A Christian Frame On Gun Control

It is popular among gun control advocates to claim that the gun in the mind of the second amendment's authors was the muzzle-loaded musket. As such, this is the weapon citizens are constitutionally allowed to keep and bear within a well ordered militia. This is a particularly inane argument. At issue was not the type of weapon, but the use to which the weapons would be put.

The authors wanted to keep the size and cost of the military down so as to keep the populace as free of taxation as possible. This also provided people with protection from an overbearing government, which would otherwise hold a monopoly on military power. If the musket was the only gun in the minds of the authors of the amendment this was because it was the most technologically advanced weapon carried by soldiers the world over. There were also bayonets, swords, horses and artillery in those armies.

The citizen soldiers envisioned in the second amendment would have been similarly armed because they owned all of these weapons. The exception to this would be artillery, which was cost prohibitive for most individuals to possess. Cannon would be held by the militia in its armory. Because of this, they would have been the match of any army in the world.

The authors of the second amendment might be appalled by the size of our standing military and would probably advocate for a return to the militia model to decrease the size and cost of government. Undoubtedly, however, they would not advocate that the populace only be armed with muskets. The overwhelming firepower held by foreign nations, or even by our own government would quickly relegate the people to a state of submission and servitude. This would be completely unacceptable to men like Jefferson, Washington, and etc. As such, they would argue that individuals must be allowed to own modern firearms.

What the framers of the constitution and its amendments would undoubtedly decry are the heinous uses to which these weapons are put. They would also lament the lack of civil responsibility in our society. They believed the freedoms fought for and enshrined in the founding documents must be upheld by citizens serving the best interests of the nation. Their thought was that life and freedom within the United States must ultimately serve the perpetuation of those freedoms. Such an attitude of service seems to be missing, because we serve our individual needs and wants above all others.

The fundamental disagreement Christians should have with all of this is one of lordship. If Christ is Lord, our ultimate service must be to him, instead of the state, our families, or ourselves. Christian actions are to help the Body of Christ advance, irrespective of the needs of the state, or any other organization that claims our loyalty. It is from this perspective that a Christian should approach the question of gun ownership and control.

Evidence of Sin

The variety of responses to the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut all seem to advocate a change in the place guns have in our society. On one side are those who advocate the removal of guns and gun ownership. Or at least the moderation of the type of gun and the ease with which they can be procured. On the other side are those who advocate for gun access to remain the same, or in fact for guns to be more readily available.

Lying behind both arguments is a desire to stop horrendous tragedies like these. The difference is in the way one feels it is best to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our property. This gives a clue as to what actually lies at the heart of both responses. Lurking behind the value or revulsion Americans have for guns is the desire to protect our idols.

Judges 17 & 18 tell the story of Micah and the Danites. Micah creates household gods for himself and hires a levite to be a priest. The priest is there to protect and serve the idols on Micah's behalf, to intercede with the gods on Micah's behalf, and to provide for himself an income. The Danites trying to establish a home for themselves eventually steal the idols, the supporting religious paraphernalia and the priest. They want the priest to do the same for them as he was doing for Micah. And the priest goes along with it. In response, Micah calls out warriors to attack the thieves and get his idols back. Violence ensues among kinfolk because of their lust for these things. Their responses are the natural outcomes of idolatry.

Americans -- and perhaps all people -- believe in the myth of security. We live in the hope that we might be secure and safe from tragedy, misfortune and death. This is one of the reasons we gather things around us. The more we have, the more able we are to keep the forces of evil and chaos away. Of course, all we have really done is re-placed our fears, moving them further away from ourselves. What used to be a fear right up next to us is now outside of our homes. It is as if we are the wealthy fool who says to himself, "You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry" only to learn that his life was to be lost that very night (Luke 12:16-21).

It is a sign of sin in our lives whenever Christians are ruled by and live in fear. Fear represents a heart ruled by avarice, greed, lust and idolatry. Fear demonstrates that we do not actually believe the promises of our redeemer God who says that he will open paradise to us in the afterlife. It tells us that we do not believe that "to live is Christ, to die is gain" (Phil 1:21). It tells us that we hold our things, our attachments, and our own lives as idols ahead of God.

The reality is that no amount of stuff and no amount of weaponry will protect us from the end that is coming for us all. We may delay it for a while, but it is coming. This is not to say that we should simply and fatalistically accept what is coming. Instead, we should look at everything we have as a gift from our gracious God. There is nothing that we have which we did not receive, including our very lives (1 Cor 4:7).

The attitude of the Christian in America should be to acknowledge that we have it good, that we have been blessed, and to use the blessings we have received as a means to bless others. We should work for justice, righteousness, peace, and love. We should strive for health and wholeness for all people: physical, mental, and spiritual health. And we should strive to cast down our idols and all of the things with which we try to protect them.

I apologized, but...

Further to my post from yesterday, I did apologize. What I apologized for was my lack of civility in interrupting my host. There is no precedent for theological debate or discussion in the group, let alone when someone is sharing a devotion. Whether the speaker's thoughts were mindless drivel, erudite scholarship, or something in between, challenging him at that point was tactless. 

I believe his hermeneutical starting point is fatuous, if not dangerous. The future well-being of individual believers generally and that of the Church in North America specifically are jeopardized by teachings that start from a position which lacks knowledge. 

This is not to say people who hold such positions are stupid. Young Earth advocates simply lack information and refuse to accept it because their faith cannot accommodate what God has given humans the ability to learn about the universe that He created. They do not have room within their faith constructs for such a large God. Yet scripture is full of encouragement to gain knowledge and understanding. All truth is God's truth and we need not fear it. 

The Young Earth hermeneutical starting point creates a barrier to spreading the Gospel. People who are knowledgable about the scientific realities humanity has uncovered will never be interested in joining an apparently mindless organization. The Church becomes nothing more than a backward sub-culture, along the lines of the Amish communities that have a negligible impact upon society, rather than the world-changing counter-culture Jesus left in the care of his disciples. I admire such faith for its apparent strength, yet pity it for its calcified, dogmatic outlook.

I know better....

Yesterday I attended a minister’s gathering and was rude to my host. Once most of us had gathered around a table, he opened the proceedings with a devotional thought. He started by lamenting America’s social, political and spiritual atmosphere. He felt that failure to acknowledge that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, based foundationally on the failure to acknowledge that God created the world in seven days not millions or billions of years as evidenced by Genesis 1-15, was leading to the nation’s moral decline.

“How do you know?” I asked. Spurred on by his surprised “How do I know?” I asked, “How do you know that God created the world in seven literal days instead of millions, or billions of years?”

I know I should have bit my tongue. Since the context was “devotional” not intellectual, it was tantamount to biting the hand that was about to feed me – especially since after the meeting he was feeding the gathered ministers. I created an uncomfortable and awkward period in the proceedings and knew what I had done even as I pressed on. Quite frankly, my back was up so I engaged in debate for a few minutes until others weighed in with calming effect. The train of the devotion derailed, we moved on to other business.

Today an email went out to everyone from the ministerial gathering president:

Hey Gang, I'm going to ask that, in the future, when the host of our meetings presents a devotion, that we respect that devotion.  I'm not saying that you have to agree with what is said, but it isn't an appropriate setting to turn it into a theological debate, nor is it polite considering that we are their guests. At the same time, when planning the devotion, please don't use it as a way to deliberately push an agenda.  Not saying that it needs to be politically correct, but please consider your intentions.

My impression is that the Gospel is an invitation to join the counter-cultural body of Christ. When Church leaders elevate faithful ignorance over informed belief we are not promoting an invitation to an exciting counter-culture where knowledge and intelligence are welcome, but are promoting a sub-culture in which thoughtfulness is unwelcome. Bad theology, informed by illogical hermeneutics, should not go unchallenged if we want to see the Church advance – especially among church leaders.

I find it distasteful to sit through a devotion that is supposed to be edifying to my spirit when it elevates bad information, hermeneutics and theology, and presents it as Gospel. That said, the spirit of the email is correct and I am sorry for my actions. That was neither the time, nor the place for such a debate. Would that Christ really dwelt in me.