Considering Guns and Gospel, Part 2

As I noted in part 1, I started this because a number of Christians seem to be responding to the recent shootings with questioning the 2nd Amendment and the place of guns among Christians.

In part 1 I focused on the inappropriate uses and purposes of guns in light of Scripture. This time I want to focus on the appropriate uses of guns in light of Scripture.

The gospel of Jesus presupposes the fallen character of the world and sinfulness of humanity. That has not changed since the Flood (see Genesis 6 in which humanity was prone toward increasing violence). We see this in John 3, which in addition to teaching about the love of God which resulted in sending the Son to save His people also teaches us that “the world” already stands condemned and rejects the Light because it loves darkness to cover its evil deeds.

This means we live surrounded by evil people. This has many applications that require wisdom for godly men and women. Let’s look at a few things.

In Genesis we see that Abraham’s nephew Lot was captured when some kings put down a rebellion that included the city in which Lot lived, Sodom (see Genesis 14). Did Abram (his name had not been changed yet) say “This must be the will of God, I hope Lot does well in his new life.”? Did Abram go and ask kindly for the kings to let him go?

No, Abram gathered his servants, and friends, and went to rescue Lot from the kings. This required weapons. Weapons can be used to defend the defenseless and rescue those victimized by evil men. This was righteous Abram who believed God, and tithed to God from the plunder he gained. Abram was acting in faith, not in unbelief in so doing. Abram was not a magistrate (ruler), policeman, soldier etc.

In Judges we see a pattern of Apostasy, Battering, Confession and Deliverance in the life of Israel after entering the Promised Land. The problems were caused by everyone “doing what was right in their own eyes”. And yet God delivered them by raising up men (and a woman) to deliver them.

Ehud and Eglon

Enter Ehud, for instance. Portions of Israel were under the control of Moab. They paid tribute to the king of Moab. Ehud assassinated Eglon when he delivered the tribute. Weapons may be used to overthrow an oppressive ruler (which is why oppressive governments have historically prohibited citizens to own weapons). This was the justification used (in light of Calvin’s doctrine of the lower magistrate) in the American Revolution. It was not simply citizens, but the Continental Congress as the lesser magistrate had a right to rebel against a corrupt king. It required an armed populace to do so. This is why the 2nd Amendment was added, precisely because the founding father’s feared that one day the government they found could become oppressive. They were rooted in their Judeo-Christian heritage, expressed by the actions of Ehud and Calvin’s doctrine, in formulating it. Guns can be used to overthrow an unjust government, not simply by crazed independent militia, but by a lesser magistrate (state, county or city government) that has the right and responsibilities to protect its citizens from the unjust ruler. Those citizens would need to participate in that process since that magistrate has fewer citizens than the whole country.

This may be why David did not actively work to overthrow Saul. David was not a lower magistrate and had no right to overthrow Saul. He waited for God to fulfill His promise that David would be king. David and his men did defend themselves, which required weapons. Surely Saul was frustrated that David and his men had weapons.

Samson Defeating the Philistines

Later in Judges, we see Samson whom God used to provoke the Philistines and eventually bring judgment upon them. Samson did not lead an army, but was endowed with supernatural strength. On one occasion he used the jaw bone of an ass as a weapon to slay 1,000 men. That sounds like a mass shooting, but it was against wicked men. He had the right to defend himself against wicked men. And so do we. This would mean, I believe, that Christians can own guns for self-defense. This would be implied in Jesus’ instruction to his disciples in Luke 22 to buy a sword. This would be akin to Jesus telling his disciples today to buy a gun. There is no non-violent use of a sword. This is also behind the rationale of the 2nd Amendment which makes it consistent with Scripture.

In fact, in Exodus 22 we see that if someone enters your home by night he or she may be slain without guilt and consequence. By day as another matter. At night there is no one to help you. If caught during the day, the thief is required to pay restitution. By night, the use of a weapon would be permissible. People should be able to defend their families from intruders, particularly at night, with guns.

²  If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, ³ 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

These are historical accounts from which I am drawing inferences. Some may question those inferences. To support my inferences, let’s talk about sanctification. The gospel includes the reality that we are being conformed to the likeness (morally) of Christ. He wants to make us more like He is. He is restoring His image in us.

²⁸ And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8

²⁰ But that is not the way you learned Christ!— ²¹ assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, ²² to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, ²³ and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, ²⁴ and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Ephesians 4

⁶ On account of these the wrath of God is coming. ⁷ In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. ⁸ But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. ⁹ Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices ¹⁰ and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Colossians 3

Sanctification, a work of God’s free grace, involves a putting off and a putting on. This is called mortification and vivification. We turn away from worldly attitudes and sin such as malice, rage, bitterness etc. which result in the sinful use of guns I mentioned in part 1.

We are also to put on godly mindsets, and actions. If we study the character of God we see that He is the defender of the defenseless. For instance, He cares for widows and orphans. He also delivers the oppressed and exploited. We are also are supposed to care for widows and orphans. In fact, we are often His means to care for them rather than dropping money from the sky. Similarly we are to deliver the oppressed and exploited. There are times when we can use the legal process to do so. But there are other times when we may need to act immediately.

For instance, imagine you are near a gun-free zone and hear gunshots. Yes, you should call 911. But until the police arrive the gunman may be able to shoot dozens of people. Should a godly person just shrug their shoulders (and pray), or could one act to defend those at the mercy of an evil person brandishing a weapon? It is not contrary to the gospel to use a weapon to stop such an evil person. Godliness is not to sit idly by while your wife is raped, or children threatened. The use of force, including guns, would be permitted. As we see in Scripture, God often defended His helpless people through the use of force (see the Exodus, the slaughter of the Assyrian army and more). It is not ungodly, but rather godly, to use force to protect those under your care, and innocent bystanders, from wicked people seeking to commit “death-sentence” sins like murder and rape. The exception I would mention is persecution- when people are trying to kill you for being a Christian. That opens another can of worms I will not address here.

So, I think we find that “turn the other cheek” is only part of the answer to the question of guns and the gospel. There are other biblical ideas we need to incorporate to get a fuller answer to the question. Christians are free to decide for themselves if they want to own a gun or not. If they do own a gun they are bound by the limitations we’ve discussed. It can not be used for sinful reasons, or to further our own sin. It can be used to defend yourself, and your loved ones, and the defenseless from evil doers. Guns can also be used in a legitimate revolution or to stop an oppressive and evil magistrate in certain situations.

As a result of a biblical theology and historical theology, I would say that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is consistent with the rights of godly people in the Scriptures. It is, in no way, contrary to the gospel. It would be sinful uses of weapons that would be contrary to the gospel.

Just for fun read about the Harvard Study that shows are negative correlation between guns and violence.

Read Full Post »

Considering the PCA General Assembly and Race Issues, Part 2

If you are white you have probably struggled with it. “I didn’t do it.” In a sense, you are right. I was raised in the northeast, and Roman Catholic, and born during the dismantling of the Jim Crow laws. When we are asked to confess and repent of sins that aren’t personally ours we struggle.

I get that. But we can’t stop there. When we hear these words in our own minds, or from the mouths of our church members, officers and fellow Presbyters we can’t just go, “okay.”

Monday morning I opened my Bible. In my personal reading I was nearing the end of 2 Samuel. There in chapter 21 is a story from David’s reign that addresses this for us.

Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year. And David sought the face of the Lord. And the Lord said, “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.”

There was a famine in Israel. It stretched on long enough for David to seek God about it. I’m pretty sure he didn’t like what he heard back. It was all Saul’s fault. Way back in the days of Joshua the Gibeonites had tricked Israel into making a covenant of protection. Instead of voiding the covenant, they kept it but the Gibeonites became their servants. During his reign, Saul slaughtered most of them.

God was not happy at Saul’s covenant breaking and murder. He did not immediately judge Saul for this. In fact, He apparently didn’t include this when Saul died in battle for his various sins. The bloodguilt remained.

David was the new king after a period of struggle. This is probably many years into his reign. But God said it must be dealt with NOW. It must be dealt with by YOU. David didn’t do it. Saul did. Saul who was long dead.

When it comes to the covenant community God apparently doesn’t care that you personally had no involvement in the corporate sins of the community. Just as you share in Adam’s sin, you also share in the sins of leaders of the covenant community.

² So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them. Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel but of the remnant of the Amorites. Although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had sought to strike them down in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah. ³ And David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? And how shall I make atonement, that you may bless the heritage of the Lord?”

David sought out the remnant to see how this could be made right. Note how Saul’s sin is characterized. His zeal was for “his people” and he struck down the Gibeonites. Sound vaguely familiar?

In my previous post I laid out some of the ways the Southern Presbyterian Church, including what would become the PCA, had sinned. Kevin Twit noted that at its founding the leaders of the PCA stressed they were the continuing Presbyterian Church. This is why Sean Michael Lucas’ book is about the Continuing Presbyterians, aka the PCA. They viewed the PC (US) as having departed from the faith, but they were continuing in it. They also continued in some sinful ways. Travis Hutchinson lays out some of the evidence for this on his blog. He points to a book, written in 1987, that is a history of the PCA up to that point which espouses racist viewpoints. This book was given to the denomination so proceeds of its sale could go to the denomination. Yeah, let that sink in. He also shares some personal stories that reveal that racists be among us.

Will we continue to say “It’s not our problem” or will we be like David and say “How can we make this right?”

Ultimately the seven men descended from Saul put to death point us to Christ who bore the full burden of our sin, including racism, indifference and hardness of heart. We can admit we have done wrong, that we share in the guilt of our fathers (like Nehemiah did!) precisely because Christ bears our guilt. We can be honest instead of pretending. The doctrine of justification matters! We can say “We failed you and we are sorry. How can we move forward?” Like David we should seek the blessing of the heritage of the Lord through repentance.

Here is the protest that many of us signed.

We the 43rd General Assembly of the PCA (the undersigned) understand that repentance is not merely a statement, but steps of faithfulness that follow. Allowing that more time is needed to adequately work on such a denominational statement, but also the need for action now, we recognize and confess our church’s covenantal and generational involvement in and complicity with racial injustice inside and outside of our churches during the Civil Rights period. We commit ourselves to the task of truth and repentance over the next year for the glory of God and the furtherance of the Gospel. We urge the congregations of the Presbyterian Church in America to confess their own particular sins and failures as may be appropriate and to seek truth and repentance for the Gospel’s sake within their own local communities.

 

Read Full Post »