This sad recent event is very informative to ponder when considering the intersection of self-defence and Christianity.
Texas pastor killed WITH OWN GUN after confronting fugitive in church bathroom
Basic summary of events:
- Man being chased by police on Saturday night, escaped from the police and sought refuge in a church, hiding in the church bathroom
- Pastor discovered him in the bathroom Sunday morning, and contronted him with a gun.
- Fugitive disarmed the pastor and shot him with his own gun. Stole pastor's car and drove off.
- Finally captured by police and charged with murder (in addition to whatever it was they were chasing him for in the first place, presumably far more minor).
Obviously, there are times when carrying a gun in church has positive consequences - just a year ago a terrorist was shot dead in Texas by multiple armed members of a congregation, preventing a mass shooting. However, the situation described here is actually more common for an individual to encounter. And it illustrates the common problem where bringing a gun into a situation can actually make it a lot worse.
Consider it from the fugitive's perspective. He's running from the cops, and seeks a safe place of refuge. He chooses a church. Largely this would have been for practical reasons - it's empty at night, houses have people. However, there is likely a religious undercurrent to that decision also - it is very deeply historic for people to flee to churches or temples for refuge when in trouble. When Solomon sought both Adonijah and Joab, both independently fled to the temple and grasped the horns of the altar. Augustine recounts that throughout history in time of defeat in war, the people seek refuge in their temples and churches - and when the barbarians invaded Rome, the Christians and even non-Christians took refuge in the churches (and were spared death, because the barbarians also feared God). We each individually have experienced churches as places of quiet reflection and prayer. Somewhere in this man's subconscious, or even conscious mind, he likely saw the church as a safe place to flee.
In his distress, whether he knew it or not, he was running to God.
Now, had the pastor when he discovered him not been armed at all (or not appeared armed), he would not have appeared a serious threat to the man. In the worst-case scenario, he might have been beaten up as the man escaped,
and had his car stolen. However, there is also a possibility that he may have been able to speak to this man, to lead him to the God that he was possibly, at some level, seeking.
But by presenting a gun, he instantly (in the fugitive's mind) changed this place of safety that he had fled to into a place of danger, equal danger to that which he had fled. And the fugitive reacted predictably - when confronted with a threat to your life, a logical man would fight back with equivalent or greater force. The fugitive was no doubt more experienced in violence than the pastor, and readily disarmed and killed him. Then, realising his situation was now many times worse than it had ever been before, fled again.
Why did the pastor present a gun? Did he actually intend to use it? Would he seriously have shot a man for simply hiding in the bathroom? Of course not. He would have shot him only if the man presented a serious threat to his life - which means he would have had no actual plan to pull the trigger in the short term unless and until the man became extremely violent - and where would that line lie anyway? What pastor wants to shoot an unarmed man in a church? Clearly the line would be a long way away. That made the gun an empty threat, perceived completely differently by each party.
From the perspective of the pastor, the gun was intended to be an encouragement to not be violent, because there was a threat of consequences if the situation became violent, but he probably never intended or expected to actually use it.
But from the perspective of the fugitive, the gun was an immediate danger to his life, requiring an immediate violent response.
The consequence would be that, acting from these two completely opposite perspectives, the fugitive would act immediately with extreme violence, which the pastor was unprepared for and hesitant about responding to and would have taken at least several seconds to re-assess the situation as one which now required the actual use of the gun. So the pastor would have probably been disarmed before he even finished processing the change in circumstances.
The fact that the pastor was killed with his own gun indicates that the fugitive was likely unarmed - and that the pastor would probably not have died had he not given the man a gun.
There were three main possible outcomes to this situation:
- Fugitive is welcomed and helped in some way by the pastor, given breakfast and some sort of scriptural advice & prayer, before he either flees (to be captured later) or maybe even turns himself in (depending on the level of action of the Holy Spirit). Goes to prison for a short amount of time but is moving closer to God.
- Fugitive beats up the pastor and flees without a conversation, still sees the church as somewhere "safe".
- Fugitive feels his life is in danger and murders the pastor. Pastor is dead, fugitive's view of the church being "safe" is shattered, and he goes to prison for life.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the pastor caused the last outcome to occur.
Exactly as Jesus warned: "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Matthew 26:52
This thread is mostly about the larger question of organised armed resistance against oppressive government. However, this is an everyday question also. This situation is an example of how everyday situations can be made considerably worse by introducing weaponry, both from a practical and spiritual perspective.
Edit: Incidentally, this is actually the logic behind the tradition of having police unarmed (but with access to weapons only when needed) in many countries. If the police appear less threatening than many situations they are involved in also do not spiral into higher levels of violence.
