Getting involved physically would be an easy decision for me, however I ponder if there are situations that are morally just without getting physically involved. I mean I couldn't frown on a 65 year old man alone with his granddaughter who makes the choice to only call the authorities and shuffle her away from the violence.

Why on Earth would anybody need to wrestle with this?

this is why atheists have a problem with christians. they have such a warped sense of morals that its not a clear cut decision to defend someone who is being beaten because they are a "sinner." i know it doesn't apply to all of them, but one is too many

I don't understand why this is even a question. If a group is beating an individual, Christian love REQUIRES one, in my view, to become involved immediately and use the minimum level of force required to stop the confrontation and remove either the victim or the attackers from the situation. End of story. Gayness or lack of it has nothing to do with anything (unless maybe you're a leftist trying to smear Christians as being Fred Phelps clones).

Dean does make a good point about extenuating circumstances like having a small child present…but there aren't many circumstances that would suffice to relieve us of this basic Christian duty.

Jesus came to earth and died for everyone involved, the victim and the perps, Protecting the man from being beaten would be an act of mercy and justice. We are all sinful and guilty, there are none of us who are morally superior. But there are some of us through whom Christ's love shines brightly. Thank God!

Like most things New Covenant Biblical the underlying truths and intentions of Jesus are quite clear. And as is usual, the method by which one is to accomplish those intentions is left open. One does not have to consider Jesus the Son of God to see there really was no other way to keep His ministry and the Biblical record of it relevant over the course of time.

What? A Christian needs to "wrestle with this" as to whether to stop an innocent person from being beaten, potentially to death? Any Christian who has to "wrestle" with their faith in situations like the above are not Christians; they're cowards and should be ridiculed and shamed as such.

As a former Roman Catholic from a blue collar area someone responding with violence to the above situation would have been applauded and naysayers would have been shunned and constantly reminded of their moral lapse for not defending someone who is unable to defend themselves.

If you are trolling with you article, then well played. If you honestly struggle with the application of violence against such thugs then I suggest you pick up the bible, spend some time reading it, and understand what it means to stand up for the weak.

"“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” Matthew 5:9" Nothing like taking a verse out of context and using it. This verse is still written UNDER the Old Testament Law. The New Testament doesn't begin (doctrinally) until Jesus Christ for He says….."this is the blood of my New Testament"…..furthermore Jesus Christ doesn't die until Matthew 27. Can you follow along with history? Matt 5 comes way before Matt 27. And, then you have the sermon on the Mount in the same passage which is clearly a WORKS based salvation for JEWS not Christians since there are NO Christians because Jesus Christ hasnt even died yet! Christians are NOT present until Acts 8 and Acts 11:27. So, why are you taking passages written to Jews (in the passage they are all long-haired, temple worshipping, Sabbath observing, pork abstaining Jews) under the Old Testament Law and applying them to Christians in the Church Age? It couldnt have anything to do with your church, could it?

Do you go to your neighbor's mailbox and open HIS mail and think it applies to you?

Video is down.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” Matthew 5:9

Sam Colt knew a thing or two about peacemakers, there's a reason why his iconic weapon gained that moniker.

Armed gays don't get bashed. Or anyone else for that matter.

I updated the video where a news clip has part of it. I was wondering if any pacifist Christians would respond by saying that violence would not be justified in this. None yet.

There are stories about people ignoring someone yelling for help and no one does a thing, so there are some out there who would probably just watch.

Good point. The late Francis Schaeffer argued along the same lines.

In getting involved, a person runs certain risks. One of those risks is being beaten to death by those thugs. So, a better question is, is it worth risking one's own life to get involved?

this is why christians have problems with atheists (I'm willing to bet at least one of those attackers was an atheist)…I know it doesn't apply to all of them but one is too many…

The most spectacular (and truly sad) example is Kitty Genovese:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers…

Doc

I'm always puzzled by the person behind the camera. Why are they not calling the police or helping? What kind of person films things like this and puts it on youtube for hits? Then again, the video probably will lead to the attackers being caught.

> I think Christians need to wrestle with this because they might just find themselves in the midst of something like what happened to Brandon White.

What Christians have claimed it would be Christian to allow someone, gay or not, to be beaten? What part of Christian theology is this notion consistent with? What churches have admonished their members to stand by and allow gays to be beaten?

What is the purpose of this post?

Instapundit implied that the fact that man being beaten is gay is part of the calculation for whether to get involved, and apparently so do some of your commenters. That was not my understanding of the post. In either case, I wish you would clarify yourself. Is the question:

“should Christians ever resort to violence to protect victims of violence?”

or was it

“should Christians ever resort to violence to protect gay victims of violence?”

If you intended the first then I would encourage you to write to edit the post and contact Instapundit to get this corrected ASAP because I can guarantee you that anti-Christians have already used this post as evidence that Christians hate gays.

That is my question, too. And people are giving you down dings?

What part of Christian theology is consistent with failing to violently step in to help? Maybe Quakers? There are extreme pacifists, but even (particularly) the extreme pacifist would believe they had a duty to intervene, just not with violence, more likely with allowing themselves to be beaten, hopefully in place of the original victim. But it makes more sense to ask specifically a Quaker or Amish or Mennonite, what their faith requires.

Why is this posed as a "Christian" question at all?

Is there some notion that Christians have a duty to help that other people do not have? We all have a duty to help, don't we? Yes, any person would have to decide if they had any chance of providing useful help to balance the risk, but doing nothing at all is not a moral choice for anyone.

Also, how does the victim being gay pertain to anything at all? Is a person supposed to ask first, to find out if they should intervene?

Perhaps I live with an excess of moral clarity, but I'm dumbfounded by the questions asked.

No one has a moral duty to die for no purpose. Every moral actor has a duty not to allow a crime when they possess the ability to act. Sins of omission, of failure to act, are no different than sins of commission, of performing the act that was implicitly condoned by an onlooker. This is an individual responsibility that can not be abandoned to others.

Unless one is not a moral actor. In which case you're off the hook. In past times we might use the term "man" to explain the moral burden of a fully realized human being.

This has implications regardless, but especially if the person in question is gay. You know, because we Christians really "hate" gay people, so we would never help them. But it is also applicable to other instances. Say some woman was getting beaten, the idea of showing love and confronting evil would apply there as well.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers…

And of course people are blaming Christians for acts like this. So if Christians affirm that intervention is justified in this example, then maybe it might cause others to think twice about blaming Christians when a group of thugs attack a gay man.

How are Christians responsible for the bigotry of those who refuse to believe what is clearly explained?

If you're tired of the left attacking Christians, why does your solution involve insisting that the attacks have merit?

Your friend Kenny Bryant was a worthy individual that deserves our respect and admiration. He is an example to follow, not an example to be avoided.

AP: I see a problem with your "qualification" about using the minimum level of force necessary to stop the attack. If I intervene I'm gonna use the force necessary, and then some, to stop the attack. To require me to stop the attack yet threatening to punish me if I hurt the criminal perpetrators too much in doing so is unreasonable. If you want me to save someone's arse, the wrong thing to do is make it more risky than it needs to be. Think about that the next time you hear of someone passing by on the other side and not getting involved. I will kill to defend myself and those few I care about, but this stupid society has made quite clear they don't want me to save them because they refuse to back up those stupid few who try.

I would not pass by and let a homosexual be killed because he was a homosexual. I would pass by on the basis that I would have to assume the homosexual was a Democrat. If I knew the homosexual was NOT a Democrat, I would not hesitate to save him, especially considering the fact that you KNOW the criminals beating up said homosexual have to be Democrats themselves; Democrats have no compunction about beating up anyone at any time.

I am sorry for the loss of your friend. Care to share more about what happened?

Restraining the evildoer is a spiritual work of mercy–to the evildoer.

St Augustine taught this. You are stopping them from going deeper into sin. When seconds count, and peaceful admonishment is minutes away, and you can help, you should help.

You have a moral peril, it is true. You can't be doing it for fun, or for pride, but, St Augustine says, "misercorditer"–with a merciful heart.

That is LOW!

I think it's commendable that Todd is raising awareness about this. I think he's right to ask the question. If you look all over the net, a lot GLBT websites are carrying this story; for example: http://www.thegavoice.com/news/georgia-news/4174-…

On the other hand you have people like Pat Robertson of the 700 Club actually blaming gays for natural disasters. (I don't know if you are familiar with him but he says CRAY-ZEEE stuff, just google him and statements on gays).

Then in the middle are Christians that say nothing. I think raising the topic and asking Christians to get involved is definitely a step in the right direction. Todd seems to be saying that "One is not living up to Christian principles if you don't get involved." I read his question as call to action for the often "silent middle" Christians. Forget the Pat Robertson types; there's no hope for them.

Absolutely. "Turning the other cheek" speaks to forgiving a wrong. Being a peacemaker has always meant your first choice is conciliation. But for those who confuse gentleness with weakness, unfortunately the correct approach is to beat the crap out of the offender. (See the Barbary Pirates, the Army of Northern Virginia, the Waffen SS, the Inmum Gun, etc.) Violence is the first competency and the last choice of civilized men.

Pat Robertson often says crazy things, true enough, but the notion that God judges nations for the morals or lack of faith of their people is Biblical. The error comes in claiming to know the thoughts of God on something that isn't scripture (adding to the words of the revelation), which includes deciding that any particular event is divine judgment and what the judgment is over.

Most Christians, even ones who like Robertson, roll their eyes when he goes off the rails. The people who are only Christian by virtue of not being something else and are likely to beat someone up aren't listening to him at all.

Getting from Robertson to some thugs finding an excuse to beat someone up is a HUGE leap of faith on the part of people who insist upon it. I don't feel particularly obligated to accommodate people who make that sort of willful leap by publicly announcing that I am guilty. It's not even guilt by association, it's guilt by imagination.

It's wrong to beat someone up and wrong not to come to the aid of someone in distress. At what point is any of this more complicated than that?

Of course people blame Christians for acts like this. The logic is that Christianity insists on sexual repression (which it does, and I sure wish more preachers would concentrate on the heterosexual sort) and that, somehow, preaching sexual morality and chastity and the denial of our desires gives a moral green-light to violent gang members who aren't Christian at all and are looking for any excuse to be violent.

At no point, EVER, will any Christian leader be calling on anyone to beat up sinners but somehow Christians in general are responsible for controlling the behavior of gangs of criminal youth?

It doesn't work that way. That I'm a Christian does not make me responsible for the criminal behavior of gangs and it doesn't make me responsible for the bigotry of those who insist on it. Taking responsibility for other people's irrational beliefs isn't going to work in any case. The belief is irrational, it won't be moved.

The Christian church works to restrain human behavior, it's working against social and moral decay and a lot of people don't like that. But the church is not cheering feral humans, it's trying to teach something better.

Being forced to say, "Yes, the feral humans are our responsibility," is ridiculous.

If I'm being attacked I'm not going to care even a little bit about the motivation of the person who saves me.

Honest.

"Faith without works is dead."

If you knew Scripture, you'd be more fully a Christian – even a Catholic, maybe.

Try again.

A Christian has the knowledge that death isn't the end of his existence and expects to have to answer for any moral cowardice in this life. An atheist, for whom this existence is all she believes there is for her, makes a different calculation.

We agree that it is wrong to beat someone up and not come to the aid of someone in destress. Still, you are addressing a different issue than I raised. I don't blame (nor do I think anyone else on this blog blames) devout Christians for the behavior of some criminal who happens to be as you say, "Christian by virtue of not being something esle." This is not about blaming the behavior of the criminals on other Christians. My question to you is, with the exception Todd here and gay-friendly websites, why hasn't this story appeared on any Christian websites? Do they not care? Why are they silent? When something like this happens shouldn't we all be outraged and not just the gay community?

You're presenting a false dichotomy. It is not either be outraged or assume to be accepting. If I'm not emoting on the horrors in Darfur, does that mean I don't think they're horrible? No, it doesn't.

To be quite honest, my reaction to the focus on personal tragedy is that it is usually distorted. A pretty little blond girl gets murdered or disappeared and we hear about it for months, non-stop. But do we hear about the hundreds of girls missing in Juarez? No, we don't. That's important if we're talking about Nancy Grace, but if someone isn't blogging about missing girls, does the omission *mean* anything? No, it doesn't.

Did the "gay-friendly" websites go on and on or even mention that West Point (IIRC) Cadet who got beat up an an airport, and knocked out? No, they didn't. But military themed blogs talked about it a lot.

And that's okay, because the blogs aren't about crime or thugs or beatings, they're about other things.

Apply the same standard and when that doesn't work, ask why the standards are different. "Care most about what I care about, express outrage when I want you to express outrage, or else you're a bad human being" is itself hostile and uncivil.

Beating up people is wrong.

Standing by while someone gets beaten is wrong.

But really… this is not the only person to have been severely beaten, and why don't we talk about the others? We don't talk about them, because we're not focused on beatings. Our blog is about puppies or kittens or politics or food or religion.

Which is exactly why I commend Todd for stepping outside the "I only care about my issues" soap box.

The question wasn't about whether to intervene or not because the victim was a homosexual. It was whether to intervene or not with violence. Sexual orientation is immaterial.

Agreed. Something that wazs taught to me in the Marine Corps about 'Rules of Engagement' …."If you are going to act, do so with all the speed, intensity, and violence you can muster." And the addage that it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six rings true in this case as well.

Where does Todd indicate even passively that 'the attacks have merit' ?