I have three daughters. 5, 3 and 1. It’s important that you add 1/2 behind each of those ages. I’m a little bit fond of each of them and find them securely and permanently twisted around my heart.
This summer my oldest, Chloe, played basketball in our local YMCA league. Neither one of her parents are blessed with any tremendous athletic ability. But she loved it. I loved seeing her play each week, as well. Up to a point.
She just wanted to have fun. And make a basket, which she finally did the last game of the season. However, it was a mixed league and the boys on her team were decidely better than she was. As the season wore on, they became less willing to throw the ball to Chloe.
I fumed on the sideline. And when I saw one father actually encouraging his son to keep the ball from my daughter I nearly exploded. I wanted to slap the smug look off of that guy’s face.
“Oh, raising an alpha male? That’s something to be proud of.”
I tell this story in order to say this at the outset: I’m not good at this scenario.
I can be just as bad as the stone-cold killer in my heart. My anger gets away from me quickly when I see my children neglected, dismissed or maltreated.

However, that does not negate the need for nonviolence. My human response does not offset the Divine Ideal.
Scripture is clear: the way of Christ is not violent. He humbled Himself and died when He could have wiped us all out.
But, invariably, whenever sincere and well-meaning people begin to discuss the prospect of leading nonviolent lives someone will bring up the scenario:

What if someone attacks your family. What if a crazed psychopath breaks in and threatens their life? Would you just stand by and watch your family be killed?

The intent of this scenario is to discredit those who adhere to and believe that nonviolence is truly the way of Christ. But it’s nothing more than a strawman. It does not adequately deal with the dilemma of non-violence.

Most of the time it ends in a stalemate with the question never being truly addressed.

Let me answer here: if someone broke into my house and threatened my family I hope that I would do all that I could to ensure their safety. I also hope that all that I would attempt would be honoring to Christ and consistent with how He has shown me to live. But that is part of the problem. And the problems are many:

1. I don’t know what I would do because I have never been in that situation. I hope I wouldn’t be a coward and hide under the bed. But I don’t know.
2. I don’t know what the attacker will do. The scenario presupposes everything up until my reaction. But it fails to take into account any other possibility.
3. It also presupposes that the avenue to respond in violence is available to me. If a gun-wielding or knife-toting bad man appears in my home I’m probably not going to be able to produce much in the way of retaliatory devices outside of my fists and a couch cushion.
4. The scenario lacks creativity. The bad man is going to kill your family and it all hinges on your response. But:
a. If you had a gun (however, if you are non-violent you probably aren’t gonna be packing) could you shoot the weapon out of his hand rather than shoot to kill?
b. If you are nonviolent you probably aren’t that good with a gun so you might hurt someone you don’t intend to. You have to take that into consideration as well.
c. But let’s say I can get to a knife in time. I do have those in the kitchen. Will I be able to run into the kitchen unimpeded, fetch said knife and return in time to start slashing?

The bottom line is that this is an extreme hypothetical and I do not know what I would do in such a situation. And no one does until they are in such a predicament.

Some additional observations:

1. What is our ultimate role with our families? Is it to protect or instill? If it is to protect in all situations then God is not the ultimate example, for He allowed His own son to die. I’m not saying that protection is not important. Of course, it is. But I could have punched out the basketball dad because I thought my daughter was being slighted. But protecting her interests in that case was not the ultimate end. Teaching her patience and turning the other cheek was far more important. What message is taught if our first inclination is to “shoot to kill” the intruder?
2. The scenario is decidedly patriarchal. Call it the “Wild At Heart” effect.
3. I will defend my family if it is needed but I hope that my reactions will continue to be nonviolent.
4. If violence is the only acceptable response in this scenario then violence becomes the ultimate good in this scenario. That is hard to square.
5. What needs to happen is training in the way of Christ to the point that rather than immediately presupposing that violence is the one acceptable solution to this scenario that, when faced with such a predicament our immediate response is toward peaceful reconciliation. This scenario is proposed not because violence is the ultimate answer but because we have failed in creatively sussing out the possibilities of truly living the nonviolent life.

In summation, I don’t know what I would do in such situations. But here is my greatest hope: that I would automatically seek out the best responses that would protect my family and be an example of Christ. I would hope that I would value each life in the scenario including the attacker. I would hope that, as I stand between my family and potential mayhem, the Spirit of God would enable me to respond in a godly and appropriate manner.
If, however, I responded in a violent manner, I would throw myself on the unchanging and unwavering grace of God.

I’ll leave it at that for now. Thoughts?