Christians Bearing Arms

[Khornet]

Hokkmike,

C.S. Lewis makes the interesting point that some things just are right, and some wrong,period. That is, loving your fellow man is not good because God tells us to do it, but rather it's the other way around: Because God is perfect goodness, the things he tells us to do will always be right things. It's not as if, being all-powerful, He could have decided to command us to be adulterers and murderers, and we would have grown up thinking adultery and murder were right. They are wrong by nature, and God is right by nature, so he tells us to avoid them.

My point is that, while I believe all things in the Bible are right, not all right things are in the Bible. So I don't have to quote chapter and verse to back up my claims. I can only say that if a situation arises in which, by the choice of a bad person, either he or I will die, then it would be a sin on my part to allow my children to be orphaned if I could prevent it. And if the bad guy dies at my hands, it was his own choice and own fault. I don't think I'd be moping around 'haunted' all the time after that. Not saying I'd brag about it, but I would be proud that I had the resolve and skill to do what had to be done.

 

[Roswell 1847]

And if the bad guy dies at my hands, it was his own choice and own fault.

His blood shall be upon him.

 

[mljdeckard]

There is no fundamental tenet of Christianity which teaches you should fail to protect yourself and others from evil, or that it is more noble to die at the hands of evil than to stop it.

 

[fdgroote]

As I am evangelical christian too and living in Belgium (Europe) this subject really is a relief for myself. Many of the others I met at the local church just condemn firearms as 'evil'. (no wonder if you only see weapons related to criminal facts on tv). I struggled a long time with the question "Can I, as a christian, get involved with firearms (for target shooting)? Won't I get seduced to misuse them ...? Thanks a lot for the above postings!

 

[RPCVYemen]

I believe the truest act of a Christian in this situation would be to GIVE his money to the perpetrators. The Bible says (to the effect) that "if somebody demands your cloak give them also your coat".

That's certainly in the Gospels that I read. That's almost word for word.

One of the ironies of history to my mind - and this is aside from any of the divine origin of the message - Jesus came and brought an incredibly revolutionary message involving transcendence of the material, trusting in G-d to provide, etc. Much of how message was about how to live.

His message could not have been more different from the ethos of the Roman Empire - which was about might and majesty.

Within 3 centuries or so, Christian theologians were trying to work out how to act exactly like the Romans - how to build and maintain a material empire. Hence Augustine and the doctrine of Just War.

So an incredibly revolutionary message about how to live is transmuted into a divine justification of "business as usual". Do exactly what the Romans do, but believe in Jesus while you are doing it.

By the way, I am not claiming that Christianity is any better/worse about this than any other religion. Clearly, speaking as a Jew, people find all kinds of ways to justify what they really want to do using Scripture.

I think it's more striking to me when reading the Gospels, because they purport to be the teachings of one man over a relatively short period of time - at least when compared to the Torah which is the often contradictory writings/teachings of a lot of people over a long period of time. So the contrast between the message and and the history is more pronounced.

When the time comes to pass Nations will beat their swords into plowshares, but it does not suggest that beating swords into plowshares is the causation but rather the end result.

Yes - Micah is talking about the coming of the Messiah. Understand that from the point of view of (early) Quaker theology, the Christian Messiah has already come, and we are supposed to live this way now. From Fox's point of view, Jesus's second coming happened more or less as the simple and literal meaning of some of Jesus's words, either three days after his death or very shortly thereafter - certainly within the lifetime of the Apostles. Notice the Micah does not say that Nations will be forced to beat their swords into plowshares. Men will still have free choice. I think that in Fox's view, Christians are supposed to live in the Kingdom of G-d that was brought by the second coming, and to call others to live in he Kingdom of G-d. For Fox, that meant living in the world Micah describes and calling other to live in that world.

From that point of view, killing another human being, even in "self defense" is stepping out of the Kingdom of G-d - as described by Micah, to "answer" someone living outside the Kingdom of G-d. "Sin answering sin", as some earlier posted called it. From Fox's point of view, you were to remain in the Kingdom of G-d, even if that meant dying, and call your attacker to live in the Kingdom of G-d.

Just as a matter of historical fact, early Quakers did accept prison and martyrdom in fairly impressive numbers, rather than "pick up the sword."

I understand that you don't accept this theology, and neither do I. But it is important to understand that living as Micah is not causative - it is the choice to live in the Kingdom of G-d available in Earth today. Either Fox or Woolman posed the question, "Christ has come to teach his people himself. Will you be the first to join in the Kingdom of G-d or the last?"

I do have a question for posters. While there have been pacifist Christians almost since the beginning of the religion, I don't know of any major streams of pacifism in Judaism. Jews, as far as I know, have been compelled to struggle against evil with whatever weapons we have. I now that there have been limitations on actions in way, but I haven't heard of any fundamental objection to violence.

If that's the case, then the most likely cause (to my mind) is that Jews haven't developed any streams of pacifist thinking because they have not had temporal power since 70 AD. It appears to me that is is only after a religion assumes temporal power - and then wages war - that pacifism develops in that religion.

Does anyone know of any Jewish school of thought that rejects the right to physical self defense?

Mike

 

[eagle45]

As a Christian, I always find threads on this topic interesting. It's good to see this one has remained open for so long.

A few months ago, my pastor and I were traveling to a men's weekend retreat. I was driving and as we drove the topic of firearms came up. He is aware that I carry and began asking a few questions in regard to weapon type, caliber, difference between bullets and cartridges, reloading etc. Finally he asked the question "How often do you carry", to which I replied "As often as I can, wherever I can legally carry." After a couple more questions, he was still a little surprised to find I was carrying even then as we traveled. This opened the door for a lot of good conversation about carrying from a Christian's perspective. He is very pro RKBA, even though he is not into guns himself. He informed me just a couple of weeks ago, that after our conversation he has decided to get his CCW and asked about going to the range with me to try out a few different handguns.

I've never been able to see the scriptures as teaching a completely pacifist philosophy. I believe the idea of defense of self and family can fall under 'being a good steward' of what God provides.

If I were to accept that I should do nothing to protect myself or my loved ones when forced to, then I would be accepting that whatever evil came about was God's will for me or them. With this belief there would be no reason to be prepared to act. Of course this also ignores the idea of free will. Men have been given free will and can act on that to whatever end they choose, from their own spiritual decisions to the decision to attempt to do harm to others.

On the other hand, if I believe that God expects me to be a good steward of all he has given me, being prepared to defend myself or my family only makes sense and going armed is the most practical means of doing that for me. Men are told in the scriptures to "love your wives even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." Doing nothing when harm comes our way does not seem to fit within the framework of this verse.

Defending myself falls under the same category of being a good steward, if I am to be around to care for my wife and family.

Another aspect of Christians and self defense is the idea that carrying in church is wrong. Of course the recent events in the news may have changed the opinions of many people about this. I've heard this presented in the past many times that a person who carries in church just doesn't have faith that God can protect him/her while they are there. If I accept that God can protect me there (and He can), should I not also accept that He can protect me everywhere else also? (again, He can). However it appears that God chooses not to do this in a fallen world - once again the free will thing that He does not violate.

I usually suggest to those with this belief that they should promptly cancel all car insurance, health coverage, life insurance, close all bank accounts and investments to show they truly do trust God to completely protect them in every aspect of their life. Haven't had any takers yet.

I hope I never have to use a weapon to take a life, but if I do, my prayer is that God will give me the presence of mind to think clearly and act quickly.

 

[Wildfire]

Got to go with the gun.

Hey there:
All I can say is , Lord help me shoot straight if and when I need to .