LCMS Professor Rejects Mass Deportations, Duty of Self Defense

Biermann is asked about Islamic immigration overtaking various areas in America and the cultural threat Islam poses in converting Christians rather than vice versa. By stating, “I tend to be very against the idea of kind of clamping down borders for the sake of keeping preserving our American heritage, whatever that is,” Biermann is dismissive to the notion that America is for Americans. With immigration being the prevailing political issue, one cannot argue against mass immigration unless they appeal to heritage. Legal immigration is harmful both to the culture and to the natives who lose economically by having to compete for the same resources and opportunities. The battle over immigration is about more than legal status, as even the Haitian blight in Springfield, OH, was granted legal status, and so too the H1B trucker who wantonly murdered three people in Florida.

Rather than deport these Muslims, Biermann rejects the notion of mass deportations, stating that while he would seek to evangelize them in whatever context he resides. This evangelism and the need to be a witness is so important, he would not deport them even to make his community feel safer.

At a time when immigrant violence occurs in America and Muslim rape gangs are commonplace in Europe, nothing hurts the Church’s witness than impotence on the issue of migrant crime, especially seminary professors who contend that Christians should do nothing as these things continue to progress. Hebrews 11 does not contain the names of men who did nothing in the face of grave circumstances.

But the conversation gets worse as the issue of self-defense is brought up. Rev. Ramirez addresses a recent church attack in Michigan and another at an Orthodox church in Syria. At CrossPointe Community Church, the church security staff killed the attacker. Ramirez argues against Biermann’s framing that the church should not use lethal force to defend itself, citing that the Orthodox Christians who died did so defending their parishioners and would have used lethal force if possible.

Biermann takes the position that “I’m not sure if I would say I have a duty to defend myself. I think it’s God’s job to defend to defend me.” This is contrary to the historic interpretations of the 6^th Commandment (Lutheran 5^th Commandment) where the duty of self-preservation is enjoined to this law. This is similar to the piety that John Piper famously espoused in claiming he would not shoot his wife’s assailant.

As the debate progresses, the reasoning behind this pietism is that it would hurt the church’s witness to enact violence:

I think I can also make a case for what is the church witnessing to the world about who our Lord is and how we live and the things that matter to us and about our unwillingness to use lethal force even though the world would encourage us to or common sense would encourage us to. I think we should be careful about where does lethal force fit and is it consistent with the confession I’m trying to make about who my Lord is and who’s caring for me.

Biermann is functionally arguing that using lethal force in self-defense is harmful to the Church’s witness. Most US jurisdictions have some form of Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground protections, giving no duty to retreat. However, the use of lethal force by individuals is most ambiguous, and liberal localities will ruin a man’s life if he were to defend the community from criminals, as was seen with Daniel Penny and Kyle Rittenhouse. Even the notion that the world would encourage lethal force is circumstantial at best.

RAMIREZ: I worry about is if we tell people, you know, a better witness would be to allow it to happen or not use lethal force. I worry about the church telling people, especially men, you to be a Christian is to be less than a man.

BIERMANN: No. You don’t equate being a man with using lethal force.

Part of masculinity is often using force, whether for military or protective purposes. In the garden, Adam was supposed to use lethal force against the serpent but failed in his duty. Nowhere does Ramirez claim it is ideal, only that it is sometimes necessary, and men must be capable if the time comes. Biermann would differ in stating that “I would say I don’t know if there’s ever a justified place for that.”

The aversion to self-defense is neither masculine nor Christian, but the product of men with soft hands inside ivory towers where everything is theoretical. His pacifism extends both to the personal spheres of authority and the political sphere. What good is a seminary degree if it results in a theology of impotence? In attempting to argue against Christian Nationalism, Biermann advocates a position that would have Christians do nothing as they are dispossessed in their own homeland. He talks about Christian witness, but nothing ruins a Christian witness more than inaction amidst grave circumstances.