As I write, the news media is still overwhelming us with information about the tragic killings on the campus of Virginia Tech University. A professor at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University was recently attacked in his office by a student.

What would I do if a crazed gunman were to burst into my office or one of my classes and begin shooting? What would be an appropriate Christian response in such a violent situation? Should I counterattack and try to stop him? Or should I wait for security and hope they can help?

Scripture provides some guidance on this matter, but it is painfully obvious that the various streams of Christianity throughout history have interpreted its teachings in different directions. In fact, Christians have killed Christians (more recently, Adventists have killed Adventists) in armed conflict throughout our history. Christian ethicists have written a great deal on this issue and developed some helpful ways of thinking about it. What is an appropriate position for Adventists to hold on the use of violence in situations of conflict?

Neighbor-Love

The principle of neighbor-love is often understood to provide good reason for stopping a would-be shooter who bursts into a university classroom. One could reasonably presume that the shooter will harm the "neighbor" and neighbor-love demands that we protect the neighbor from that harm by stopping the aggressor.

Self-Defense

In addition to stopping the would-be shooter from hurting your neighbor, many Christians through the years have argued that the principle of neighbor-love and its attention to love of self also provides good reason to stop the aggressor from shooting or hurting you.

Just War Theory

Many Christians believe that the teaching of the gospels that calls us to love our neighbor extends to national and international levels of conflict. If Greenland were to attack Canada, for instance, it may be appropriate for us to stop Greenland's aggression by using violent means. If absolutely all other possible means of stopping the aggressor have failed — if all political negotiations have failed, then perhaps violent means would be appropriate. "Just War Theory" is not an excuse to turn to violence hastily; it is a reluctant realization that it is the last possible means available to stop the violence of another.

Non-Violent Resistance

Although some call this "pacifism," there is nothing passive about it. There is a decided effort to stop violence and make peace in any and all situations that are or might become violent. This resistance, however, must never use violence as a means to stop violence.

In all of this, responsible ethicists have attached a necessary condition — the principle of proportionality. This principle demands that you do not harm the aggressor beyond what is necessary to stop the aggression. Whether on a personal or national level, it would be absolutely immoral to do more than is necessary to end the assault. So, for instance, if the aggressor is attacking your neighbor with a baseball bat, it is immoral for you to take a gun and shoot him dead in the name of neighbor-love. That would be completely out of proportion with what is necessary to stop the attack.

What should Adventist Christians do in situations of violent conflict? I think the life and teachings of Jesus, our Christ, push very strongly in the direction of non-violent resistance. Resisting those who would do us or our neighbors harm is appropriate. If we resort to violence in that effort, we had better be prepared to give good reasons why.