Wednesday, February 6, 2013

GOD, GUNS & GUTS. 2

When I published my post GOD, GUNS & GUTS, I didn't know what to expect as far as comments.  I supposed that either I would receive a few negative comments or that those who disagree with me would simply ignore it.  When I received only 3 comments (all positive), I assumed the latter.  (I received no death threats.)  But then finally, after nearly a month, I received the following:

"You stated 'What bothers me is men who hold their pro-gun positions claim to be followers of Christ.' This seems judgmental, and also speaking where God does not. Our God Does advocate violence when appropriate. He told his disciples to buy a sword, made sure Peter had one handy (which he did). Old Testament is full of God commanding violence, much of it to protect his people from sin. Violence 4 the sake of pride? No! Violence 2 protect others? He was pretty violent in the temple if you remember. Do you think Jesus would have let his mom b raped & told her don't resist? Is self defense discouraged n the Bible. Remember in the law, if you struck someone in the night when they broke into your home, there was no life for life. It was considered justified. A gun allows the week to protect themselves from the strong IF they choose to."

As it contained a few questions as well as an accusation and much of it involved some misunderstanding of biblical interpretation, I felt I needed to reply to the remarks.

-- First of all the claim that my statement quoted above seems judgmental.  Well yes, I guess it did seem judgmental.  But I followed it with a series of rhetorical questions basically questioning how this could be.  I condemned no one.

--The claim that I was "speaking where God does not" could be used of your comment as well.  I don't presume to speak for God where God hasn't spoken.  But I believe He has.  I believe we find a non-violent, non-retaliatory ethic throughout the New Testament, especially in the words of Jesus.

-- I agree that the "Old Testament is full of God commanding violence."  Violence was even one of the methods for furthering God's Kingdom.  However, as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am not under the Old Covenant and Jesus makes it clear that the Old Covenant is not binding on me.  I have felt uncomfortable with the violence promoted there.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye' and 'a tooth for a tooth.'  But I (Jesus) am telling you, don't withstand the evil, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him also the other."  (Matthew 5:38, 39)

"...James and John said, 'Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?'  But Jesus turned and rebuked them and said, 'You don't know of what Spirit you are ...'"  (Luke 9:54, 55)

--I admit that the story about Jesus telling His disciples to buy a sword still baffles me, but if we look at the events following, it seems reasonably clear that the sword was not to be used on another human being (and there were only two swords for the whole group, not each one packing).
 
"And He said to them, 'When I sent you out without bag and purse and sandals, you didn't lack anything did you?'  And they said, 'Nothing.'  And He said to them, but now the one who has a bag should take it, likewise also a purse, and he who doesn't have one should sell his garment and buy a sword.'  ...And they said, 'Lord look, here are two swords.'  And He said to them, 'it's enough!'"  (Luke 22:35, 36, 38)

"Then they (the mob) came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.  And one of those with Jesus reached out his hand, drew his sword, struck the servant of the High Priest and severed his ear.  Then Jesus says to him, 'Put your sword back in its place.  For all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.'"  (Matthew 26:50-52)

--Yes, Jesus got pretty violent in the temple when He chased out the money changers.  But I don't read where He did physical harm to anyone, and I don't understand your apparent implication that he did this to protect others.

-- As far as whether "Jesus would have let His mom be raped," that's one of those questions like how would Jesus vote?  (Democrat or Republican?)  Or what would Jesus drive?  (A pickup or a Prius?)  Or would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show?  Pure speculation.

As I assumed I made clear, I have no quarrel with guns per se.  As far as my own experience with guns, I grew up around guns.  Many in my family and neighborhood hunted or collected guns.  I fired guns many times though I never hunted.  As a Marine (Reservist) the only medal I ever received was when I qualified as a Marksman on the rifle range (which every Marine did or else received a large boot inserted forcefully in his anus).  Of course, the first gun I owned as a boy was my Red Ryder BB gun.

I write as a follower of Jesus Christ; as such I must build my ethics on His teaching  and example, not on the claims of the NRA, nor on the Old Testament Law of Moses, nor on some eclectic arbitrary mix of these and other systems.

I realize that I'm not there yet.  My questions in the post under discussion were based on what I perceive as the incompatibility between a Christian ethic and the pro-gun position.  I'm still awaiting answers from those who claim to hold both positions at the same time.

14 comments:

Trent said...

Hi Bill, thanks for posting my response and responding so politely. :) , and since I was in a rush, I will try and be a bit more clear and descriptive and maybe even have you agree on at least a few of my points. :) Thank you for also clarifying your position and perhaps I am not sure what you mean when you say "pro-gun" I had not understood your question of "how can a Christian be progun" to be rhetorical, and I apologize. I think if a Christian can be "pro-football, pro-knives, or pro coffee, they can be pro-gun just as easily and without sin, where as a Christian who was pro porn would not be walking with the Lord. I am going to try and explain my points more fully below. Oh.. and I also do not believe that God and Guns are ties together anymore then God and food.
You said "-- First of all the claim that my statement quoted above seems judgmental. Well yes, I guess it did seem judgmental. But I followed it with a series of rhetorical questions basically questioning how this could be. I condemned no one. " -- I realize I misunderstood and I apologize.

--The claim that I was "speaking where God does not" could be used of your comment as well. I don't presume to speak for God where God hasn't spoken. But I believe He has. I believe we find a non-violent, non-retaliatory ethic throughout the New Testament, especially in the words of Jesus. -- I am saying that if something is not prohibitited or tied to something else Commmanded against, then we should assume we are under Grace. No where is there the slightest clue that God is against guns in general anymore then he is against swords, knives, slings hammers or any other tool."

-- I agree that the "Old Testament is full of God commanding violence." Violence was even one of the methods for furthering God's Kingdom. However, as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am not under the Old Covenant and Jesus makes it clear that the Old Covenant is not binding on me. I have felt uncomfortable with the violence promoted there. -- Fair enough, but my point is to remind us, that it is the same God, and thus violence is obviously appropriate at times.
--"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye' and 'a tooth for a tooth.' But I (Jesus) am telling you, don't withstand the evil, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him also the other." (Matthew 5:38, 39) --- This brings you back to your point above. I agree that Jesus taught a non violent retaliation... however, we are talking prevention. The example here is obviously after the fact and striking you on the cheek is not even close to stabbing you, breaking into your home to rape your wife and daughters etc. As a father, it is my duty to take care of my family.

"...James and John said, 'Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?' But Jesus turned and rebuked them and said, 'You don't know of what Spirit you are ...'" (Luke 9:54, 55) Again, Jesus does not teach retaliation, I agree. This was not a self defense issue.

Trent said...

--I admit that the story about Jesus telling His disciples to buy a sword still baffles me, but if we look at the events following, it seems reasonably clear that the sword was not to be used on another human being (and there were only two swords for the whole group, not each one packing).

"And He said to them, 'When I sent you out without bag and purse and sandals, you didn't lack anything did you?' And they said, 'Nothing.' And He said to them, but now the one who has a bag should take it, likewise also a purse, and he who doesn't have one should sell his garment and buy a sword.' ...And they said, 'Lord look, here are two swords.' And He said to them, 'it's enough!'" (Luke 22:35, 36, 38) Bill, would do you assume that it should not be used on a person? Perhaps it is a prevention, much like guns are effective in preventing crimes many times because most criminals are cowards, but to assume it was not to be used when it was important en ough to sell clothing to buy I think is a bit much. If it is ok to defend or protect someone with your hands, a stick, a hammer or another tool, why would a knife or a gun not be appropriate as well?

"Then they (the mob) came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him. And one of those with Jesus reached out his hand, drew his sword, struck the servant of the High Priest and severed his ear. Then Jesus says to him, 'Put your sword back in its place. For all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" (Matthew 26:50-52)
Now this is one I am a bit baffled with. Matt 5:38-39 references how stern the law will be in the coming kingdom and Matthew does focus on the kingdom truths, but I am confused here. We know that all who take the sword, do not die by the sword, and in fact, not even all who live by the sword die by the sword. What we do know, is he did not command him not to be used, and based on the next part where he clearly states that he could have Angels rescue him if that was what he wanted, and he could have said "don't use your sword on people". I think the context has to do more with martyrdom, then a general principle of pacifism. I would welcome further discussion on this verse though.

--Yes, Jesus got pretty violent in the temple when He chased out the money changers. But I don't read where He did physical harm to anyone, and I don't understand your apparent implication that he did this to protect others.
He was protecting people from the predations of the pharisees as well as the corruption in their worship. My point is that again, there is a place for violence. Remember David and Goliath? David protected Isreal from his enemies with personal combat.

Trent said...

-- As far as whether "Jesus would have let His mom be raped," that's one of those questions like how would Jesus vote? (Democrat or Republican?) Or what would Jesus drive? (A pickup or a Prius?) Or would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show? Pure speculation. My opinion is he wouldn't vote for either.. to much corruption in both. :) (thats my opinion only of course) I think its a lot different, because this is about his character that he has revealed, and the laws that he set up in the Old Testament. Remember, you are referencing retaliation and revenge in the passages quoted, not prevention. If you could prevent a rape or a murder, and do nothing, are you not party to it? You did not reference my point about the law in the old testament not giving a penalty for striking a person who enters your home at night even if you kill them.

As I assumed I made clear, I have no quarrel with guns per se. As far as my own experience with guns, I grew up around guns. Many in my family and neighborhood hunted or collected guns. I fired guns many times though I never hunted. As a Marine (Reservist) the only medal I ever received was when I qualified as a Marksman on the rifle range (which every Marine did or else received a large boot inserted forcefully in his anus). Of course, the first gun I owned as a boy was my Red Ryder BB gun.

Thank you, I did not understand that, and as a Marine myself, Semper Fi.

I write as a follower of Jesus Christ; as such I must build my ethics on His teaching and example, not on the claims of the NRA, nor on the Old Testament Law of Moses, nor on some eclectic arbitrary mix of these and other systems. Agreed, and I appreciate your friendly and respectful discussion. In this case, since we are discussing something Jesus does not discuss directly, i.e. self defense it takes a bit more work.

I realize that I'm not there yet. My questions in the post under discussion were based on what I perceive as the incompatibility between a Christian ethic and the pro-gun position. I'm still awaiting answers from those who claim to hold both positions at the same time. I guess I do, though I do not hold them as equal or intertwined to the degree that many may.

Grace and Truth!
Trent

Bill Ball said...

Trent: You said a lot here and I don't really feel like carrying on this discussion much further, except to say the following 2 things.
First, Old Testament illustrations of violence (i.e., David & Goliath) are not a valid argument for justifying violence for the New Covenant believer. We who follow Jesus Christ are not under the Old Covenant. The Old Testament at times commanded the use of violence, even genocide. This is not God's way with His New Covenant people! "You are not under Law but under grace."
Secondly, your argument about "protection." If this is as important a matter as you contend, why is the New Testament silent on it? In fact, the only 2 passages that I can find which address the issue are the 2 mentioned in this post (Mt.5:38, 39 and Mt. 26:50-52) which clearly seem to be forbidding it.
It might interest you to know that for nearly 2000 years, the followers of Jesus have had a history of non-resistance. It is those times when they have taken up arms in "defense of the faith" (or themselves) that religious wars have resulted and brought shame to the cause of Christ.
'Nuff said!

Canadian Atheist said...

I kind of agree with Trent. The OT is especially violent and it seems a whole different god in the NT. Funny how that is. God obviously didn't have a hard time with mass genocide, slavery or rape in the OT. God is supposedly unchanging, so why would it be much different? Jesus also said he came to fulfill the law, not do away with it.

Trent actually has you in the grips of the evil argument and I find your responses sort of disappointing, Bill. It's like you're saying 'well that was the OT but the NT is way different and nicer so we'll go with that'.

Bill Ball said...

CA: To some extent I have to agree with you. I believe that every person who honestly wants to follow Jesus has to struggle with the picture of God as violent in the OT and its contrast with the picture of His Son in the NT. I believe we have discussed these issues in the past (Religion and Violence 1/9/12).
I have no simple answers though you may read some of my thoughts in the following posts: Violence in the OT 1/28/09, Smite My Enemies 7/23/10, Is God Violent? 12/31/10.
I always appreciate your comments. Keep them coming.

Bill Ball said...

A friend e-mailed this to me this morning:

Hi Bill.

I have a pistol at home. I took it from my father. He was threatening suicide and we were struggling over the gun. My hand was wrapped around the barrel when it was fired and my fingers were slightly burned. All of my attitudes towards guns go back to this moment.

I am on travel this week. Last night in the hotel, after reading your post I stumbled on the website "godandgunspodcast.com". I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was.

Sometimes I think the two people making the most sense are you and Canadian Atheist. That may seem a bit comical to most. The respectful way you treat each other makes me respect each of you even more.

I hope you are well. If you think any of this adds to the responses, feel free to add it, just leave my name off.

Canadian Atheist said...

That was incredibly nice of your friend to say. Thank you. I sincerely like Bill's blog. It makes me think, which is always a good thing. I think if Bill and I were to get together, we'd have a great conversation. It just shows that whether you're religious or non-religious, we're all still people. It's possible to disagree with one another (even vehemently) and still remain respectful in tone.

Thank you again. :)

Bill Ball said...

CA: I'd like to take you up on that. Where in Canada are you? I have family in Michigan and get up there often.

Canadian Atheist said...

That would be awesome, Bill. I live in London, Ontario. Not too far from the border. I'd love to get together for a coffee, supper, drink (not sure if you enjoy a beverage or not) or whatever you have in mind. It would be a blast!

Bill Ball said...

CA: We should be up sometime this summer. Will get in touch with you once we know when. You can e-mail me your phone number.

Trent said...

Hi Bill. Again, I appreciate your willingness to discuss, and admit when you don't have answers. I have been there before as well, but its never easy. I concur we are not under the old Covenant, and quote the Old Testament only to demonstrate the Character of God which is unchanging. If self defense was valid in his eyes then, and not now, I would assume clarification in the New.. I again would like to admit that resistance for Christianity is not what I am discussing. I believe being a Martyr has a reward, but not sure resisting is the same as sin. Again scripture does not apeak. I will say that even 2000 yrs of tradition cannot speak for scripture. For much of that same time, the Catholic Church ruled with many traditions that are not Biblical. With what we know of God's character, and Christ's command to sell the cloak and buy a sword I don't think its silent, but we have to make our decision based on what we know in all of scripture. Perhaps pacifism is acceptable. Perhaps even if you can prevent evil and choose not to, its a personal choice, or perhaps both answers are ok. I would like to ask a few questions. If you were walking down the street in the evening, and you saw a man raping a woman in the alley, and he had a knife. What would be an appropriate action in your opinion? If you would say something but not act, assume he tells you to get lost. What if it was your daughter in your home? Do you truly believe that Violence is never appropriate? Should all police stop carrying weapons for the same reason? If you saw a person in front of you running towards a group of kids on a play ground with a machette, Would you act? What about after he begins killing children? Would you truly walk away and believe you were doing right? Would you tackle him violently and think you were sinning? These are honest questions and I hope something you will consider even if you choose not to answer or post this. Thanks again, I really enjoy both your blog, and the great mix of people you have participating.

Grace and Truth
Trent

Bill Ball said...

Trent, though I appreciate your comments, I suspect that you and I are looking at these issues from two different viewpoints and talking past each other. For where I'm coming from, see POST #201, 7/13/10, and POST #300, 4/24/12. Also see MARTYRS, 2/14/12).

Trent said...

In regards to martyrs and martyrdom, I think we probably agree. I would not say for sure that it is sin to fight to avoid martyrdom, however I would definitely say there goes the reward. But I think you would agree that if someone breaks into my house, and I allow him to kill him and/or my family, that does not qualify as martyrdom. As for the post in 2010, I agree with your conclusion but disagree that it prohibits self defense. Hate should have nothing to do with self defense. We are called to love our enemies.. and love our wife as well. We are also to love the brethren too. If I can, I choose to do business with believers first. I would choose the life of my wife or children over the life of a criminal. If you could allow someone to rape and kill your wife with out acting because to you it would be a sin to resist, I respect that. Even if I believed it was right, I am not sure I am that strong. I do respect your right to disagree with me on this issue, but wanted to let you know I did check out those posts, and they were well done as your others I have read so far. :)