Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Christianity and Guns
This post is prompted by a post suggested to me by a friend.
The post is titled “The Kingdom of God Has No Guns,” which for Catholics and at least LCMS Lutherans, seems to be starting with an error. We believe that the Kingdom of God is here, present today and has been since Christ’s coming to die for our sins. Not completely here, but through the coming of Christ, it is present, and as Colossians 1:16-18 states:
16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
So, we are in the Kingdom, Christ is in everything, and the Kingdom has all manner of weapons, including guns and even nuclear weapons.
If a Christian desires to be a pacifist, not own guns, swords or clubs, that is certainly fine, but it may also be mere virtue signaling — Wow! I see Christians have disarmed! I think I’ll be a Christian!
It helps to understand the proper translation of “Thou shalt not kill” in Exodus 20:13, which is “thou shalt not MURDER” … so self-defense, war, etc. do not break the sixth commandment. Christians are not commanded to be conscientious objectors.
While the post tries to convince us that many Christians “worship guns,” this is disingenuous. Yes, many Christians falsely worship wealth, fame, pleasure, etc., as false gods, but very few put “guns before God.” Until the start of widely publicized selective shootings, sometimes in schools, guns were just another physical object. Any problem with the use of a gun was due to the user, not the gun.
A basic question here is, why does the left and the government (but I repeat myself) want to disarm the population? As history has shown in Nazi Germany, the USSR, the PRC, etc., an unarmed population is MUCH preferable for authoritarian control. As we saw in the test case of Covid, government naturally seeks to be authoritarian, and as Obama famously said about the rural Rust Belt people, “They cling to their guns or religion …” As we see in every totalitarian state, you need to get rid of the guns, and then you can get rid of religion (a prime threat to totalitarianism).
The 2nd Amendment is about protection from the government, not hunting or even self-defense. The 2nd Amendment provides the teeth for preserving the rest … freedom of speech (now under direct attack) and freedom of religion (under not-so-subtle attack) being of special interest here. Quote from the prompting post:
And here’s the provocative part: as Christians, we cannot continue to pretend that gun ownership for self-defense is a neutral act, a personal choice without spiritual consequence. Every gun kept in our homes is a declaration of distrust in the Prince of Peace. Each firearm is a refusal to live as if the kingdom of God has broken into the world, where the lamb lies down with the lion, and swords are beaten into plowshares. When we choose to own guns, we are tacitly aligning ourselves with the powers of death and violence.
Guns are a tool, and like all tools, they provide leverage. If self-defense is a natural right, why would it be denied to women and weaker men? Certainly, if you are willing to disarm and trust God to ensure the government won’t start killing Jews and Christians, no criminal will break into your house and kill you and your family, which may make you feel more Christian. If so, certainly going the way of Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witness, or the Pentecostal faiths and refusing medical care would make an even stronger statement. Why is taking advantage of modern medicine not a declaration of distrust in God?
God gave us the ability to make and use many technologies. Around 100K people a year die from a fentanyl OD in the US, yet fentanyl is also an important painkiller (my wife needed it for spinal surgery). Open borders increase the flow of illegal fentanyl into the country, however, most of the people concerned about gun violence are either unconcerned or in favor of open borders.
The Pope himself has declared that “repelling migrants is a grave sin.” The Vatican must be packed to the rafters with migrants—I’m amazed that has not gotten more coverage! If you can’t trust the Pope to follow his own teachings, “Is the Pope Catholic?” doesn’t have an easy answer.
The lamb lying down with the lion and swords being beaten into plowshares is obviously after the SECOND coming of Christ. A lamb lying down with a lion today is even less sensible than Christians vowing to be unarmed. Like the lamb lying down next to the lion, Christians declaring that they do not have guns makes them a target. Criminals LOVE knowing that their intended victims are unarmed. That is why “No Guns Allowed” signs should say “No Guns Allowed (for law abiding citizens).”
Luke 22:36: “Then said he unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Did Christ just not mean that part, or was it like the left’s statement on the 2nd amendment … “he didn’t say GUNS!”
I find it strange that a society that kills babies, denies the existence of God, judgment, eternal damnation and is riddled with broken families, abuse of children and addiction (both apparently the case with the Georgia shooter) is “surprised” that there are school shootings. While taken out of context and magnified all out of proportion, the alleged JD Vance statement that “school shootings are a fact of life” is unfortunately true in today’s broken society. When many in the country celebrate the killing of babies for convenience, the declaration of “no morals” could not be clearer. As our national slide to total depravity continues, I expect bombings that kill 100s and probably gassing, arson, and violence I can’t yet imagine, a school shooting will be made as newsworthy as a drunk driver killing a few unfamous people.
As the post points out, school shootings came to the forefront after Jonesboro and Columbine, and along with mass shootings, trended upward since. Why?
I’m sure there are a ton of factors, but the availability of guns is almost certainly a minor one. Young black men are 20x as likely to die of gun violence than young white men. It seems unlikely that blacks have more guns than whites. Black street culture is different than white. July 4th weekend this year in Chicago, 109 were shot, 19 fatally. Is the fact that we generally don’t know that somehow “racist,” or might it be political? It is possibly not newsworthy because numbers slightly less than that are common for Chicago. Do we think the gang bangers are going to give up their guns? Do we care as much about the Black Chicago lives as we do white school kids, or do we just follow the media narrative, and feel what we are told to think/feel?
So, if some Christians are convinced that being a Christian and having a gun is not compatible, it is a free country at the present. Nobody is forcing gun ownership as they do in Israel and Switzerland. As long as we keep the 2nd amendment, we are likely to remain at least somewhat free. Joe Biden may believe you need F-16s and nuclear weapons to challenge the US government taking your guns, but Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have not been “big wins” even with us having those assets. It may make some feel virtuous to be unarmed, but pleading that you are a filthy sinner and seeking forgiveness is much more Christian than feeling virtuous because of some work you may have done or not done.
Published in Guns
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members.
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 25 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
I used to live in western New York state. I now live in north Texas, but still participate in a Zoom group of men that started meeting 24 years ago at the Christian church which we all then attended. Almost all of those guys are of the opinion that no one, especially a Christian, should own a gun. During a discussion group at the church when I still attended that church, the discussion group organized by people who thought guns should be banned, I kept asking why, as Christians, we were focusing on the tool (the gun) rather than the spirit that provoked people to use the tool in evil ways. I never got an answer that satisfied me. Shouldn’t we the church be focused on bringing Christ to people so that they are guided by the Holy Spirit rather than the world (flesh) in however they use whatever tool is at their disposal? But so many of the people insisted on remaining focused on the tool rather than the spirit that drives the use of the tool.
I generally try to avoid arguments when the guys still in the group express the idea that guns are inherently bad. But their inability or refusal to see that guns are merely a tool, a tool that can be used for good or for evil (recognizing that we still live in a world dominated by sin), amazes me.
[Side note – at our weekly all-church dinner last Wednesday (again, north Texas), the people at my table had a discussion about discouraging venomous snakes on their properties, including by the use of guns.]
As to the linked articles assertion about near-worship of guns, I would suggest that the very vehemence of the “anti-gun” people might be the reason “pro-gun” people feel obliged to defend the reasonableness of having guns.
Maybe if the “anti-gun” people became less obsessed with taking guns away, people who have guns would appear less obsessed with preserving their ability to retain those guns.
OK, let’s suppose Christians unilaterally disarm. Jesus allowed himself to be killed by the Roman authorities. That may seem like the right thing for ourselves.
Allowing ourselves to be abused or killed is one thing.
But is it “loving our neighbor” to stand by while Satan’s agents abuse or kill our sister, our mother, our daughter, our literal neighbor?Did our sister, our mother, our daughter, our neighbor sign up for that?
Suppose we don’t have a gun, but we’re an “in-shape” 220 pound man. Do we do anything when a smaller man attacks our sister, our mother, our daughter, or our neighbor?
Anyone who who gives up self-protection for any reason is an idiot.
Rom.8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God…” What? If they are murdered they didn’t love God? (Or maybe “all” doesn’t really mean “all”.)
And is there no accountability for our educational system? Our governmental system? Our political system?
Sorry I missed this! Absotively, posolutely! Sort of like – you know, swords?
Prior to his departure for boot camp, my son was asked to deliver a reading at church. He reminded the congregation of Psalm 144:
Besides, I have it on unimpeachable authority that the streets of heaven are guarded by United States Marines. Or as my son says, “Crap duty even after death.”
We Catholics lay claim to a patron saint of handguns:
https://taylormarshall.com/2014/02/patron-saint-of-handguns-meet-st-gabriel-possenti.html
It may be out of context, but Joel 3:10 says:
Beat your plowshares into swords And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, “I am strong.”
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…. the one is intended, the other is not”.
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…. Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.
A side note on 2265-“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life”. This includes parents protecting their children or/and children of another family.
Serious question from non-Christian. Would Christ use his meaty carpenter arms to defend his Mom or another woman from a violent attacker?
Absolutely. Honor thy mother and father is the 4th of the Ten Commanments.
“The Lion and Lamb shall lie down together, but the Lamb ain’t gonna get much sleep.” Can’t remember where I first heard that.
Christ violently destroyed property and used a whip to drive animals out of the temple. He might have fired a few shots into the air if he’d had a handgun instead. Just sayin’.
I disrespect pacifist men who have no means of protecting their families. If the price of your virtue is the rape and murder of women and children, what good are you?
What a stupid statement. No, every gun kept in our homes is a declaration of distrust in the evil men we live among, and especially in the concentrated power of government. These pacifist Christians would have us as lambs led to the slaughter. We already have a Sacrificial Lamb, thank you very much.
Since Christians believe Christ is God, his options are infinite. I have no way of fathoming what God would do (other than die for me and give me the gift of eternal life), he could arrange so the violent attacker ceased to exist, as in the egg that became him was never fertilized. We have no clue about the power to create a universe.
Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.
Good comment. But I’m not sure about the “crap duty” line. Heck, I’ll happily clean the sh1++ers if Ol St. Pete lets me through the Pearly Gates.
Christ told his followers to arm themselves.
Amen
I was going to write a comment until I saw your better words.
Perhaps, in this context, proficiency in arms can be regarded as a corollary virtue: Few will find themselves in situations where violence is necessary to protect the innocent, but those who are unprepared will be unable to adequately perform that duty.
I just re-read the linked post. On second reading the shallowness of the thinking behind the post is even more striking than it was the first time I read it.
Yes, we are to live the Kingdom of God in the here and now. The Kingdom of God is not just for the future. But as discussed frequently in letters by Paul, we still live in a world dominated by Satan
Presumably in the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21 and 22, from which Satan and his angels and effects have been banished, and so is full of light and in which there is no more death or mourning or crying or pain, after the old order has passed away, there will be only good, and defensive tools will not be needed. But while we get glimpses of the New Jerusalem, for now we live the Kingdom of God in a world still dominated by the old order.
It’s difficult to figure out how to live the Kingdom of God in a fallen world. Just this morning I taught an adult Sunday School class on the many complications presented by the story of King Saul (first king of Israel) chasing David (designated to become the second king of Israel, but not yet on the throne) around the countryside (I Samuel 18 – 31), complications around what actions were appropriate and “right” to undertake consistent with God’s stated objectives, and what actions and opportunities should be declined.
Some groups teach that living the Kingdom of God and “trusting Jesus” means forgoing modern medical treatments. At least some individuals say taking precautions like wearing a seat belt when we drive a car or wearing protective gear when riding a motorcycle is not trusting in God. And so forth.
Presumably if personal defense of ourselves, our family, our neighbor, or even the nearby stranger, is not trusting in the Prince of Peace, then so is group defense through a police force or a military. We should allow malicious politicians, violent gangs, or empires that seek to rule us to just waltz in and have their ways. Does the author consider “loving our enemies” mean idly (or maybe enthusiastically) giving in to their every wish?
Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” is challenging, and many of the early church fathers did so at great cost to themselves, their families, and their loved ones, and those sacrifices seem to have actually helped the Gospel spread. But other records suggest we are not supposed to merely lay down and cede the world and its people to the most violent and hateful people.
Living the Kingdom of God and following the Prince of Peace in the here and now in a world that is still fallen and broken is not as simplistically clear as the author seems to think it is.
Our “liberal conservative” pastor many years ago explained this passage very differently than the pacifists would have us believe:
There’s significance in being slapped on the right cheek. A right-handed person will slap someone on the right cheek with the back of his hand. This was culturally less offensive than an open-handed slap would have been on the left cheek. So when Jesus says, “turn the other cheek” it’s more of a challenge to the offender. It’s a statement that such is my dignity as a child of God that no matter how you mistreat me, it will not diminish me. Here I stand (in faith), I can do no other.
In Texas parlance it’s similar to Come and Take It.
It reminds me of the old joke about the Christian whose house was threatened by flooding. Once the water is up to his front porch his neighbors paddle up in a canoe to evacuate him. He waves them off saying, “God will provide.”
The flooding reaches the second story of his home where he shelters in the bedroom. First responders pull up to the window in a motor boat and encourage him to get in. He refuses saying, “God will provide.”
Finally he ends up on the roof of his home as the flood waters rage around him. A National Guard helicopter appears and drops a tethered harness to pick him up. He yells above the noise, “God will provide!” and refuses the help.
Finally he is overcome and drowns. When he makes it to heaven, he asks St. Peter, “Why did God let me drown? I had faith He would provide!”
St. Peter responds, “He sent your neighbors in a canoe, first responders in a motor boat, and a National Guard helicopter crew! What more help were you waiting for??“
God has common sense. It’s too bad so many of His children are lacking it.
According to some, a proper interpretation is that this advice applied to minor offenses and was not intended to apply to serious assault. (And what else might Luke 22:36 mean?)
That story hit close. Years ago, I was visiting my family in Kentucky and decided to stop by the “paint shop” to check on the old boys I had worked with to get enough money to pay tuition before I made my escape. One was missing and I was told that he had died a horrible death from cancer. He was praying that God would cure him and refused to let the doctors do their job.
Terribly sad. But, we can hope he made it far enough to hear St. Peter’s rebuke. Now get in here, you stubborn idiot!