It is not a new knowledge that in re-
cent times, there have been attempts
to persecute the Christian faithful in
major fronts characterized in the acts
made within the spirit of secularism,
relativism and extreme form of Hu-
manism; to Islamize the world and
more specifically in the sub-Saharan
Africa to deep the Qur’an into the At-
lantic. In the light of this the death toll
of Christian adherents have increased
in its number and nobody not even
the leaders are doing anything to rem-
edy the situation.
Sequel to the above this write-up
focuses on, and presents the theo-
logico-ecclesial interpretation of the
concept of self-defense, wherein the
hitherto misunderstood concept of
self-defense is re-clarified, and its
implications as well as indispensa-
bility (when judged necessary) and
germaneness is introduced to a first
time reader. These it hopes to achieve
through an initial exploration of both
the mundane and ecclesial notions of
self-defense; exposition of the misin-
terpretation vis-à-vis misappropria-
tion and its genesis in a wanton Bibli-
cism and naïve Biblical Literalism. The
relevance of this piece is to be situat-
ed in the need to educate the already
threatened Christian populace on the
right notion of self-defence; on the
need for self-defence and on the right
code of conduct to place them in the
right mind-set to pursue self-defence
legally and morally.
BIBLICISM AND NAÏVE BIBLI-
CAL LITERALISM – THE GENESIS
OF DILEMMA, CONTROVERSY
AND VULNERABILITY.
Biblical literalism refers to some
form of a reductive interpretation of
the scriptures, wherein there is a strict
adherence to the exactitude of letters
or the literal sense of the scriptures re-
gardless of the figurative, metaphorical
and contextual implication of words
and expressions. On the other hand,
especially in this context, Biblicism
refers to the elevation of the Bible to
the status of a deity and a consequent
worship of it, often accompanied by
the literalism. This becomes naïve in
character when it happens in an inno-
cent-ignorance.
In an unreflective mode, Biblical Lit-
eralist who are of the extreme and ab-
solute pacifist camp find enough rea-
sons from the above excerpts to back
up their positions against the taking
of life for whatever reasons, contexts
and situations. The relative pacifist
as much as they enthrone the sacred-
ness and dignity of human life, they
allow for some passive violent way of
defending life even if it means taking
another’s life. The basic questions thus
becomes; was Christ advocating for
extreme pacifism? Can one apply vio-
lence or take another life in the service
of self-defense? The answer to these
questions must necessarily proceed
from an understanding of the above
biblical excerpt within the context and
times they were made. Here it is nec-
essary to call to mind that the Bible is
not just about a book but primarily
about a person- Jesus Christ, about his
words, actions, contexts and circum-
stances. Hence, one would not be out
of place to ask- what would Jesus do if
he were to live in these present times
of incessant persecution and maiming
of Christians and yet preach the gospel
to the ends of the earth?
THE CHURCH’S POSITION ON
SELF-DEFENCE.
Self-defense is a countermeasure
that involves defending the health and
wellbeing of oneself from harm. The
Catholic Encyclopedia gives a more
specific definition of self-defense as
“the right of a private person to em-
ploy force against anyone who unjust-
ly attacks his life or person, his prop-
erty or good name.”
It is to be mentioned that from the
earliest times, as can be gleaned from
the writings of the Apostles, Church
Fathers and the Church’s Magiste-
rium, the Church is clear that kill-
ing another human being is always a
grave issue and should never be taken
lightly. This teaching according to the
Church remains for all time. This is
even evidenced in the practice by the
early Christians of the ancient Roman
empire of renouncing service in the
military before baptism as a means to
forestalling the shedding of Blood by a
neophyte Christian.
From the medieval times, especial-
ly since the Church always reforms
herself, (not in the core doctrines or
elements divinely instituted and of
what makes her what she is but in
her discipline), taking note of times
and context in different epochs thus,
adapting herself to them, she recog-
nizes that Violence may thus be jus-
tified in the service of self-defense
even to the point of killing an unjust
aggressor. Leaning on Aquinas’ argu-
ment for legitimate self-defense the
Church instructs, that “Love toward
oneself remains a fundamental prin-
ciple of morality. Therefore it is legiti-
mate to insist on respect for one’s own
right to life. Someone who defends his
life is not guilty of murder even if he
is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal
blow. Pope St. John Paul II would later
reaffirm this position when he averred
that “the demanding commandment
of love of neighbour, set forth in the
Old Testament and confirmed by Je-
sus, itself presupposes love of oneself
as the basis of comparison…. In other
words, loving one’s neighbor means
nothing if you don’t first love yourself
in a rightly ordered way. Little wonder
why Jesus says, “Love your neighbor as
yourself.”
In confusion one may ask, is the
church not however erroneous in this
conclusion since Christ clearly for-
bids revenge and taking of another’s
life. The answer to this lies in Thom-
as Aquinas’ resolution of this genuine
paradox, in his Summa Theological,
II-II, 64, art. 7. Hence heargues:
It is written (Exod. Xxii.2): If a thief
be found breaking into a house or un-
dermining it, and be wounded so as to
die; he that slew him shall not be guilty
of blood. Now it is much more lawful
to defend one’s life than one’s house.
Therefore neither is a man guilty of
murder if he kill (sic) another in de-
fense of his own life.
Prior to the above, Aquinas estab-
lishes that “by sinning man departs
from the order of reason, and conse-
quently falls away from the dignity of
his manhood, in so far as he is natu-
rally free, and exists for himself, and
he falls into the slavish state of the
beast.” Hence in so far as someone
embarks on a journey to harm anoth-
er, he immediately divorces of himself
the claim to life and as such incurs the
treatment proper to brutes.
It follows rightly then, that Chris-
tians are empowered to defend them-
selves in the wake of threats and as-
saults, not so much only as a right but
as a duty one owes himself and the
creator, since one is only but a custo-
dian of his/her life. In this wise, if one
is left only with an option of not spar-
ing an unjust aggressor, a Christian
may take such life and be not liable
to it. In such scenario, the protection
of one’s life becomes an imperative. It
must also be noted that the instinct of
self-preservation is based on the fact
that life is a good given to us by God.
Since we have an intrinsic and funda-
mental right to live, therefore, we also
have a right to defend ourselves. As a
matter of fact, “no one can renounce
the right to self-defense out of lack of
love for life or for self.”
However in outlining the grounds
for the legitimate employment of
self-defense, the Church teaches that
Self-defense, does not preclude the law
against the intentional killing of an-
other since in self-defense, the killing
of an unjust aggressor is in fact unin-
tended-CCC 2263. She as well recom-
The world is full of many people with
hardened hearts. They are hardened by
the harsh circumstances of their lives.
Their lives have no other outlet for infor-
mation to update themselves and come
out from their negative way of seeing
things. Life must be hard but there is no
way we can curse tomorrow for tomor-
row ushers new hope, new understanding
of things. There is no way man can stag-
nate himself or be trapped by negative
circumstances of his life, an unrealistic
way of looking at the wonderful world
full of people who have made it and who
are making it in life.
How can the hardened circumstances of
our life make us carve out our own world
by not seeing the world as progressive
world full of wonders of God and people
making it in life? The bridges we cross
everyday are they not built by people like
us? The electricity we are enjoying today
is it not the positive thought of a person
like us? Bitter experiences of life should
not make us feel that it is the end of life.
In a country where power is recycled
and money is in the hands of the old and
poverty in the land, justice may not go
around. Justice must spread to avoid peo-
ple asking questions in the midst of the
rich. How do you tell the poor that God is
their Father too?
What about those who have overcome
the circumstances of their life and they are
making it in life? They become captains
of industries, technocrats and they are at
the peak on the ladder of success?How
do they accommodate those who are at
the lower ladder as they are climbing to
be there like them? Is it because they suf-
fered before they achieved such? Why do
they develop hardened heart and prevent
others to be successful like them? There
are many apprentices who worked for
their masters for many years and their
masters did not reward them for work-
ing under them and helping them to start
their own business. Many of them are
stranded looking for compassionate peo-
ple to uplift them. Many of them felt that
their masters have locked their destiny.
Nobody has such power to tamper with
someone’s destiny. Those who do not
believe in God and who do not want to
work hard to overcome the circumstanc-
es of their lives think that someone can
tamper with their destiny. What a trash!
Jesus is calling technocrats, business
magnates, and politicians to shut the
doors of pride, injustice, oppression and
reorganize humanity in justice, harmony
and peace. All the stolen wealth recov-
ered should be redistributed to lessen
the hardship imposed on people by the
economy not moving in proper direction.
Proper governance based on compassion
for all should be strived at. Nepotism and
tribalism should be eliminated to achieve
that oneness. Nigerians should address
the old issues that caused disunity but
are still under the carpet. These issues
are yearning for serious attention. Com-
passionate leadership is needed and not
nepotistic leadership. The church is won-
derful in this area, a sanctuary for all.
All of us must expand the boundary of
compassion in the country, in the states
and local governments in our neighbor-
hoods. In the neighborhood we see many
people wounded by injustice, the persons
denied of their pensions and no means of
livelihood we are to accommodate them.
Not only accommodating them but give
them skills and also know what wound-
ed them in order to help them fight and
defeat the sources of their wounds. Those
in power should know how to build coa-
lition instead of building walls. The judi-
ciary should be the hope of the poor. We
need people who have governed before
to believe that others can do it and even
better than them.
Be compassionate and not hardened
mends that in employing self-defense,
the use of more violence than is nec-
essary in a situation is unlawful. If in
some scenarios, violence and killing in
self-defense can be avoided then to do
otherwise than this would be immor-
al. In more practical terms, this would
imply that it is immoral to kill one
who may have stolen a loaf of bread in
order to eat and survive or to kill one
who merely slaps your cheek. These
would amount to applying a more
than necessary violence.
In addition to the duty to protect
one’s life, the church instructs that it is
as well a grave moral duty to protect
the lives of others. “For this reason,
those who legitimately hold authori-
ty also have the right to use arms to
repel aggressors against the civil com-
munity entrusted to their responsibili-
ty.-CCC 2265” This however goes with
the usual caveat to make an initial
attempt to avoiding violence before
using force and the employment of a
proportionate force. Thus from this,
it follows that even religious leaders
as much as civil leaders have a moral
duty when germane to defend the lives
of her adherents even when it means
that arms are employed.
Finally the concept of self-defense is
a delicate issue that must be handled
with diligence. It is a counsel and not
a commandment; hence individual
consciences shall always play a part in
its interpretation and decide contexts
of appropriation in so far as the con-
science is rightly formed.
