A country singer named Jason Aldean recently became the hot topic of the week when folks heard his latest hit: “Try That in a Small Town.” As an example of the many statements against Aldean, in an article slamming him, NPR printed:
Threats to outsiders (and the implication those outsiders are from cities) are present throughout the song’s lyrics, which begin with a list of crimes that might happen in urban settings (“Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk / carjack an old lady at a red light”) then crescendo into the titular chorus:
“Well, try that in a small town / See how far you make it down the road / Around here we take care of our own / You cross that line, it won’t take long / For you to find out, I recommend you don’t.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/20/1188966935/jason-aldean-try-that-in-a-small-town-song-video
Aldean defended himself on Twitter:
In the past 24 hours I have been accused of releasing a pro-lynching song (a song that has been out since May) and was subject to the comparison that I (direct quote) was not too pleased with the nationwide BLM protests. These references are not only meritless, but dangerous. There is not a single lyric in the song that references race or points to it- and there isn’t a single video clip that isn’t real news footage -and while I can try and respect others to have their own interpretation of a song with music- this one goes too far.
. . .
Try That In A Small Town, for me, refers to the feeling of a community that I had growing up, where we took care of our neighbors, regardless of differences of background or belief. Because they were our neighbors, and that was above any differences. My political views have never been something I’ve hidden from, and I know that a lot of us in this Country don’t agree on how we get back to a sense of normalcy where we go at least a day without a headline that keeps us up at night. But the desire for it to- that’s what this song is about.
https://twitter.com/Jason_Aldean/status/1681382697875144717?ftag=YHF4eb9d17
Does Jason Aldean’s song promote violence? It most certainly does. But what kind of violence does it promote? He addresses a type of violence that we have seen in many of our major cities over the past few years—young people destroying city streets, vehicles, stores, people’s livelihoods. Several were killed. His song directly opposes that kind of violence, but it implies another kind: “You cross that line, it won’t take long / For you to find out, I recommend you don’t.” He’s talking about defending your family, your stuff, and your community. This is violence in defense of people and property.
Is self-defense a righteous kind of violence? Is it necessary?
A Couple of Questions for the Pacifist Absolutist
Do you believe the government has the right to defend its people? God’s word asserts not only that it has the right, but it has the God-given duty to protect the innocent and punish the wicked (Romans 13.2–3): “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.”
God established rulers of mankind to bring a just violence upon the wicked.
Do you think the government has a right to declare war against an invading or threatening country? This is, again, a case of protecting one’s people.
If you say “yes” to either question above, you already believe some violence is approved by God.
Getting More Personal
Do you think a father has a moral right to protect his family? Can he fight to protect his wife and kids? Can he fight to protect his property from thieves and vandals? These questions have caused much debate among God’s people. Every person should think through these questions and decide for himself what he believes is right in the case of self-defense and the defense of others, but I do believe we have biblical warrant to defend ourselves and others.
If I were on a subway car in New York City and a man began to physically assault some passengers, I would feel morally obligated to attempt to restrain the man, even if it came to a physical altercation.
If someone breaks into my house, I know he has evil intentions. I may not know if he has a weapon, but I must assume he does. I may not know if he expressly intends to harm my family, but I will assume he does. In other words, I will strike first, if I can, to incapacitate an intruder to my home. I believe this is my moral duty God has given me to defend my family.
Consider Nehemiah, who was leading a group of his countrymen to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, and see how he encouraged his people to protect their families:
And our enemies said, “They will not know or see till we come among them and kill them and stop the work.” At that time the Jews who lived near them came from all directions and said to us ten times, “You must return to us.” So in the lowest parts of the space behind the wall, in open places, I stationed the people by their clans, with their swords, their spears, and their bows. And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, “Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.”
Nehemiah 4.11–14
In the face of a potential threat to their lives and mission, Nehemiah told his people to take up weapons and keep them ready to fight any attacker. This was expressly to defend their families, even extended families, and their property. Notice carefully they were to use their weapons to defend their homes. A robust biblical theology demands us recognize personal property, true ownership of houses, lands, livestock, etc. The commands to not steal and not covet directly imply this truth: your neighbor’s stuff is really his stuff. You have no right to it. Neither does the thief have a right to your stuff. You have a right to defend your property.
God commanded a right way to deal with thieves who break into your house:
If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Exodus 22.2–3
If a thief breaks into your house at night and you kill him in defense, you are not guilty of murder. However, if it’s during the day, you will be guilty of murder. Why the difference? The threat of violence against your family is much higher at night than during the day. During the day, everyone is awake and alert. During the night, you may have only one person, if that, awake to watch over things, so your defensive strength is down. At night it is often impossible to see if the man has a weapon. This is a rule God set.
Another word from the Lord from Psalm 82.4: “Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” How can you deliver these from the hand of the wicked? Let’s say you come upon a man kidnapping a young girl. What will you do? She cannot defend herself; she needs someone stronger to defend her against this evil man. You must understand that defending someone necessitates some kind of force.
David wrote in Psalm 144.1: “Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle.” Maybe it’s just me, but this “man after God’s own heart” doesn’t sound like a pacifist.
Ecclesiastes 3.3 and 3.8 says there is “a time to kill, and a time to heal” and “a time for war, and a time for peace.” Wisdom distinguishes.
Jesus implied self-defense in Luke 22.35–38:
And He said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
He was not telling them to take up arms to form a militia. He was not promoting violence. He did imply, however, that the use of weapons is sometimes necessary in our broken world.
Self-defense vs. Retaliation
In Matthew 5.38–42, Jesus deals with how the Jews had been misusing a law God had clearly established under Moses:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
The Christian pacifist says, “See? Jesus said we should not resist an evil person. Therefore, we should let them break in and steal and even kill us and our families if that’s what they intend to do. And Christians have no business in the military or police or martial arts.”
They misread Jesus here. Lex Talionis (the law concerning retaliation) is to be implemented by the civil government—not by you as an individual. The Jews of Jesus’ age had been using this law to justify revenge upon people who hurt, abused, and took advantage of them. “If you hit me, I’ll hit you back. And harder.” They justified retaliation with a law that was meant to provide a righteous means of punishing evildoers. Ironically, people today misapply Jesus’ correction of a misapplication of God’s law.
Jesus was not dealing at all with a thief breaking into your house in the middle of the night. Nor was He talking about the weapon-wielding psycho attempting to destroy human life.
It is not a sin to be taken advantage of, but if you can stop the thief, you are well-justified in doing so.
It is not a sin to be killed, but if you can stop the murderer, you should.
I believe it is a sin to not protect your family, the weak, or the needy if you have the ability and opportunity. That is not taking revenge. It’s defending human life. He who does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5.8). I reckon protecting their lives falls into the category of providing for them.