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 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
God, Guns, and the Washington Post
The Washington Post has a piece up by Rob Schenck, which argues that you cannot be pro-life and pro-gun. Schenck has observed that his fellow evangelical Christians are some of the biggest supporters of gun rights. He believes this must change, and has assembled a number of terrible arguments in support of his position.
While I would normally prefer to ignore such a low quality piece, it has become apparent that many Christians hold similar views, and interpret the Bible as a document of pacifism. Like Saint Nicholas, I have come to chew bubblegum and punch heretics, and I’m fresh out of bubblegum.
Schenck writes:
For most of my adult life, I agreed. I believed that we had a God-given right to defend ourselves. I also believed that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, and that anyone should be able to obtain a gun.
I sense a “but” coming.
Then, I saw the after-effects of gun violence firsthand. In Pennsylvania, I visited the families of five murdered Amish schoolgirls, as well as the family of the shooter. And I watched as a mass shooting unfolded at the Washington Navy Yard, across from where I lived at the time. These experiences, followed by careful theological and moral reflection, left me convinced that my family of faith is wrong on guns.
Schenck spends surprisingly few words attempting to make a truly biblical critique of the right to self-defense. He prefers to make vague and ephemeral statements, which carry no real meaning when analyzed, but sound compassionate and reasonable if you are busy making a grocery list while taking them in. A rather large helping of strawmen round out his rhetorical style.
But I disagree with my community’s wholesale embrace of the idea that anyone should be able to buy a gun. For one thing, our commitment to the sanctity of human life demands that we err on the side of reducing threats to human life.
Since no serious Second Amendment advocates argue for violent felons to be legally allowed to purchase guns, we will pass right over this first sentence. I can agree that we should “err on the side of reducing threats to human life,” but how shall we accomplish this? Surely not by reducing the amount of privately owned firearms.
Additionally, anyone using a gun for defense must be ready to kill. Such a posture is antithetical to the term “evangelical,” which refers to the “evangel,” or gospel. The gospel begins with God’s love for every human, and calls on Christians to be more Christ-like. At no time did Jesus use deadly force. Although he once allowed his disciples to defend themselves with “a sword,” that permission came with a limitation on the number of weapons they could possess.
This is a particularly delicious paragraph, as it contradicts itself quite openly. After claiming that a willingness to kill in self-defense is antithetical to the teachings of the gospel, Schenck goes on to admit that Jesus told His disciples to carry swords. Presumably, anyone using a sword for self-defense must be ready to kill. Such a posture, by definition, cannot be antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.
Schenck’s attempt to make an argument that Jesus was pro-sword control is also rather hilarious. There is no limit placed on the numbers of swords the apostles were told they could carry. After Jesus told them to buy swords, they happily pointed out that they already had two.
They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:38, NASB)
That Schenck interprets this as a limitation on the number of weapons that people should own is laughable. Thankfully, Jesus never ate at an Olive Garden or else Schenck might have interpreted the amount of grated cheese that Jesus allowed to fall on His plate before saying “enough” as the limit that any human being should consume at a meal.
Numerous Bible passages, such as Exodus 22:2-3, strictly limit the use of deadly force. Unfortunately, too many evangelicals ignore this.
Stealing a line from Ricochet’s own James of England, I was not aware that evangelicals had elevated the film Mad Max 2: Beyond Thunderdome to the level of scripture. Does Schenck really believe that most evangelicals don’t think there are strict limits on the use of deadly force? Is he capable of confronting real arguments, or merely caricatures of his ideological opponents?
To me, turning from Christian to secular sources on a paramount moral question indicates a failure in faith. The words of Cruz, Palin and Falwell seem to contradict those of Jesus Christ, who commands believers to “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.”
Let us turn then to Christian sources to answer the questions at hand. Christianity is not a religion of pacifism. Arguments to the contrary are simply wrong.
There is no doubt that the Old Testament contains a right to self-defense. We’ll begin with Exodus as we might as well dismantle every argument Schenck makes.
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. (Exodus 22:2-3a, NKJV)
If a man breaks into your house at night, it is dark and you cannot know his intentions. Therefore, if you killed him, it was a reasonable instance of self-defense. If he breaks in during the day, it is more likely that you can interpret his intentions. If he is there to steal, it is not a crime that is worthy of death. If he is there to harm you or your family, you remain justified in killing in self-defense.
Old Testament verses that support this interpretation are so numerous that I will not bother citing them all here. The open question for Christians becomes whether or not Jesus changed the nature of the Law in regards to self-defense with His teachings.
We have already established that Jesus told His disciples to carry swords. Some have argued that He meant “sword” metaphorically. This argument falls flat when Jesus does not correct His disciples when they present to Him real swords. His followers often misinterpreted His words, and on more than one occasion He must clarify His real intentions to them. Instead He tells them that their current quantity will suffice.
We next move to the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus makes one of His most famous statements.
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:39-42, NASB)
Here Jesus provides a list of petty grievances and advises not retaliating to any of them. This is not a command to allow Hitler to conquer the Earth, it is our primary tool for dealing with everyday evils.
Someone smacked you on the cheek? Don’t escalate the situation. Someone sued you and is after your possessions? It’s only stuff. Any self-defense teacher worth his salt will give you the same advice. Violence is a last resort. It is an extreme response for extreme threats.
What of Peter’s defense of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane? Did He not tell His disciple that those who live by the sword die by the sword?
He did, but He also said some other things that give us better context.
And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “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 will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?” (Matthew 26:51-54, NASB)
That is not a call to pacifism, it is a call towards not preventing the salvation of the human race. This is a tense moment where weapons are drawn. Jesus tells His disciples that if they try to make this a fight, they will die. He further explains that He must be taken so that the scriptures be fulfilled. If not, He could call on His Father to deliver Him from this evil far more effectively than His disciples could. That He had not done so, and had been preparing them for this moment for some time, should have signaled to them that what was coming must happen.
If you want to interpret this passage as meaning that no Christian should ever take up a sword, you’ll need to square it with this passage.
The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.” (John 2:13-16, NASB)
Jesus literally used a whip to drive people from the temple. Not the actions of a pacifist by any definition of which I am aware. Are we to believe that all who take up a sword will die by a sword, but those who take up a whip are doing God’s work? Or shall we take both sets of verses in their proper context?
Schenck ends his piece by arguing that we should love those who intend to do us harm. He is right, of course, but one does not need to allow a rapist to take your wife and daughter in order to show God’s love. God’s Word puts no such requirements upon us, misinformed preachers notwithstanding.
Published in Guns, Religion & Philosophy
I had a similar line in an early draft, but I was already running way too long in terms of word count.
It’s embarrassing when a brother in Christ is so badly misinformed and misled about the intersection between Christ’s Kingdom and Caesar’s, what is the legitimate role of the state & the citizen toward our fellow man and a lazy version of “What Would Jesus Do”? The more proper question is “What Would Jesus Have ME Do”? Sometimes, in this fallen world where evil has to be restrained, that means deadly force.
Thanks for the lucid and thorough dissection, Frank. Sad that it is necessary.
It’s funny about that. Some short pieces seem too long. This one read very quickly. Well done.
Too good. Needs to be in the Ricochet dictionary.
Praise Cheeses!
Wasn’t the Olive Garden a subdivision of the Garden of Eden, which also had unlimited breadsticks, if I recall my Genesis?
This is one of those rare instances where a great post generates even better comments. We need Kate Braestrup to step in and liven things up though.
If I recall correctly, the attribution for the term goes to the indispensable Bill Whittle. It’s a keeper, and together with David Horowitz’s “moral vanity”, makes up a good 50% of the vocabulary needed to describe progressives.
I might put the question to Schenck this way:
“Suppose R, a rapist and murderer, was about to rape and murder M, an innocent young mother. You, Schenck, would be able to stop this by pressing a button. The result of pressing the button is that M would be saved, but R would be killed. Would you press the button?”
If he answers, “Yes,” then he has given away the game. He might as well have used a gun, which has the same effect as the button.
If he says, “No,” then I would ask him, “Suppose it were the other way around, and R was going to be killed, and by pressing the button you could change it so that M would be killed instead. Would you press the button?” When he again answers, “No,” I would point out to him that he has made it clear that he doesn’t really care who lives and who dies so long as he can stay out of it. I would ask him, “Is that what God expects of a moral man, or is that simple cowardice?”
Schenck’s problem is he takes his personal conviction unfounded on anything scriptural and extends it to everyone. There are Iraqis who have refused to take up arms against ISIS and instead gave up their lives because they were being persecuted for their faith. But that was their choice based on their conviction.
Jim Elliot gave up his life doing missionary work in Ecuador choosing not to defend himself (he had a gun on him), and that played a part in many of the people who had killed him getting saved when they found out he had chosen to die rather than kill them. I can understand where Schenck is coming from, but there is a difference in people choosing to lay down their lives for the Gospel and complete pacifism. I’m not sure he understands the difference.
Priests, bishops, and popes may come and go. Journalists may come and go. For a Catholic there is one constant, and that is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So the WaPo, HuffPo, NYT, and their journalists are not who I look to for spiritual guidance or Biblical interpretation to justify the opinions of popular culture.
Here are two good responses to the John Piper article posted earlier:
http://americanvision.org/12837/a-biblical-response-to-john-pipers-denial-of-the-right-to-bear-arms/
https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/12/23/john-piper-guns-and-civic-responsibility/
Nathan Hale: “”I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
Schenck: “I only regret that you have but one life to lose for my principles.”
Well Said Frank! Well taken apart.
Excellent piece, Mr Soto. As someone with no previous familiarity with the above passage, I took a different meaning than the others who have commented on it. I’m not sure it is referring to whether the break-in takes place during the day or night. It sounds to me like it is saying that if you kill the thief while he is breaking into your house, you are not guilty. If you track him down the next day (after the sun has risen) and then kill him, you are guilty.
I also especially loved the Olive Garden analogy.
I spent sometime studying Rev. Schenk’s Twitter feed and website; the Reverend certainly has a very high opinion of himself. Not exactly humble. But anyway, here’s a few things I’ve picked up:
You can see why the Amazon Post likes this guy.
I agree, Byron.
Brilliant Byron. If one has seen the pictures of those slaughtered by ISIS that includes children let me offer this:
If you cannot find the courage to squeeze the trigger then stand aside for those who can, rest easy in your appeasement knowing that you only do so because rough men make it possible.
Great post. I cringe at the wrongheaded, faith-based “evidence” for why it’s un-Christian to have the right to defend oneself, or others, against those who intend to do harm.
It is really this simple. I have the God given right to defend myself and my family. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right but does not grant it to me, since it comes from God. If you are not God you can not take this right from me, be it if you are a government, a newspaper or an upstart religious figure with delusions of grandeur. When and if God shows up and requests my gun then I will hand it over till then I will use the tool as God intended, to defend myself and mine.
The mind boggles at a paradise that doesn’t.
Wow, really? What if I just agree?
Or quote myself: (Anchor and Flares, 2014)
“At some point during the vivid, almost painfully beautiful autumn that followed 9/11, I received my fall issue of Tricycle magazine. Tricycle is published by and for American Buddhists and, though I am not a Buddhist, I usually find much that is interesting and useful within its pages. The occasional illustration of a monk in saffron robes reminds me agreeably of my childhood. Yet I had not been looking forward to this issue.
On the cover was a dark image of the twin towers. Inside, I knew I would find admonitions to peacefulness, nonviolence, acceptance, forgiveness of enemies, and probably that story about the Tibetan lama whose greatest fear was that he would forget to be compassionate toward his cruel Chinese captors.
I like acceptance and forgiveness, I like Tibetan lamas, but cops in New York, a few of whom I knew personally, were digging the remains of their comrades from the rubble of the World Trade Center. I just wasn’t in the mood.
What I had forgotten, however, is that the editorial offices for Tricycle are located in lower Manhattan. The editors had been deeply, personally affected by that day. One of them, Stephen Batchelor, refrained from reiterating the old understandings, and refreshingly confessed to a new one. After decades as a Buddhist committed to nonviolence, he had watched police officers running past him in the streets, moving toward and not away from the place of greatest danger. He now understood that his ability to practice nonviolence without risking his life had been predicated on the willingness of the state—in the form of police officers and soldiers—to use violence to protect him. Batchelor recognized that our relationship with violence is considerably more complicated than we might wish.
Batchelor’s insight could be expanded beyond the peaceful American Buddhist’s dependence upon the protection of soldiers and police officers. We could recognize all kinds of ways in which gentle, peaceful people who wouldn’t hurt a fly are in reality only allowing others to do the dirty work.”
I hope that the breadsticks in heaven are a bit tastier than those at the Olive Garden. If they are not, that’s not heaven.
That would be one of those ironic punishment Hells, wouldn’t it?
Weird. Just before Christmas a Facebook friend of mine posted a suspiciously similar article entitled, “Should Christians Be Encouraged To Arm Themselves?”supposedly by someone named John Piper on a website called Desiring God.org.
Why do I suspect that if so pushed for an answer about how to respond to jihadist savagery, his answer would include the words love, dialogue, understanding, and tolerance.
Byron Horatio, you needn’t suspect. This is exactly the response we’ve been hearing. The reason they think they can get away with this, and in the minds of many, do, appears in an error in your first post on this thread: you use interchangeably the terms “post-modern” and “modern.” The era I call “Modernism” can be said to have begin with Luther and his 95 Theses. It is dominated with the concept of rational thought, in the sense that “A cannot equal Non-A,” the existence of absolute truth. Drawing from Francis Schaeffer, thought in the United States began the shift from that to “Post-Modernism” between about 1913 to 1940. No longer is there any compelling reason for A not to equal Non-A, and all truth is relative. Thus, merely thinking, believing or saying something makes it your truth, and thereby absolves you of any responsibility for further action. Hence the hashtag “#Free Our Girls.” And that is why we are to examine ourselves to find how to lay the blame on us instead of them.
Many folks hold that life is sacred. It is anything but. Any study of history or scan of current events will show there isn’t much cheaper than human life. I am of the opinion there are some people too stupid to live (like the drunk who was killed hugging a large, lit firework, or most folks who say “hey ya’ll, look at this”). I’m not saying we should put such people down, but I am in favor of removing most warning labels and let nature take its course.
My property is more important than a thief’s life. They take the risk when they decide to steal and their life should be forfeit if they are caught in the act. Anything less encourages theft.
We as a society routinely excuse bad behavior for whatever reason and condone repeated violations of law by certain individuals; yet those who would defend themselves against these villains are suspected of vigilantism and hammered far more harshly than criminals.
During a traffic stop a policewoman asked my son why he was carrying a gun. He replied “because I can’t fit you in my pocket.”
Does Mr. Schenck advocate that the police also be disarmed? If not, he’s implicitly OK with outsourcing violence in protection of his family and community. How is that more moral than me personally taking on the responsibility for protecting mine?
This is how you can distinguish between pacifists, elitists, and cowards. A pacifist wouldn’t want violence done by the police, either. An elitist doesn’t have a problem with the police (or private security) using violence — he just doesn’t trust his fellow citizens to do so. A coward wants to prevent others from doing what he is afraid to do, so as to hide his cowardice.
Cowards and elitists are often difficult to distinguish. I suspect there’s considerable overlap between them.
No, it isn’t. You are justified in killing a thief because you have a reasonable suspicion that he might endanger your life, not because your property is worth more. Such gross materialism is the sort of thing that gives property rights a bad name.