Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
The group wrestled with whether calling police is like “reaching for the AK-47” by proxy, and raised the principle of “letting someone do the evil on your behalf that you wouldn’t do.” What motives would expose that you’re using the state as your weapon, and what motives might justify involving authorities as something other than vengeance?
Another way to ask: What would show that you are calling the police to hurt someone through the state, like using it as a weapon? What reasons for involving authorities might be something other than revenge?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
In the transcript, using the state as your weapon is exposed when calling authorities functions as a substitute for personal violence, retaliation, or protecting “my rights” at all costs. Involving authorities may be justified when the motive is to notify them so they can fulfill their God-ordained role of restraining harm—without hatred, without vengeance, and without treating them as your proxy sword.
- The concern is stated plainly: calling police can be “our way of reaching for the AK-47… the nine millimeter… or the baseball bat.”
- The debated principle: “letting someone do the evil on your behalf that you wouldn’t do,” applied to police violence and even lawsuits/evictions.
- A corrective: police “don’t always have to revert to ungodly methods… de-escalate and… resolutions,” challenging a “false dichotomy” that calling means “someone will die.”
- The speaker suggests a legitimate motive: notifying them “so that they can fulfill their responsibilities” and “so that we’re not responsible for further acts that happen because that person’s on the loose.”
- Another possible motive: consequences can “check their evil… before they go deeper into sin,” tied to sowing and reaping and the state’s restraining function.