The Christian Gun
December 14th, 2007 by Syd
For anyone who has been raised with traditional Christianity and who takes seriously the right and responsibility of self-defense, the vision of church members armed and engaging psychopathic killers in the church presents a jarring cognitive dissonance. After all, the church is supposed to be a place of peace, healing and redemption, a sanctuary from the evil of the outside world, and not an arena for combat. How can a thoughtful Christian reconcile armed self-defense with an understanding of New Testament Christianity?
The attack on the New Life Church in Colorado Springs which was stopped by an armed Christian woman draws this question into sharp focus. Jeanne Assam used her personal firearm to stop the deadly attack on the church and in doing so, saved many lives but ended the life of the young man who launched the attack. In her words:
Assam appeared before the media with applause and said “God guided me and protected me.”
“I give credit to God,” Assam said. “God was with me. I didn’t think for a minute to run away.” Source
“This has got to be God, because of the firepower that [the gunman] had vs. what I had – was God. I did not run away and I didn’t think for a minute to run away, I just knew that I was given the assignment to end this before it got too much worse. I just prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide me.” Source
Assam clearly seems to have her faith squared away in regard to self-defense. She does not seem to be conflicted about self-defense and Christian discipleship, but many Christians are. I think she is a hero and I would hope that if I ever find myself in the position she faced that I will act as courageously as she did.
At the same time, while we watched this story play out, all of those teachings that we learned in Sunday school whisper from the back of our heads: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” “Turn the other cheek.” “Pray for your enemies.” “He who would win his life must lose it”. “Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give unto you.” “Pick up your cross and follow me.”
Many Christians read the New Testament as requiring a radical pacifism: “But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.” Personally, I think Jesus is speaking here of seeking retribution for insults, and had he meant, “stand there and let them kill you,” he would have said that. But some readers of the New Testament interpret it exactly that way. By inference, the radical pacifists would say that the only appropriate response for the members of the New Life Church would be to stand there and pray, and be slaughtered. By no means should Christians offer resistance in self-defense, especially armed self-defense.
Is the Christian faith a call to radical martyrdom? The short answer is that sometimes it is. German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer felt that his call to discipleship led him to get involved in the plot to overthrow Hitler, and it cost Bonhoeffer his life. Paradoxically, the plot would result in the death of Hitler if it succeeded, and Bonhoeffer struggled with this. Jesus and most of the disciples died the death of martyrs. Paul’s call led him to execution. The notion of martyrdom is deeply embedded in Christian tradition. But, does being a Christian mean that we are compelled by the faith to seek martyrdom? Is self-defense contradictory to Christian doctrine?
The word “martyr” literally means “witness”. Martyrs are people who die as a result of their bearing witness to Christ. There is intentionality about the deaths of the early Christian leaders. Their deaths made a statement: the gospel of Christ was more important than life. Their deaths were highly visible and made a profound impact on millions of people. Untold millions converted to the faith as a result of the witness offered by the early church in refusing to renounce the faith, even in the face of death. Yet, most Christian deaths are not martyrs. Most of them are just deaths. While some might disagree, I don’t believe that martyrdom is generally required of all Christians. Perhaps, it’s not actually required of any. To my mind, allowing oneself to be randomly murdered by a mentally ill person does not rise to the standard of intentionality and witness that characterizes the martyrdom of the early church. Further, Christians believe that Christ died for the sins of the world, and assuming that is true, it should be unnecessary, even blasphemous, to think that we also need to die for our sins.
Jesus also spoke a lot about justice. It is clear from the teachings of Jesus that he believed that evil and injustice would be thrown down in God’s kingdom, and it would not be gentle. Evil and oppression will not be endlessly tolerated. “It will be this way at the end of the age. Angels will come and separate the evil from the righteous.” It is as if he is warning the disciples that it’s going to get rough out there: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword.” In his most often quoted statement on self defense, Jesus says: “…let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
In “War and Self Defense,” Randall Watters says:
The Lord Jesus only appears to have said two things that deal directly with self-defense and warfare, and these statements appear to be contradictory at first glance. On the night of his betrayal, knowing that he would soon be parted from his disciples, he told them,
And he said to them, “When I sent you out without purse and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” And they said, “No, nothing.” And he said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one.” (Luke 22:35, 36)
…So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Then he told them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:38)
The second statement he made later that night, when Peter struck at the slave of the high priest with his sword:
Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the Scripture be fulfilled that it must happen this way? (Matt. 26:52-54)
Why did Jesus tell them to take up provisions that would equip them for new conditions in the ministry, including a sword for self-defense, and then shortly thereafter tell Peter not to use the sword?
The key lies in the context of each statement. Peter was told not to use the sword because he was acting in the flesh, forgetting that Jesus told him he would have to be arrested and suffer death. Peter did not see the purpose in Jesus’ arrest and death. He was acting out of his flesh rather than from wisdom. Those who live out of their flesh, Jesus intimated, with its violent and unbridled passions, will die at the hands of the same. Yet, Peter and the others were told to take up swords and money pouches and an outer garment for specific reasons (not just out of symbolism; as he would have only mentioned swords and not pouches if this was the case). Randall Watters, “War and Self Defense,”
Context is indeed critical. Jesus does not prohibit self-defense here, or anywhere else in the New Testament. In fact, Luke shows us that the disciples were armed.
One of my favorites of the sayings of Jesus is, “Be as wise of serpents and as gentle as doves.” What this says to me is: be kind, love life, seek peace, justice and fairness in what you do, but be smart about it. Be reasonable and rational. Don’t get caught up in the irrational and the nonsensical. I believe that simply throwing your life away for no reason is both irrational and nonsensical.
Some have argued that using guns for self-defense reveals a lack of faith in God. To this, Larry Fox says:
“We buy clothes primarily for modesty and protection from the weather. We buy or rent homes to protect ourselves from weather, animals and people who might harm us. We buy insurance to cover potential health and medical expenses. We invest in retirement funds to provide for future needs. We expect protection from credit card theft and fraud. We lock our homes to protect ourselves and our belongings. Why do we take all these protective measures? Because we don’t trust God to protect us? Do we protect our children from drug dealers and pedophiles because we don’t think God can or will? Should we get flu shots? Should we stop killing bugs, fleas and mosquitoes that can spread disease? Should we not be concerned about cooking meats and eggs to correct temperatures to kill parasites and bacteria? Should we stop washing our hands and cleansing food utensils? Should we not take food supplements to protect our bodies from illness or malnutrition? Should we protect our children from dangerous animals or circumstances? The point is this: We take a variety of measures to protect ourselves from circumstances, animals and people who might harm us. We consider these prudent measures, not lapses of faith.” – Larry Fox, A Christian Perspective of Self Defense
Many thoughtful people will take a different tack on this and argue that the New Testament does indeed call for a radical pacifism. I respect that point of view; I just don’t agree with it. There are many texts which can be quoted to support the passive viewpoint. I will not attempt to debate all of those texts. That would be at least a book or two. It is my contention that the New Testament contains neither a mandate for radical pacifism nor a demand for universal believer martyrdom. The disciples were encouraged to carry self-defense weapons, and no soldier was ever condemned by Jesus for his vocation.
Now, does this mean that God’s model for the “New Jerusalem” is Tombstone? Of course not. If you read even the Old Testament prophets, it is clear that God’s vision for humanity is a time in which war, violence, pain and suffering will be no more – an earthly paradise. And I am sure that it grieves God every time someone is hurt, abused or killed. God’s plan for us is peace and joy, and the New Testament is full of instructions to Christians to work for peace, justice and reconciliation in the world. I believe that the sword discussion in Luke demonstrates that working for a more peaceful world and taking prudent measures for self-defense are not mutually exclusive efforts. They certainly represent a dynamic tension but they can coexist within the context of New Testament Christianity.
See also:
Dave Kopel’s scholarly work on on this topic:
Evolving Christian attitudes towards Personal and National Self-defense.
Working Paper, November 9, 2007
http://davekopel.org/Religion/Evolving-Christian-Attitudes.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.
This article is an analysis of changing Christian attitudes towards defensive violence.
Modern Christian Pacifist Philosophy.
Working Paper, November, 2007
http://davekopel.org/Religion/Pacifism-Kopel.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.
This article examines the strengths and weaknesses of various contemporary Christian pacifist philosophies.
Nice job, Syd.
Thank you.
Thanks for the article. Been wondering about this. Again, Thanks!
1 Timothy 5:8 “If any do not take care of their relatives, especially the members of their own family, they have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever”.
To me, this verse means not only should I take care of my loved one’s physical needs, but their safety. Not only my immediate family, but my brothers in Christ.
Thanks Syd,
You did a great job of putting this into solid Christian perspective. Those outside of our faith have worked hard to twist Biblical teachings into things that are contrary to the nature of God. The Old Testament will back up what you wrote, over and over.
Jeanne Assam is a heroine in my eyes, both for her crystal clear testimony of how a Christian relates to God, her fearless performance of her duty as she recognized it to be, and her fantastic demonstration of why there is a Second Ammendment.
Few of us will ever meet our destiny so straightforward, perform it so well, and explain it so clearly. All on a three day fast. Bravo!
Syd,
Well done, once again! Thank you for putting so many issues into alignment, faith scripture and self defense…
As an aside, it is my understanding that the original commandment in Hebrew actually reads ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder”. If that is so, then during self defense or defending others, the taking of life, if necessary, is not against God’s Commandments.
Joe
hi sid
well done again.
it clears up some of my christian beliefs on personal responsibility..
will send to my preacher friend
Thanks so much for this prospective. A conversation regarding this topic was brought up in my local church today with a fellow security team member. Glad to see others share my beliefs on this topic.
Every war from mans first emergence on the planet to the present time has been fought over differences in opposing sides pantheons of gratuitiously established super-dimensional Gods, bringing about one dark age after another with nothiing but rape, robbery, torture and murder in its wake. (not necessarily in that order) Whenever Atilla (rogue govt) and the Witch Doctors (mystical priesthoods) share power together, the indoctrination/brainwashing resultant therefrom create legions of warped minds incapable of dealing with reality. The illusion that it is possible to escape reality by mumbling incantations to specific pantheons of gods keeps otherwise rational human beings from being concerned with is the fact that man created the Gods (all of them) in his own image..NOT THE REVERSE. The fact that there are scholarly lists of over 50,000 mythological Gods together with the phantasmagoria/fairy tales prevelant today. All based on “faith” not “reason”, thus being as non-discriminatory as possible, I will envite any of them (gods) to lunch, but will bet they will all be “out to lunch” and never show.
Meanwhile, objectivity prevailing, Mythology should not be the subject matter of your website. (in my opinion). 2nd Amendment Rights should be. I recommend Ruth Hermence Green’s “THE BORN AGAIN SKEPTICS GUIDE TO THE BIBLE” for those who think they know something about it, and THE GOD DELUSION by Richard Dawkins if indeed rationality can be turned on long enough to face up to reality.
Any indivdiual who initiates the use of force to violate the inalienable individual right to life and property of any other human being is a terrorist operating outside the province of constitutional rights and should be “removed from the gene pool”. i.e., killled. No exceptions, irrespective of age, race, religion or other human descriptors.
A dead criminal terrorist is a good criminal terrorist.
Dr. Powell,
As much as I respect you and your thought, and it is considerable, I have to say that I resent your characterization of the Christian faith as “mythology” unless, of course, you accept the professional’s definition of myth as a symbol which points beyond itself to an inexpressible reality. It is my sense that you are not using “myth” in this way.
I am a Christian. Most of my readers are Christian. The event that we are discussing here took place in a Christian church and raises difficult questions for Christians as they seek to apply effective security to their gatherings. Hence, I feel that the topic of the Christian understanding of self-defense is perfectly germane, and needs to be discussed.
This morning, I was in church. I was hearing the gospel and celebrating Advent. My .45 was strapped to my hip, and I was dealing with this question in a very real way. Thousands of my readers were struggling with the same issue.
Further, most wars are about money and real estate. Politicians exploit the religious biases of their people to further their wars, but I have yet to see a war that was actually fought over theology.
You talk about “inalienable individual right.” Upon what is that right based? Without faith, without souls, we are just another animal in the jungle. They have no rights, only power and weakness. If you choose not to believe in anything beyond yourself, I respect that, but I refuse to allow you to impose your bleak nihilism on me.
Great article and a great response to Dr. Powell. My Kimber Ultra Carry made the trip to Church with me Sunday also. Stay Safe and God Bless!
Dr. Powell,
One either has faith,or one doesn’t.One either understands faith,or one fears it.Scholarly lists aside,may I suggest trying to understand faith from a believers perspective to enhance your own personal knowledge? I am certain a man of your intellect will easily be able to.You remember,the ability to learn and debate and defend either side of an argument like you must have learned in school,before you come to a potentially flawed or biased judgment.
Blessings
Elle
Syd,
This is the first time I’ve read anything from you and I’m impressed. I was sent this article by one of my regular visitors. Well done! Thoughtful response to the athiest with the doctorate as well!
I have pointed out many times that Jesus Christ did not criticize those who would choose to defend themselves. You are correct when you assert that a “slap on the cheek” was an insult and Jesus was referring to a non-retaliation philosophy solely concerning insults.
Luke 11:21 “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.”
Marc
www.SaveTheGuns.com
Syd,
A very thoughtful and well written response to a very real problem in todays society. We are, as Christians, challenged to search our hearts and the scriptures to find the right answers. I believe you have covered this topic very very well and have drawn the same conclusions I have.
For many years as a police officer and after retirement from that profession I carry a gun to church. I feel that there is nothing wrong with this or is contrary to scriptures by doing so.
In the beginning of my career I felt no need to carry a gun to church. After this nation started having attacks on church congregations during services I began to carry a gun after speaking with my minister and expressing my concerns over this being an action contrary to our faith and the wishes of our church. After an extended meeting in which we looked at the scriptures and praying about it we both came to the same conclusion. That conclusion was that there was nothing wrong with protecting the house of God from those who would attack it.
We live in a time of chaos in this world and protection of the church and those who worship there is not only warranted but unfortunately needed.
Thank you for your insights on this subject.
Phil
An excellent essay.
I see you’re already listed at “Christians Bearing Arms” (http://www.mouseguns.com/cba.htm).
Excellent article Syd!
Thank you.
[…] The Christian Gun Christians Packing Guns […]
People reading “turn the other cheek”, “go another mile also”, and “give him your cloak also” don’t realize that given the cultural mileau they were radically passive-aggressive things to say.
The left hand in that day was used for wiping one’s bottom and therefore not used for anything else (we get the word “sinister” from the Latin word for left if you want to know how strongly people felt about it). Someone striking your right cheek with their right hand meant that they were backhanding you. That was the strike of a superior to an inferior - parents to children, husband to wife, free to slave, Roman to Jew. An openhand slap to the left cheek was a slap between equals. If you then turn to your right so that they cannot strike you backhanded on the cheek, rather only openhanded on the left cheek, you are insisting that you are equal to them.
Roman soldiers were allowed to force a local to carry the soldier’s pack. To prevent abuse this was limited to one mile (one good reason to have mileposts). Soldiers could get severely punished if they forced someone to carry their pack more than a mile. So by carrying an extra mile, the soldier may get punished. If they fear punishment enough, they may have to wrestle it off the local - quite embarrassing for the soldier.
People back then wore two layers. Nudity was considered to shame the person seeing the nudity, not the nude person. Poor people often pawned their outer layer for food for the day. The Law required that the outer layer be returned for the person to sleep in so they could stay warm at night. Sometimes lenders got tired of not getting their money so they would keep the clothes overnight. Jesus says to give them your underwear, also. This shames the lender who is breaking a Torah commandment.
These aren’t pacifist verses. They are subversive. They show Jesus insists on people being treated as equals in God’s eyes.
GREAT article!
Luke 22:35-38, seems to be the definitive passage regarding keeping one safe in troublous circumstances. We also see in Luke 22:48 that the declaration, “shall we,” acknowledges that more than one disciple had swords in their possession and, that the disciples must have understood clearly that His admonishment in Verse 36, was meant to be literal. Jesus could have made the point that only spiritual, and not material weapons were to be used, but He did not make that distinction. Peter did not act within God’s will when he drew his sword, and was rebuked for his impetuosity. The disciple’s swords were meant to protect them and others, from the bandits that lay in wait on the highways and byways of ancient Israel.
Another aspect of self-defense is the implicit command of God in the 6th commandment. Since we are not our own, a creation of God and His property, we do not have the right to allow someone to destroy or injure His property without trying to protect it. Since man has not been given the right to kill or murder another human with simply our own intention, the flip side of “thou shalt not kill(murder),” is thou shalt not allow someone to murder you, or for that matter anyone else, with their own intentions. So we must protect His property. That means to me, that Christian men should be capable at all times of protecting themselves, their families, and other innocent life, with the most up to date weapons available. The sword spoken of in Luke was the Roman gladius, a double edged short sword, which was the most dangerous personal weapon of it’s day. Therefore, if we take the hint, we should likewise, be similarly armed. Used for the defense of your spiritual charges, it becomes a spiritual weapon as well.