Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
A pro-gun teacher in the clips claims, “The right to bear arms is a biblical right,” and argues that refusing self-defense is “aiding and abetting a crime.” The speaker counters that Christians are called to be “on the side of the attacker” so the attacker might repent. How do you evaluate that claim in light of Jesus’ passion and Stephen’s martyrdom, and what does it reveal about God’s priorities compared to our instincts for self-preservation?
Another way to ask: How do you respond to the idea that Christians should care more about an attacker repenting than about defending themselves? What do Jesus’ suffering and Stephen’s death show about God’s priorities versus our need to protect ourselves?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s teaching, Jesus’ suffering pattern (and the early Christian willingness to die) supports the idea that Christians may accept being harmed without retaliation in order to witness to the attacker and obey Christ. This reveals that God’s priority is faithfulness and the salvation/repentance of people—even enemies—more than protecting our lives through force.
- The pro-gun clip argues non-defense “is to be aiding and abetting a crime… on the side of the attacker.”
- The speaker replies that this is “a really good point,” then reframes it: early Christians suffered “so they can be on the side of the attacker so that that attacker may… repent.”
- He reads 1 Peter 2: Christ “when he suffered, he did not threaten,” and says “we shouldn’t… threaten… We don’t have that right anymore.”
- He quotes Jesus to Pilate: “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight… But now my kingdom is not from here.”
- He points to early centuries: Christians “beat our swords into plowshares… do not fight anymore… weapons of peace and gentleness.”