I
am not going to add my comments to the Rittenhouse or Arbery trials
(interesting that one is identified by the defendant and the other by the
victim – perhaps, at least in part because one has a single defendant and the
other a single victim). I have not been in either courtroom, and plenty of
other people are speaking and writing their reactions. No one needs yet another
voice in that cacophony. Rather, I have
been pondering how both of these trials have raised the issue of vigilante
justice. Some cheering for those who are refusing to accept what they find
objectionable by taking direct action, maybe even curtailing public
demonstrations and protests. Others warning of the danger of the loss of due
process by runaway violence empowered by firearms that infringe on the rights
of speech and peaceable assembly. Are vigilantes heroes or villains?
I
remember the TV westerns of my growing up years in the 50s and 60s. Vigilantes
were celebrated when established law enforcement was absent or corrupt. Their
independence from political and bureaucratic control was welcomed by ordinary
people. I know there are more, but these came quickly to mind for me: the Lone
Ranger, the Cisco Kid, Zorro, Paladin. I am not suggesting that this sort of
folk lore validates vigilante justice, only that it has a long cherished
history. In more modern settings private investigators and even lawyers are
cast a models of vigilante justice: Perry Mason, Mannix, Magnum. Super heroes
such as Superman and Batman are vigilantes working out justice outside of the
system when it seems powerless. On the other side, lynch mobs may think of
themselves as vigilantes for their own perception of justice.
I
am suspecting that the contrasting reactions to vigilanteism that these two
trials have brought into public discourse are another indication that the
divisions in the US are much deeper than contrasting political opinions, but
reflect disconnected, incongruous realities in which people operate which are
not amenable to debate or discussion. They do not share a common vocabulary
necessary for communication. Neither can grasp how those in the other reality
can reasonably embrace not only their opinions but their entire ethos.
As
these thoughts have been rumbling around in my mind today, I have wondered
whether attitudes toward vigilanteism figures into responses to things such as
“good guy with a gun” and the events of January 6.
These
two trials are also bringing the right of “self-defense” into public discourse.
Much of that seems to focus on celebrating the right of individuals to defend
themselves with deadly force. On the other side are those who are questioning the
legal and ethical boundaries of “self-defense.” Our human propensity for rationalization
and self-justification makes this elusive. Generally, acting in “self-defense” is
an emotional response to feeling threatened. While the emotions are very real
and very strong, they may not always match objective reality. When firearms are
involved, snap miscalculations can bring tragic results and injustices.
Again,
my concern is far broader than these two court cases, though they have prompted
what I hope can be a constructive public discourse. “Self-defense” depends on
both legal and social consensus to prevent runaway violence. The Mosaic Code
that provided “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” sets limits on revenge and
prevents hopelessly escalating violence. Similarly, it provided “cities of
refuge” where someone who was being pursued after an intentional or accidental
killing to have a safe haven until justice could be discerned. I mention these
things to be clear that I am not advocating eliminating the legal right of “self-defense”
but suggesting it needs a better understanding.
I
put “self-defense” in quotes because while I believe it is legitimate and
important in a civil society, as one who aspires to follow Jesus, my personal
ethic is quite different. I recognize that my perspective is radically
counter-cultural. I do not expect the society as a whole to adopt it. I
recognize as well that many Christians do not share my views. I am not questioning
their faith or discipleship. This is a case of what Paul wrote in Romans 14:5, “Let
all be fully convinced in their own minds” while not judging others who take a
different view. I would add as well that I do not expect the culture as a whole
to adopt the sort of ethic Jesus taught, such as in the Sermon on the Mount
(Matthew 5-7), but I believe we who claim Jesus as Lord can live out following
Jesus in such a way that it offers an attractive, viable alternative to people
who are frustrated with and oppressed by the dominant society.
So
with that lengthy introduction and perhaps disclaimer, I want to be clear that
I have serious reservations about lethal force for “self-defense” as one who is
intentional, albeit imperfect, about following Jesus. In John 18:36 Jesus said
to Pilate, “If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting
to keep me from being handed over to the Jews.” From the cross, Jesus prayed
for those who executed him, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what
they are doing.” (Luke 23:34) Stephen echoed this when he was being
stoned, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60) At this point, I
am not going to offer a comprehensive explication of my personal rejection of
lethal force for “self-defense,” but suggest that the Hebrew prophets saw a
precursor of this ethic, such as Isaiah 53:7, “he did not open his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before
its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
I
am not going to judge or even argue with those who disagree with what I am
fully convinced of. I intend only to bear witness to my feeble, faltering efforts to follow Jesus as faithfully as I can. For me, this an matter of both faith and
discernment. What sort of “self-defense” is legitimate stopping short of lethal
force? What risk of faith might I need to take to defend someone who is being
attacked?
