Commentors objected to my plan and questioned if I was acting like a Christian. Gord wrote:
NO! WRONG! If everyone is armed the anarchy comes faster. I understand the impulse but no no no no no.
THe answer is never never never to escalate the chance of killing (and, much like the Unforgivable Curses in Harry Potter, it is likely the "good" person who does not really want to kill/injure someone who will not succeed in doing so). I am not sure what the answer is but arming the whole populace is definitely not it.
Some anonymous person wrote:
I thought this was a rational faith and politics site - buy guns - my God have you ever read the bible and Jesus? How about Martin Luther KIng? George
And finally John Wilks responded:
John,
If my survival was my goal in life, I would agree. Anyone looking to survive the trials and dangers of a fallen world is better off armed to the teeth for times like this.
But Someone once said something about the one who seeks their life shall lose it and the one who lays down their life for His sake shall find it.
Now, maybe I'm being overly literal and maybe Jesus was being somewhat aloof. So I won't dare judge you if this disaster makes you go buy a gun so that you can protect your household.
But if I'm even in a situation like this, I'll let the looters take the stuff. I'd rather lose my TV than take someone's life.
With respect, I'm unconvinced. We could debate theology -- Just War v. pacifism and such. Call it a lack of faith on my part, but my place is between my wife and any violent force -- and a gun would be handy in that situation.
Heck, I'll be completely straight. Even if I wasn't married, I would be willing to use force to protect my stuff. As Jeff points out:
Some people may think that enforcing a "No" with lethal force is a bit extreme. People are not trees, we can't snack on sunlight. We need food, water, clothing, and shelter. In an emergency situation, if anyone tries to take these from you, they are not just stealing property. They are trying to kill you. Act accordingly.
I've never been a pacifist and I never will be. Being a true pacifist -- meaning abrogating any protection from police or government forces* -- means that you are subject to the whim of any passing thug. I've had enough experience with bullies growing up to know that you can never satisfy them with tribute. Giving into the monsters of this world has a nasty conclusion, as Jonah Goldberg wrote:
If you go into every situation saying there's absolutely nothing worth fighting over, you will inevitably end up on a cot sleeping next to a guy named Tiny, bringing him breakfast in his cell every morning, and spending your afternoons ironing his boxers.
It's the Lesson of Munich. If you let people take your stuff, eventually they will take your life. Quote Jesus all you want. Turn the other cheek. Give him your cloak also.
Fine. If God wants to judge me for rejecting pacifism, I'll face Him willingly.
*That's right. If you let other people do your fighting/protecting for you, then you are not a pacifist. Still interested?
20 comments:
OK, John, you might win me over when it comes to protecting family. But protecting your possesions? Didn't Jesus say that if someone demands your cloak, give 'em the shirt off your back while you are at it?
Sorry, the use of force to protect material possesions is flatly inconsistant with the teachings of Christ. You might make a case for protecting people, but not stuff. No way.
Oh, and to the line "if they take your stuff they might eventually take your life" all I can say is that your life is no longer yours, it belongs to Christ. What ever you do with your life in the face of danger, your goal must be the glory of God and not self-presevation. Perhaps there are instances where those are one-in-the-same and perhaps there are even situations where the use of force is justifiable (I'm dubious, but I'll grant it for arguement's sake.) The the protection of your own life is not a value which is compatable with Christian teaching.
And frankly, to insist that you have the right to defend your life and property with violence and that the Biblical witness to the contrary is misunderstood or outdated ot just wrong is hypocritical for someone who is aginst LGBT inclusion. If Jesus can ask someone to lay down their oriantation at His feet to pursue holiness, then you can lay down your last breath as a martyr to pursue peace.
I'm taking a secxond bite at the apple. Look at that title: "survival isn't a theological exercise."
So if something is theologically sound but painful or dangerous, it should be rejected?
Sorry, John, but that is liberal thinking at its best. You've been found out, bunny-boy, you're a theolgical liberal in disguise.
(please note tongue firmly in cheek)
Understood, John. I guess I have a lot of theological liberalism and I'm ignoring the teachings of Christ. Reading the words of Jesus and then my own makes me very uncomfortable.
I'm not sure how to respond other than to point out that the result of pacifism is slavery.
Our Founding Fathers liked their stuff. So they fought a war to protect it. They refused to subject themselves to earthly authorities, too. Maybe God will send me to the same hell where he condemned them.
So if someone broke into your house, you wouldn't resist or even call the police so as long as he was only threatening your property?
John,
1) Committing to non-violence is not committing to mere capitualtion. Note the difference between a pacifist and a passive-ist.
2) I don't fear any man or nation claiming me as a slave. I am a slave to Christ. What ever my lot in life, I am free because Jesus, who has bought me by blood, sets me free to be His. The freedom of Christ is not just an abstrct conecpt, it is a reality to be lived boldly no matter what life holds.
3)If someone broke in and just wanted stuff- they were willing to let my wife and kid be and just take stuff, you bet I'd let them take it.
However, I would also call the cops when they left. They can have my stuff, but I have a responsiblity to let the authorites know and warn my nieghbors to be prepared. I can choose to be self-sacrificing, but the guy next door should get a heads up.
And though I won't harm or punish a thief myself and though I pray they repent and be changed by God, I'm not going to get in the way of the police doing their job.
So OK, this is sticky business. And there are more ways to look at it that what I present. But we who honor Christ must wrestle with His words and do our best to live them out as we understand them. We cannot choose to ignore them when they are difficult.
Any professing Christian who would wilfully dismiss the teachings of Jesus and the writers He inspired in the New testament loses all right to call others to account for doing the very same thing. I know this is tough to swallow, but there it is. Yank your plank before you inspect their speck.
(Gee, that last line almost sounded dirty.)
1) Committing to non-violence is not committing to mere capitualtion. Note the difference between a pacifist and a passive-ist.
As far as Jesus was concerned it does. He urged capitulation at every step.
2) I don't fear any man or nation claiming me as a slave. I am a slave to Christ. What ever my lot in life, I am free because Jesus, who has bought me by blood, sets me free to be His. The freedom of Christ is not just an abstrct conecpt, it is a reality to be lived boldly no matter what life holds.
So you would have no problem with police and military forces withdrawing their protection from you?
However, I would also call the cops when they left. They can have my stuff, but I have a responsiblity to let the authorites know and warn my nieghbors to be prepared. I can choose to be self-sacrificing, but the guy next door should get a heads up.
Then you are not committed to non-violence. Notice that Jesus never urged the enforcement of the law with force.
And though I won't harm or punish a thief myself and though I pray they repent and be changed by God, I'm not going to get in the way of the police doing their job.
I pray for them, too. Which is not always easy.
Oh -- the job of the police with whom you are not going to interfere -- is the use of violence. Under your ethical system, their job is immoral.
So OK, this is sticky business. And there are more ways to look at it that what I present. But we who honor Christ must wrestle with His words and do our best to live them out as we understand them. We cannot choose to ignore them when they are difficult.
Any professing Christian who would wilfully dismiss the teachings of Jesus and the writers He inspired in the New testament loses all right to call others to account for doing the very same thing. I know this is tough to swallow, but there it is. Yank your plank before you inspect their speck.
I agree. But I think that I'm willing to admit that there is a real conundrum here, and that few other Christians are. We'd rather deliberately misinterpret the words of Christ to our own ends. We'd rather deliberately misinterpret what we're doing so play a theological game to ensure our conformity to Christ.
You can't call yourself a pacifist and advocate force of any kind. Period. You can't swear off force -- except for that used by other, less scrupled people, to protect -- you and call yourself a pacifist.
I'm willing to admit that I have a big problem with what Christ is saying. Are you? The ugly truth is that you're no more obedient to Christ on this issue than I am.
John,
You are presenting a false dilemma. You assume that anyone who as a Christian is committed to non-violence must be a pacifist as you define pacifism (or as this dictionary or that speaker of whatever.)
Even the words and actions of Jesus may appear to be capitulation, but I ask you, who won- Jesus or those who had Him arrested and crucified?
If Jesus' brand of capitulation results in the total change of human society, then that is some kind of capitulation! No victorious warrior has ever had so large an impact on planet Earth!
But maybe taking up His cross was just some theological exercise and nothing of consequence too.
Look, I know that sounds snarky, but exactly when in Church history has violence helped the integrity of the Christian movement? When has it worked out well for us? What about medieval Europe or Cromwell's England is at all appealing?
John, I know I am a sinner and that I am not perfect. But I do my level best to live by the Scripture and the Spirit as best I can- I may get it wrong sometimes, but I don't dare reject the wisdom of God even if it seems foolish to people.
And as I understand the Scriptures, we are to obey the authorities and live at peace with our neighbors and when it comes to our own life and possessions, to regard them as given to God and thus not our to defend or further.
Would I like to be a slave? No! But I won't kill to prevent myself being enslaved.
So far as the police, isn't the New Testament clear that God expects government to exercise authority? So no, I don't think it immoral when the cops do their job. Only the abuse of government power is a moral evil.
You are right in so far as my view discourages Christians from volunteering to be a cop or a soldier because our first loyalty is to God's Kingdom and not the nation. And yes this is problematic because I know so many good Christians who are in the services or on a police force.
Then again, I know good Christians who are gay. And yet I disagree with them about sexuality. So I guess I can respectfully disagree with my brothers and sisters who mix bearing their cross with packing a gun. I don't doubt their faith, just how they express it.
What I cannot respect is when a Christian says that they can and should disregard the Bible, especially the very words of Jesus. I don't care what the issue is or who is making the case. We who belong to Christ, though Christ calls us friend, are still less than He. We don't get to pick and choose which of His teachings we care to submit to.
Again, it is one thing when Christians disagree about how to understand and apply the Word. It is quite another for someone who claims to belong to God to willfully ignore it.
I guess I am amazed by those who willingly confess the Jesus is Lord and yet seem to deny that Jesus is smart, as if His teachings are too rose-colored to be practical. It seems to me that if Jesus was and is the perfect union of God and humanity, then He must be about the most intelligent and most wise person to ever draw breath. So I see no reason not to trust in His teachings just as much as I trust in His death and resurrection.
So I could have respect for your position if we simply disagreed about how to understand Jesus' words. But when I read you blatantly say you plan to ignore His words, I have to call you to account, John. I value your ministry and your personhood too much not to.
You are presenting a false dilemma. You assume that anyone who as a Christian is committed to non-violence must be a pacifist as you define pacifism (or as this dictionary or that speaker of whatever.)
I'm using the definition of Jesus as illustrated in Matthew 5:38-42.
Even the words and actions of Jesus may appear to be capitulation, but I ask you, who won- Jesus or those who had Him arrested and crucified?
If Jesus' brand of capitulation results in the total change of human society, then that is some kind of capitulation! No victorious warrior has ever had so large an impact on planet Earth!
I agree. It was victory over sin and death. It was not, however, liberation from earthly forces, which is what I'm referring to as capitulationist.
Look, I know that sounds snarky, but exactly when in Church history has violence helped the integrity of the Christian movement? When has it worked out well for us? What about medieval Europe or Cromwell's England is at all appealing?
I can't think of a single time. Yet it would still be a pity if the earthly forces of evil (e.g. Nazis) ruled over us because they were unopposed. Would it not?
John, I know I am a sinner and that I am not perfect. But I do my level best to live by the Scripture and the Spirit as best I can- I may get it wrong sometimes, but I don't dare reject the wisdom of God even if it seems foolish to people.
I agree. And I recognize that I am not being obedient to the Word. It bothers me a lot. The first step is recognizing this disobedience. When I get to the actual obedience part in my own walk, I'll let you know. For now, I'm struggling with the horrendously difficult commands of Christ.
And as I understand the Scriptures, we are to obey the authorities and live at peace with our neighbors and when it comes to our own life and possessions, to regard them as given to God and thus not our to defend or further.
Correct.
Would I like to be a slave? No! But I won't kill to prevent myself being enslaved.
Then you're a better man than me, because I will.
So far as the police, isn't the New Testament clear that God expects government to exercise authority? So no, I don't think it immoral when the cops do their job. Only the abuse of government power is a moral evil.
So it's okay for other people to use violence as long as it's not you?
Government isn't a machine -- it's a group of human beings. And if your understanding of Christian ethics is correct, then the individual human being serving as a cop is acting immorally by using violence under any circumstances.
You are right in so far as my view discourages Christians from volunteering to be a cop or a soldier because our first loyalty is to God's Kingdom and not the nation. And yes this is problematic because I know so many good Christians who are in the services or on a police force.
Then again, I know good Christians who are gay. And yet I disagree with them about sexuality. So I guess I can respectfully disagree with my brothers and sisters who mix bearing their cross with packing a gun. I don't doubt their faith, just how they express it.
We're on the same page here.
What I cannot respect is when a Christian says that they can and should disregard the Bible, especially the very words of Jesus. I don't care what the issue is or who is making the case. We who belong to Christ, though Christ calls us friend, are still less than He. We don't get to pick and choose which of His teachings we care to submit to.
Again, it is one thing when Christians disagree about how to understand and apply the Word. It is quite another for someone who claims to belong to God to willfully ignore it.
I guess I am amazed by those who willingly confess the Jesus is Lord and yet seem to deny that Jesus is smart, as if His teachings are too rose-colored to be practical. It seems to me that if Jesus was and is the perfect union of God and humanity, then He must be about the most intelligent and most wise person to ever draw breath. So I see no reason not to trust in His teachings just as much as I trust in His death and resurrection.
So I could have respect for your position if we simply disagreed about how to understand Jesus' words. But when I read you blatantly say you plan to ignore His words, I have to call you to account, John. I value your ministry and your personhood too much not to.
I'm glad that you're calling me into account. I need and want that.
I'd like to be able to completely commit to the non-violent lifestyle that Jesus commanded. But I'm not there yet.
I take some small measure of comfort that I would be in good philosophical company here: our Founding Fathers, Lincoln, and every American soldier and police officer who has ever lived.
And it's that company which gives me pause to accept non-violence. If a theological position makes me say that these people are evil and unChristian, then I sense that something is wrong with my theology.
The results of obedience to non-violence would be permitting the continuation of American slavery at the outset of the Civil War and the allowing Nazi Germany to exterminate the Jews -- and countless other acts of tolerating extreme evil. And that is why the commands of Jesus are so hard. Can you understand why, then, I am hesistant (to say the least) to obey them?
" And that is why the commands of Jesus are so hard. Can you understand why, then, I am hesistant (to say the least) to obey them?"
Yes and no.
You made the comment that Jesus' way delivers us from sin and death but not worldly power. Which is the real threat? If you know that you are forgiven your sins and that so long as your life is in Christ you shall live even should you die, what in the world (literally) is there to be affraid of?
Following Jesus ain't easy and His words are not so simple as they might appear. If you can find a reasonable hay to keep harmony between His words and your plans of actions, then may God bless you as you work it out.
But if you see that Jesus is calling you one way but your heros in history call you another, then you must choose whom you will serve.
The hard words fo Jesus are the ones that trip me up the most too. But when I find myself in that place where I am pretty sure God wishes me to do A but I intended to do B, I know that the problem is with my will, not God's. And when I'm there (and oh man have I been there more often than I care to admit) I must repent.
So if you can defend the us of force withing the context of Jesus' teaching, His call on your life, then I will gladly wish you well in your journey and ministry even if I disagree with you. God will sort out honest theological disputes in His own time. What counts most in the moment is that you seek to honor what you understand and trust God with the rest. Who am I to judge you when you do so, even if we might debate over our differenes?
Again, you've painted yourself into a false dilema. You seem to see that Jesus' words and the actions of our founding fathers diverge- and you conclude that either something is amiss in Jesus' words or else our founders were evil. But could it not be that our founders were honestly and sincerly mistaken? And when each of us is in the wrong, are we not covered by God's grace?
John, as a Christian it is your job to do the best you can with what God puts before you. It isn't your place to judge the heart's intent or eternal destination of those in history who have followed a different path. God alone is judge. Live as best you can, teach and clearly as you can. Argue passionatly your faithful convictions. But don't fall into the trap of assuming that those who lack your convictions are evil at heart.
To your comments on history and non-violence, remember that England ended her ties to the slave trade without a civil war. As you so sure God could not raise up a Wilberfoce here as He did in England?
And did not the Methodist movement bring a better day to England much the same way as the American revolution did here?
And has not non-violence lead to every victory in the civil rights movement?
Non-violence seems to be pretty darned effective everywhere it is tried- here, India, Ukraine, and so on.
And even if a situation arises where war is justified, what role better serves the Church- armed participant for one side, or prophetic voice and agent of mercy and grace for the citizens on both sides? Which role sounds more compatable with the Great Commision? Does that change even if one side is clearly in the wrong or is Christian mission to be extended into enemy lands?
So by no means would I say that cops and military personal are evil just for doing what they do. Nation-states in the world as is have cause to go to war or police their own people. And when God was using the nation/state of Israel, He Himself called people to do what it took to defend the nation/state.
But the Church is not Israel- and we who belong to the Church cannot aloow ourselves to put our nation above His Kingdom- no matter how much we love our homeland.
Thus I do have very serious reservations for the Christian to volunteer for such services when I am quite sure the Church has a different role to play than a government in times of conflict and war. I don't think such service leaves one free to really love our enemies. But I have no doubt that the Christians who choose such service do so in the hopes of serving God. I dare not call them evil or judge their souls even if I see a flaw in their logic.
I hope you can see the distinctions.
This is the hard part, because the sacrifice that Jesus calls from us is huge. It is a total denial of self. Maybe I'll get there someday.
I have made progress. Over a year ago, I worked for the Jacksonville Public Library system. A more corrupt organization I have never known. They harassed and bullied me mercilessly for all of my time working there. They lied about me and got me in trouble over and over again. I was a hair's breadth away from getting fired.
I went into the meeting with management. I was either going to get fired or get one step away from it. But I determined to do it right. So I brought in my Bible and read from it. I proclaimed the Gospel truth to them. Well, they didn't fire me. But it was only a matter of time. I had been a decent Christian witness. I didn't yell or get mean or nasty.
Doing that wasn't easy. I had nursed sick fantasies of slashing their tires -- the only way that I could think of paying them back for the emotional turmoil that they were putting me through. I knew where they parked. I made plans and wargamed senarios. But I didn't do it. I wanted too, but I knew that God wanted better things from me.
The next few weeks were horrible. But one afternoon, my wife called me from home while I was on the Reference Desk. She told me that a job offer from the Clay County Public Library had come in the mail. I calmly slipped away from the Desk and walked out the door.
The next day, I called in sick and thought about the proper way to exit JPL. I wrote a resignation letter that told them how evil they had been (and I do not use that word casually) without undermining my witness. Then I wrote short personal notes to four of the managers who had hurt me the most. The notes said that they had done wicked things, but that I forgave them. I did so because Jesus was in my life, and He could be in theirs too.
On my next work day, I slipped in the back door. I went to the interoffice mail drop off and put the four letters in their proper slots and a copy of my resignation letter to the library director. And then I tried to track down my boss and my boss's boss to hand in my letter, keys, and badge. They were no where to be found, so I told some coworkers what I was doing, put down my letter, keys, and badge on a table -- and walked out never to set foot in that awful place again.
It was easier this time. Before I wanted to slash their tires but the burden of being a Christian had prevented me. This time, I didn't want to hurt them at all. I wanted to be what Christ called me to be. That may seem minor, but it was a big step considering what grief they had put me through.
All that being said, if it had been in my capacity to fire these people, I would have done so without the slightest hesitation. So there are still limits to my willingness to be completely obedient. Maybe that will change.
John,
Your struggles and victories don't seem minor at all. Instead I hear something akin to "I believe, help thou my unbelief."
Who can not respect that kind of transparency to admit struggle?
You know, when I named my own blog, I almost named it "A Preacher's Struggle" because that is what the Christian life feels like so much of the time. But then I realized that what makes our struggle special is where it leads us- we are on a journey toward God's Kingdom. We are on a journey toward holiness. It is no easy path, no broad road- but I try to focus on the destination to make the travel more manageable. So my blog is a place for me to work out my struggle to keep up with my spiritual disciplines. That is why I write more devotionals than personal stuff or current events stuff. Because keeping the Spiritual Disciplines is a great struggle for me.
It sounds to me like you are in about the same place I am, though perhaps we simply struggle with different issues.I just want to encourage you to wrestle with the words of Jesus more than you wrestle against them, if that makes sense.
This whole conversation makes me think about my perceptions towards violence. What would your response be to righteous violence such as Christ displayed in the temple when chasing out the money changers.
I didn't argue that God never advocates or permits violence. I simply questioned how compatable violence is in light of the calling God has given the Church.
Jesus responded in the Temple just as we'd expect God to respond in the Old Testament to any disgrace found in the nation/state of Israel- even if that nation had become a vassal to Rome. And that shouldn't be a shock, for God is still the same as ever.
The issue isn't "has God changed His mind about violence?"
The issue is how do we as the people who are the Church live out the call God gave us?
Even if God sees violence as needed or permisable at a moment in time, is it our place to bring that violence or do we serve as ambassadors for and citizens of a World yet to come and thus refrain from the violence of men in favor of being agents of mercy and self-sacrifice?
So for me it is a practical issue of God's call to Christians specifically- what is the role and function God wants us to play as He leads the whole cosmos to the return of Christ. It is not, then, about the moral value of war or violence in general.
So I guess I'm not a true pacifist in the sense that John described. Instead, like the Church Fathers, I hold that Christians should let the State be the State and let God judge them, and let us be the Church that He calls us to be. And His Church exists to make disciples of all flesh before the day of His return. It isn't ours to meet out justice by force of arms, but to offer love by the power of grace.
By love and grace, we can take stands on important issues and speak prophetically against evil. But we can also love the evil-doer and be willing to poor ourselves out for their behalf just as much for those on the side of our own interests.
But it becomes quite difficult to love your enemy on behalf of CHrist when you are prepared to kill them in the name of the State. It sounds too much like trying to serve two masters to me.
John,
Did you ever serve in the armed forces? What branch of the military did you proudly serve?
I find it extremely disturbing that you, as a ministerial student, can boldly proclaim that you would be willing to kill someone to protect your stereo.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked another fellow student who virtually bragged about his "concealed carry" permit: Exactly whom do you truly trust? You have to answer this question before you can go one step further in seminary.
As for protecting my family, I've not needed any weapon other than my presence to protect my family thus far (46 years). I see no need to panic and buy a weapon now.
Respectfully,
Michael
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but it's end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25
Sorry, I hit "publish" a little too quickly.
Did you ever serve in the armed forces? What branch of the military did you proudly serve?
Is this some sort of chickenhawk argument? If so, how does it apply?
I find it extremely disturbing that you, as a ministerial student, can boldly proclaim that you would be willing to kill someone to protect your stereo.
Would I actually kill someone to protect my stereo? Well, no. The point that I was trying to make to John Wilks is that you can't distinguish between the thief who wants your stereo and the thief who wants your life? How do we distinguish between the man who wants only the Sudentenland and the man who wants much more. History reveals that you can rarely appease the wicked. If this is not true, please reveal examples otherwise.
If you object to anyone in the ministry accepting that there are legitimate uses for violence, please send your concerns to Donald Sensing, who served in the military for 18 years as an artillery officer (that means killing, btw).
I'll ask you the same thing I asked another fellow student who virtually bragged about his "concealed carry" permit: Exactly whom do you truly trust? You have to answer this question before you can go one step further in seminary.
Let's put that faith to the test. Go live in the worst neighborhood in your city for the next year or so. Walk around at 2 AM with no protection.
God protects the faithful, but not the stupid.
Are you saying that a pastor cannot own a firearm? Please elaborate on this argument.
As for protecting my family, I've not needed any weapon other than my presence to protect my family thus far (46 years). I see no need to panic and buy a weapon now.
That is because there are armed men who protect you -- the police. You aren't giving up violence -- you're simply outsourcing it.
As for me, I live in an area that is prone to hurricanes. What happened in New Orleans could happen here. New Orleans isn't just a movie on your TV. It really occurred. Here -- in America.
My critics have accused me of deliberately flouting Scripture. They are, however, not obeying the words of Christ (which command absolute pacifism), but misinterpeting them so that they are less difficult to follow.
So I've read enough stone throwing at me.
Sheesh, people! If we really obey the command of Christ, we would (as a nation) allowed slavery to continue and the Holocaust to complete unstopped! Is that somehow acceptable? And please don't respond with some question like "Are denying the moral authority of Christ?" in some quasi ad hominem attack. Take this problem seriously. It matters.
There is no chickenhawk finger-pointing or stone-throwing from me. I have often wondered about the gung-ho gun-toters who will gladly take up arms to protect their stuff but fail to take up arms to protect country. I am a veteran of the US Marine Corps, incidentally.
Does this give me "more" rights? Hardly. It was a choice I freely made to be a part of something much bigger than self.
You owe no one an explanation of why you would choose to arm yourself nor can anyone demand an accounting from you (Romans 14:1-12). You need only account for yourself and your own conscience and respect the differences in perspective as we all must.
John Wilks said it best when he reminded us all that there is a greater danger than what the world can threaten us with, and there is no gun powerful enough to confront it with. This notion may be the very reason why the Jews could not accept Jesus as He is, expecting instead a warrior king/savior like King David.
Just know this. I have been trained with weapons so that they are nothing more than a mere extension of me. That is to say, whatever comes from the business end of a weapon ultimately comes from the heart of the one pulling the trigger (Matthew 15:18-20). I was once comfortable holding and firing a weapon because I was trained to do so.
If you are not more than vaguely familiar with your weapon of choice, it will not protect you but will ultimately bring you more grief and pain than you bargained for. A more experienced predator will take that weapon from you and destroy you and all that you love. That, my friend, is worldly knowledge and experience.
So if you are going to carry a weapon, be well-trained with that particular weapon. As for whether clergy should own weapons, again, each to his own. My only question is: why do you feel a need to have one? What is it that you are really afraid of?
John Wilks said it best when he reminded us all that there is a greater danger than what the world can threaten us with, and there is no gun powerful enough to confront it with. This notion may be the very reason why the Jews could not accept Jesus as He is, expecting instead a warrior king/savior like King David.
Sin and damnation are greater threats to ourselves than the violence of this world. But that does not mean that we should ignore the violence of this world.
Sin and damnation are a greater theat to me than my car engine burning up. Does that mean that I should ignore it when it's time to change my oil?
Just know this. I have been trained with weapons so that they are nothing more than a mere extension of me. That is to say, whatever comes from the business end of a weapon ultimately comes from the heart of the one pulling the trigger (Matthew 15:18-20). I was once comfortable holding and firing a weapon because I was trained to do so.
If you are not more than vaguely familiar with your weapon of choice, it will not protect you but will ultimately bring you more grief and pain than you bargained for. A more experienced predator will take that weapon from you and destroy you and all that you love. That, my friend, is worldly knowledge and experience.
This I am aware of, and your insight is true and useful.
So if you are going to carry a weapon, be well-trained with that particular weapon. As for whether clergy should own weapons, again, each to his own. My only question is: why do you feel a need to have one? What is it that you are really afraid of?
I have never owned a gun. I've never felt sufficient compulsion to acquire one. The presence of my wife in my life and the wild, savage violence that exploded in New Orleans from ordinary people serves otherwise.
I live the Colombian quarter of the Azalea Park neighborhood. It's a rough place. If we were in some posh neighborhood largely free of crime, I wouldn't take this step.
My DS once told me that I was a husband first and a pastor second. No one has ever protected my wife from the emotional and physical violence of this world. But I will.
*******
You have raised the question about whether clergy should own guns. This is a challenging point. We are supposed to live especially holy lives. Perhaps owning a gun would undermine my effectiveness as a Christian witness. I do not know. You do have me thinking, though.
To be perfectly honest, John, you've also given me a great deal to think about. I am a husband and a father. I do have an obligation to them but as a pastor, is it necessary for me to make a choice? Do I have to be first one and then the other? What about Jesus' words that if we love anyone more than we love Him, then we are not worthy of Him? I grapple with it every single day because I am far from the holy person I set out to be.
Thanks for some good stuff. Incidentally, my blog site is down. I'm considering creating another site, but I'm not so sure that I have the time to work full time, go to school at night, prepare sermons, be a husband and father, and maintain a blog. I'll let everyone know.
Keep the faith, brother. Yours is good stuff!
John,
Since you don't have trackback, I'll just let you know that on my blog today I include a link back to this post.
John
Sean Peen is on your side. I don't know if that helps you or hurts you, but there it is.
http://www.drudgereport.com/penn.jpg
Post a Comment