I’ve noticed a disturbing paradigm shift in logic over the years.

When it comes to developing a realistic solution for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families from random episodes of mass murder carried out in public places, every viable resolution digresses back to the subject of installing better door locks or to seeking to try to better understand the nature of erratic, violent behavior.  

In other words, how do we second guess the unpredictable? 

It’s as if any suggestion to teach potential victims that tactical physical resistance to criminal violence is completely out of the question.

Taking the offensive in a life-threatening situation has been re-defined as a barbaric, risky recourse to criminal activity, especially in a public setting.  And, while it’s true that an unprepared response to violence can sometimes trigger a deeper crisis, men who claim to belong to Jesus Christ must seek to protect what is precious in His eyes.

Building a godly family is crucial to sustaining any moral society and is an essential goal for any father in Christ’s Body.  To be successful though, he must be able to convey Biblical principles about what’s right and what’s wrong to his children.  More importantly, as the object of a male role model, a son will most likely adopt his father’s standards connected to the value of human life.

That would include teaching him about defending his own life and the ones he loves.

If a criminal somehow breaches the inviolable barriers of a family residence with the intent of stealing or harming the occupants, the godly father will engage him with deadly force, because he knows there’s no Scriptural basis for cowardice.  The prudent father would already even have devised a rational plan for minimizing loss or injury and be sure everyone was properly trained for the unexpected.  

He’d do whatever it takes.

A father is entrusted with the welfare of his children from his Creator.  He’s accountable to the Lord for teaching them all he can about Him and His word primarily through his actions as a role model.  If an evil man slaps his face, he turns the other cheek.  If his neighbor sues him, he gives him more than is demanded.

But if someone wants to kill him, he knows it’s not right to just hand over the goods.

While the Christian model is to tolerate a reasonable degree of unreasonable behavior, neither Jesus Christ nor His disciples ever taught anyone to willingly give up his life to the cruelty of an unsound mind.

A wise father sleeps well knowing that a plan to secure the safety of his children in public institutions has been implemented.  The authority of parents to execute whatever strategy is necessary for protecting their children is vested in them both legally and Biblically—regardless of where it is.

My fear is that too many young boys are being taught that violent, psychotic behavior is an ever-increasing fact of life against which there seems to be no recourse, and that when it happens, the only option is to run and hide.

Is it because the sanctity of life is an expendable asset in the face of fear?

May it never be!