesh to death, — simply the warning and the command to sin no more.

Now it will be asked by many who do not recognize [this as] the will of Christ for us, whether a Christian may or should employ the sword against the wicked for the defence and protection of the good, or for the sake of love.

Our reply is unanimously as follows: Christ teaches and commands us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so shall we find rest to our souls. Also Christ says to the heathenish woman who was taken in adultery, not that one should stone her according to the law of His Father (and yet He says, As the Father has commanded me, thus I do), hut in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more. Such [an attitude] we also ought to take completely according to the rule of the ban.

Secondly, it will be asked, whether a Christian shall pass sentence in worldly disputes and strife such as unbelievers have with one another. This is our united answer: Christ did not wish to decide or pass judgment between brother and brother in the case of the inheritance, but refused to do so. Therefore we should do likewise.

Thirdly, it will be asked concerning the sword, Shall one be a magistrate if one should be chosen as such? The answer is as follows: They wished to make Christ king, but He fled and did not view it as the arrangement of His Father. Thus shall we do as He did, and follow Him, and so shall we not walk in darkness. For He Himself says, He who wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Also, He Himself forbids the [employment of] the force of the sword saying, The worldly princes lord it over them, etc., but not so shall it be with you. Further, Paul says, Whom God did foreknow He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, etc. Also Peter says, Christ has suffered (not ruled) and left us an example, that ye should follow His steps.

Finally it will be observed that it is not appropriate for a Christian to serve as a magistrate because of these points: The government magistracy is according to the flesh, but the Christians’ is according to the Spirit; their houses and dwelling remain in this world, but the Christians’ are in heaven; their citizenship is in this world, but the Christians’ citizenship is in heaven; the weapons of their conflict and war are carnal and against the flesh only, but the Christians’ weapons are spiritual, against the fortification of the devil. The worldlings are armed with steel and iron, but the Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the Word of God. …

The Masculinity of Christ in the Face of Effeminate Christianity

The masculinity of Christ is a topic that is gaining in both volume and distortion. Dale Partridge at ReLearn takes on this topic.


“My hypothesis is this: Due to the feminization of Jesus, the cultural hatred of masculinity, and the lack of faithful exposition in the pulpit we have been conditioned to not recognize the potent manliness and courageousness of Christ.”

Hit the link for the full article:

Nehemiah’s Wall

Nehemiah’s Wall serves as both metaphor and inspiration at Kingdom Defense.

The Book of Nehemiah tells the story of how Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem so that followers might once again worship God in safety. Nehemiah accomplishes this daunting task in a remarkably brief period of time using common folks who built with one hand while defending their actions from enemy attack with a weapon in their other hand.

The biblical account of “Nehemiah’s wall” is well known. Nehemiah was a Jew in Persian captivity. He was the cupbearer to the Persian King Artaxerxes. In 444 b.c, Nehemiah was granted permission to return to Judah and rebuild the dilapidated walls and gates of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed during the Babylonian invasions in the early sixth century.

When Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem, he toured the city walls to assess the damage. He faced opposition as he made plans and directed the people in rebuilding the city walls. He was threatened as he persisted. Nehemiah had opposition from enemies and opposition from the people he was leading(1).

The Bible says that the threat was so great from outside the city Nehemiah posted armed guards along the walls to protect the city until the building was done. Men were armed and ready to fight while they worked daily to build the wall. The book of Nehemiah shows that Judah at the time was surrounded by enemies and under constant threat of attack. Nehemiah and his crew worked with great urgency and astonishing speed in order to rebuild the wall.

More on Nehemiah

About The Wall

Mike Smock here.

I am the founder of Kingdom Defense.

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 And comments are open, your input and participation is encouraged.

In Christ…

Mike Smock
November 2022

The Right of Self Defense

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 human life 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 stolen property 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.


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.


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.