Friends,
My mother informed me of a call she received recently from one of her friends in Florida. He was boasting that he had recently purchased a pistol (semi-auto Glock, for those who care). His reason for the purchase: "They gonna take our guns now that Obama’s in office." This man is a Christian and attends church regularly. His philosophy and experience is one I have become familiar with since moving to Indiana. There is a deep belief amidst many people that their "rights and liberties" are going to be taken. In the interest of full disclosure, the "right and liberty" they are concerned with is their guns. Some, such as myself, believe such philosophies to sit squarely in the lap of paranoia while offering an abysmal witness to the God whom we say is sovereign, and the ultimate realities of Heaven and Hell. Those within those ranks, in utter fairness, view themselves as incredibly patriotic in a Revolutionary War sense of the term. They believe they are out to protect first themselves and then the interest of a nation. They hold a strict belief in the following motto, "when ‘they’ come and ‘it’ goes down, I’m gonna be ready," but they can’t articulate exactly who is coming or what "it" is, they are simply certain "it" is going to happen. They also give the distinct impression that the American Constitution and its amendments rank a very close second to the Word of God itself. To determine which camp is actually right is a matter of debate. But what's for certain, these folks are not mere armchair conspiracy theorists; they are dyed in the wool stock the shelters, hoard the ammo, hold training session action takers. They are also Christians. For what it's worth, I count them as dear, if misguided, brethren.
The one point of real contention I have with the "they gonna take my guns mentality" is that it comes dangerously close to being viewed as some type of preparation for a holy war. Somewhere in the line of time the edges of patriotism have blended into the fabric of faith in this genre of thinking. This is in complete antithesis to the biblical faith. Ours is a faith that was born by a bloody man on a rugged cross suffering before the jeers of an evil and wicked government. It is nothing new for the church of Christ to find herself in the catacombs and in the woods, preaching the gospel while trying to evade the slaughtering hand of Satan. It has and always will our duty to suffer for Christ till He returns. But I fear something of an impasse regarding this reality has edged its way into American Christianity- and it is an intruder for sure.
I believe we need to be crystal clear on the reality that just because one fears their "rights and liberties", i.e. guns, might be taken from them, this is not an attack on faith. And woe be unto the Christian who would dare stand up against God’s ordained in Christ’s name to revolt and attack against them (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 4:15). When the persecution comes to us because we are Christians, such tools are not are not authorized by our Master and Chief. Quite the contrary, actually. It is an intolerable paradox for the gospel of Christ to be lived out by the violence of men. Christ would not suffer it with Peter on the night of His betrayal (Matthew 26:52, John 18:10-11) and John gives the distinct impression that we make our war in such situations by endurance and faith, not rifles and bullets (Revelation 13:10). God is altogether more interested in our learning and making peace than "defending our rights" (Deuteronomy 20:10-12, Matthew 5:9, Romans 12:18).
Confessionally, Southern Baptists believe (Article XVI, BF&M 2000), "It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war. The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace."
As Christians and Baptists we need to clearly establish in our minds the difference between the rights of the land and the commands and promises of God. We also must always keep our views towards our eternal inheritance and judge all earthly matters accordingly. The truth of the matter is that the breath of God has breathed nothing in the American Constitution or its amendments. Furthermore, any and all non-transcendent "rights and liberties" given to us by the men of this earth can be taken from them as well (and, no, in case you're wondering, the right to bear arms is not an inalienable human right). And frankly, it is no loss to us if that happens. What has a Christian really lost if he can no longer purchase ammunition or guns? Remember in all things that we have a better, enduring reward. Consider Hebrews 10:32-39: Remember the earlier days when, after you had been enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to taunts and afflictions, and at other times you were companions of those who were treated that way. For you sympathized with the prisoners and accepted with joy the confiscation of your possessions, knowing that you yourselves have a better, enduring reward. For you need endurance, so that after you have done God’s will, you may receive what was promised. For in yet a very little while, the Coming One will come and not delay. But My righteous one will live by faith; and if he draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him. But we are not those who draw back and are destroyed, but those who have faith and obtain life.
A friend of mine in seminary once told me, "when ‘it’ goes down, I’m going out guns blazing." If that is the way one must go out when "it" goes down, don’t attach the name of Christ to it for Christ is not in it. May it be with us, dear brothers, that when "it" goes down, we go out faith ablaze. This is the mark of the saints’ endurance and faith (Revelation 13:10).
Blessings,
TJ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
(The following are the responses given to the blog when it was originally published on the old blog page. I thought they were worth as much as the blog itself, so I decided to past them in chronological order from first to last. Some original posts have been edited or deleted that didn’t pertain directly to the issue. If you are wondering what wouldn’t pertain to it, let me just say that in the end the blog was used for a lunch meeting over pizza in the name of ministerial edification)
Ben Hottel (unverified): First off, let me confess my tendency to fall for a good conspiracy theory. Second, I will confess to the tendency to fall into this line of thinking. The Psalmist tells us that "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we will trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Psalm 20:7) It's easy sometimes to lean on our in-a-lien-able rights as Americans. But biblically we must not.
However, a question to consider: When the government begins to enact laws contrary to our biblical beliefs, which will doubtlessly happen soon, what are the biblical guidelines for resistance? (see Acts 5:29)
tjmilam (unverified): Brother Ben,
You pose an excellent question whose answer is quite manifold in the Bible. I believe this subject is worthy to be discussed yet unable to be rightly discussed in a blog response. I shall make it my aim to respond to this question in an entirely new blog and will publish it next.
In the meantime, would you be willing to comment on why you personally believe the philosophy spoken against in this blog is so prevalent in Southern Indiana culture? I ask in honesty and a willingness to find the heart of these beliefs, as they are so totally foreign to the culture I grew up in.
And, who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory!
Ben Hottel (unverified): Pinning down an answer to your question is a bit difficult. I have not given it a lot of thought. Perhaps the following may provide some clues:
1. Southern Indiana is prime hunting ground. Perhaps many who own guns for this reason may be concerned of them being taken away even though their only intent is to hunt.
2. You mentioned in your original blog the idea of a Revolutionary War-type mentality. I think many people find the right to bear arms one of the great rights we have as citizens. Perhaps some or many do not want to see the USA turn into a Communist nation, so they will do all they can to protect this right.
3. Further, it may come down to not fully trusting God and His Word. John Piper has posted an excellent 4 minute video on YouTube discussing a biblical view toward politics. The general sense is that we are not to be so tied to this world that we abandon our mandates from God. We simply do not trust God to protect us in any and all circumstances. Do we really believe in final perseverance or not?
4. Finally, Francis Schaeffer spoke of the dangers of personal affluence and comfort. We are the most affluent and comfortable culture to ever live on this planet. We don't have the stomach to think of what may uncomfartable, even for the sake of Christ and the spread of His gospel. Will we lay down our guns if need be for the greater good of displaying the glory of Christ? The time is coming when those who are truly God's people will stand for Christ, come hell and high water, so that they might shine like stars (Daniel 12:2-3; Phil. 2:14-16). This is a wonderful grace provided by our Lord.
tjmilam (unverified): Brother Ben,
I think you have sufficiently touched on the major issues coming from the hearts of those in fear that "they gonna take my guns!" Some, who have not thought the idea through completely would fall into point #1 (at least those I've talked to). The true conspiracy theorists certainly fall into #2 and #3. In fact, I once asked a brother (fellow pastor, in fact) exactly why it was that he would need a fully automatic attack rifle as well as grenades with launchers. I was quickly informed that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting but with a nation being armed to keep the government "in check" (yikes!). And finally, I believe the great bulk of us "they gonna take my guns" conspiracy theorists or not fall into #4. I've really never been made to suffer for my faith like many of my brethren do in the world everyday. It would certainly be a change of life I would have to strongly deal with to overcome- I know that only through Christ I can, but I know the pains of my own defeciences as well. (there is a connected thought with this concept to the health and wealth gospel that I am sure will serve the ruin of many when persecution comes our way)
You bring up an interesting point in #2 by comparing the right to bear arms against communist government. I'm not so sure we can say that a nation without the right to bear arms (or at least, some arms) is a communist nation by default- and they may not be exactly what you intended to say. What I believe can be said is that democracy is at its fullest when such "rights and liberties" as these exist. But by nature, a democracy must not only provide its citizenry the protection of such rights, the citizenry must also support these rights both morally and ethically. So while I do see you point in linking the stripping of such rights to communism, I would connect the perversion of such rights into anarchy. I suppose that when I see this mentality coming from Christians I am most deeply concerned. I guess it really is a fine line to walk both ways, isn't it.
Ben Hottel (unverified): The communism link I made was not as well thought out as it could have been. Thinking on it now for a couple of days, what I meant at the root is this is a perception perhaps held by some if not many people. We are not far removed from the Cold War, and we are too easily influenced by media on this, especially movies. I hope this clarifies this point some.
tjmilam (unverified): Brother Ben,
Thanks for clarifying that point for us. I feared for a moment that the conspiracy theorists had gotten the better of you
I seriousness, I believe you are absolutely right to connect the taking away of such "rights and liberties" to the "perception" held by many that this veers (or plunges) a state into communism. I have no doubt they would view it that way.
Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow, Lord willing.
Ben Hartwig (unverified): Brother,
You think I could pass this up? As I have enjoyed much of this discussion, and have read it some time ago, and assume that there are even some references to me I see need to comment--of course.
But before I do, I have some questions.
1. How do you describe, "it all going down"? Is that "all going down" spurred by communism, all out government takeover, tax revolts, food riots or a simple econominc collapse (I know that none of these could ever happen in these United States of America).
2. If a crazed idiot kicks in your front door grabs your kid and your wife-and does whatever it is that he does, what do you do (I know the answer but want to be sure about the level of pacifism).
3. Let's say that you have been drafted into the army. In your Pauline government submission you go to wherever it is they send you. But then do you kill (not murder--I know) for a cause that you do not agree with or do you lay down and be killed.
4. And now for the "one"--it's on. Let's say that "they" are coming to "get your guns". In your submissive mode you give them up because it is the height of holiness (forgive the sarcasm--I couldn't help to jab one of my dearest friends). Let's say your church member down the road decides that it's on and guns down 1/2 the guys that come for his guns--the other half of the jack-booted thugs take him, his family and don't forget the babies out in a blaze of glory--after all they were met with resistance from the domestic terrorists. Here we have two different reactions--yours and his. You like history so here goes--I know it would never happen here but every time that this has happened it has ended in genocide. Ask the Jews and they will tell you, "after they got our guns, if we would have only picked up a hammer--something to defend our people from this mass murder. We would die anyway" It never ends well, at least not historically, maybe the US will be different. I suppose the question is, do we protect innocent life, or do we not? If an ATF (an organization with NO rules) agent laid an MP5 on the nose of a 6 year old while the rest of them searched the house....how far does the submission line go?
5. Do you think that it was wrong that the men in the Revolution did what they did--or should they have submitted to the king? And remember--you would be speaking with a much different accent if they did--a stupid one! hehe
And no, the second amendment doesn't have anything to do with duck hunting, deer hunting, bird hunting--or even protecting your family.
I suppose its on...looking forward to your response,
tjmilam (unverified): tjmilam (unverified): Brother Hartwig,
Wow, you’ve given me a lot to respond to! This may well be the longest blog response in history. Let’s begin.
In reading your response, I find that there are a few presuppositions you’ve placed within your rhetoric that need to be addressed. First, you presuppose that I do not believe terrible events ranging from food riots to genocide could occur in America. I do believe they can. Secondly, you presuppose that I believe in outright pacifism both nationally and individually. I do not. In fact, though not crystal clear in your response, you give the impression (and that may be all it is) that submission to governmental authority equates to pacifism. This, too, is an erroneous presupposition. Thirdly, you presuppose that I believe pacifism leads to holiness (even the height of it). I do not. Fourthly, you presuppose that conversations on this topic between yourself and I have been directly entered into this writing. They have not. The general philosophy of your personal position has been entailed within it, but not because it is unique to you.
Now, let me try and answer the questions at hand.
Response to question #1: “How do you describe, "it all going down"? Is that "all going down" spurred by communism, all out government takeover, tax revolts, food riots or a simple econominc collapse (I know that none of these could ever happen in these United States of America)?” Having clarified your presupposition implanted in this question above, I answer in the same fashion I did in the original blog. I did not come up with nor do I espouse the “it” going down mentality, therefore, I really don’t know what those who hold the philosophy are speaking about because not a single one of them, yourself included, can detail for me exactly what “it” is.
Response to Question #2: “If a crazed idiot kicks in your front door grabs your kid and your wife-and does whatever it is that he does, what do you do (I know the answer but want to be sure about the level of pacifism)?” I believe it is necessary to point out that this question has nothing to do with the issue at hand. That is, unless you are identifying governmental agents who come to “take” your guns away as one and the same as a “crazed idiot” that comes in my house and seeks to do harm. I really don’t believe you would make such a comparison, therefore, I will entertain the question on the basis of the “crazed idiot” being simply one seeking to do harm without governmental approval, although you evidently already know the answer. In short, my family would be protected. I seek to protect my family everyday by praying God’s safety and keeping of us all- which He has done every day of my life, even when such an events actually did occur in my life when I was younger (Psalm 4:). But, to satisfy the heart of your inquiry, I would physically seek to protect my family at all costs- even my own life.
Response to Question #3: “Let's say that you have been drafted into the army. In your Pauline government submission you go to wherever it is they send you. But then do you kill (not murder--I know) for a cause that you do not agree with or do you lay down and be killed.” Again, this question has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but it is revealing much more of the full scope your ideas hold within this discussion. Regardless of your position on “Pauline government submission” I would urge all my brothers and sisters in Christ to it. I would disagree with your assessment that submission to the government equates to sin against God- and that is the height of what our actions must avoid. In short, the answer to your question is this: neither. When the rule of earth breaches the rule of God, one must follow God (see Book of Acts). It would be best to suffer for not participating at all in this war- whatever the cost- than to participate.
Response to Question #4: “And now for the "one"--it's on. Let's say that "they" are coming to "get your guns". In your submissive mode you give them up because it is the height of holiness (forgive the sarcasm--I couldn't help to jab one of my dearest friends). Let's say your church member down the road decides that it's on and guns down 1/2 the guys that come for his guns--the other half of the jack-booted thugs take him, his family and don't forget the babies out in a blaze of glory--after all they were met with resistance from the domestic terrorists. Here we have two different reactions--yours and his. You like history so here goes--I know it would never happen here but every time that this has happened it has ended in genocide. Ask the Jews and they will tell you, "after they got our guns, if we would have only picked up a hammer--something to defend our people from this mass murder. We would die anyway" It never ends well, at least not historically, maybe the US will be different. I suppose the question is, do we protect innocent life, or do we not? If an ATF (an organization with NO rules) agent laid an MP5 on the nose of a 6 year old while the rest of them searched the house....how far does the submission line go?”
Now we are actually onto a question that deals somewhat with the issue at hand, presuppositions contained in it dealt with earlier and excused. (I will also excuse, to your benefit, the presuppositions that the ATF has no rules as well as the prophetic application you have given that these things are not possibilities for occurring in America, but are certain to happen.) There are really two scenarios with two questions involved in your writing. And frankly, I am amazed at the connection you make between the two. You first describe an event in which “domestic terrorists” come to evidently my house and one of my church member’s home and my church member “guns down” half of them. Ultimately, however, it was all in vain as the other half of them end up taking out his family in “a blaze of glory.” My family and myself, on the other hand, are evidently sparred the slaughter because we submitted to God’s Word and thus the authorities. Very well, though I would be terribly saddened for my friends loss of life, it was not because I didn’t teach them otherwise and the Word of God proved itself in this case. They are not “innocents” in this matter because they rebelled against God’s Word. And, to be utterly clear- the supposed taking of their guns was not an attack on their faith and certainly not an attack worthy of killing anyone over. In other words, I agree with the scenario and if it were true, I would advise others to follow my example. The “right and liberty” to keep guns in the house is not worth the death of the household. So we seemingly agree on this point.
The second scenario takes a different angle to the issue. Skipping the historic Jewish piece, which may or may not be substantiated (feel free to document what Jew or group of Jews said this if you wish), you offer the question of “do we protect innocent life, or do we not?” Of course, we do. But as clarified above, let’s make sure they are actual innocents. The real question you should have asked is, “do we protect innocent life through the business end of an MP5, or do we not?” Before answering, let me address your scenario. You have a rule-less ATF agent pointing a gun at my child (which, I hope and pray you were not likening the ATF agent to the “domestic terrorist” mentioned above). My child actually is six, so I can sympathize with this scenario. Nevertheless, God’s Word is not overruled- if the government wants my guns, they can have them. And if I do not give them, I must remember that they do not bear the sword for no reason. For conscience sake, for conviction’s sake and for my witness sake, I will hand them over. Also, according to the history contained in the first scenario, I have learned that if I let loose gun for gun, some of them may die but all my family will die as well. So, I will submit. In fact, I would give them anything in my house they wanted for the life of my child. This is also a way of protecting innocent life, my brother. And, my brother, I simply cannot accept the thought that it is God’s will that I put my entire family’s life on the line just so I can “take out” a few of “them.” That is incomprehensible, even in the name of “protecting innocents” (which obviously it didn’t). Furthermore, I know you yourself do not follow this thought out to its logical end. You have espoused the idea that you believe as you do to protect innocent life, yet you have never laid a bead on one single abortion doctor (and that’s a good thing). Thankfully, you have resorted to the much more biblical manner of handling these issues as I’ve seen you wear little feet that introduces discussion about abortion as well as I know you preach against it. Ultimately, you serve this cause through your personal evangelism, which I thank God He has gifted you so greatly in. Keep on keeping on!
Now the final question, “how far does the submission line go?” It goes exactly as far as Paul spoke about it in Romans. It will never breach the Word and will of God.
Response to Question #5: “Do you think that it was wrong that the men in the Revolution did what they did--or should they have submitted to the king? And remember--you would be speaking with a much different accent if they did--a stupid one! Hehe” I don’t know, my friend, some of those accents pay off incredible well for some preachers, i.e., Alistair Begg. I must shamefully admit my ignorance in this matter, therefore I cannot adequately answer the question. I have heard, though have never researched it myself, that there were certain laws within the British government that made provisions for such events as the Revolutionary War. If that was true, and the conditions were met, I would have to say the men were not wrong in not submitting to the king because the king’s law allowed it. If not, then if the Revolution dealt with transcendental rights, then yes it was right. If not any of the above, it was sin. But again, I don’t know the facts surrounding it enough to give a definite answer on the particular question.
I would ask you to allow me to make a few remarks on all of this as well as asking you a couple of questions. I believe we need to be establish ourselves upon the truth that Pauline government submission does not equate to pacifism, nor does it allow God’s Word and will to be breached. Those unable to see this truth have had their eyes clouded by an immense amount of ungodly fear and anxiety, an overly excited and distorted view of patriotism and are not serving the full glory and grace of God as we should. I encourage you in these words: Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:6-7, ESV, Ben’s favorite version).
My questions are three.
First, let’s suppose, hypothetically, that you have a member of your church who carries an assault rifle with him in his car. Suppose he drives through a state in which such weapons are not permitted to be carried and, due to some circumstance such as a speeding ticket or random road-block, the police pull him over. They discover, through lawful means, his concealed, and in their state, illegal weapon. He is justly prosecuted for the crime and, behold, his gun is taken from him and destroyed. How do you respond to him as his pastor? Has he suffered as an evil doer or has he been made to suffer by unjust laws, lawmen and lawmakers? Should he have opened fire on them in the name of protecting his rights and liberties so that innocents may be protected (after all, they did take his gun)?
Secondly, you mention that “the second amendment doesn't have anything to do with duck hunting, deer hunting, bird hunting--or even protecting your family.” Could you elaborate on what it does mean? I have no angle in asking this question; I am not looking to put you in a trap. The question of the second amendment is one of the most debated issues around us and I know you’ve researched the issue much more than I have. I believe your input could help serve the larger questions this blog has presented in a meaningful and helpful way.
Thirdly, do you think it helps or hurts the possibility of “it going down” that so many people believe it will? In line with this, does it not become prudent for the government to consider curtailing firearms when they are informed of people’s convictions, like yourself, in combating them?
Blessings,
TJ
Ben Hartwig (unverified): A couple things after reading my response.
Sorry for the incoherent organization--it was blazed out.
Secondly, I am not a member of the IN state militia--I didn't want to keep you wondering on that. I have a different philosophy than most of those folks. But if you would like to see their website have a looksie (as Alistar would say--he is Scottish by the way, NOT English, there is a difference):
http://indianamilitia.homestead.com/
tjmilam (unverified): Brother Hartwig,
First, and most importantly, no doubt we have a very great need to convene for the purposes of ministerial edification over pizza very soon. Thursday and Friday of this week work well for me. We also have a new church plant we need to talk about- I’ll fill you in later.
Secondly, thanks for the information regarding state militias. It is comforting for me to know that “they” will have targets verified “when it goes down.”
Now more on my response to your response to my response.
In truth, my brother, you have me on one issue- I don’t know your exact general philosophy on this issue. This is something that became incredibly clear to me in your response and you have now verified it. One reason I believe there is a lack of clarity in your position is because you sometimes have a hard time differentiating between “it” going down in times of civil unrest verses “it” going down from the federal government. You also mix in politics in general to your thoughts. I believe, brother, that it would be helpful for you to dichotomize your thoughts from Scripture regarding each of these eventualities. And, I will grant it that there are some differences the Bible dictates for each situation. I am very glad, overall, that you never once directly linked your philosophy or response to “it” going down to the cause of Christianity- this is good. What is bad is that you have established your mindset for “it” going down apart from Christianity as well.
Understanding the “domestic terrorists” in your scenario is helpful. It does not, however, change the approach or outcome. I am glad you were not directly linking the “sword” of the government to such characters. Along this same line of thinking, it may or may not be true that the ATF has “no rules”- such a statement needs to be substantiated (sorry, brother, but mess around with doctoral studies and this discipline will become a mantra in your life). But, for what it’s worth, and I do not speak this in an ill manner, almost all government agencies (and for that matter, secular agencies) “makes it up as they go along.” Sometimes this is necessary; sometimes, as you’ve alluded to, it breaches our first and fundamental beliefs.
I have seen documentaries on “Ruby Ridge” and read some about it. Indeed, it was a tragedy on both sides. I think Ruby Ridge may support my belief that the more paranoid and entrenched one becomes in the “it’s going down” and “they gonna take my guns” mentality, the higher the level of anxiety that runs amidst the authorities having to handle such issues become. Yet, again, if God’s Word had been obeyed, the entire episode may have been avoided. This does not excuse any unjust actions (if there were any), but rather it supports the position I am trying to convey. Whatever was happening there, whatever was occurring, was not worth the risk of putting one’s family at risk, and certainly not their deaths- especially over a couple inches a gun barrel.
Then you bring in the very source of my inquiry- the words of the amendment itself (hermeneutics must have paid off!). I agree, and have long agreed, partially with your assessment of the meaning of the amendment. I don’t, however, believe the amendment opens the doors for something like the Revolutionary War. I am not a constitutional scholar, but a slight investigation of the amendment reveals the following. First, the term “regulated.” According to Webster’s 11th, regulate means “a: to govern or direct according to rule, b: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority.” Since the term “regulated” is given in its completed sense, one could surmise that the amendment is speaking to those who are in agreement and accordance with the one in constituted authority, i.e. the government. Frankly, the very mindest we are dealing with here informs me that many with the “they gonna take my guns mentality” are not regulated in that sense- but I digress on that point. Another interesting word in the amendment is “infringed.” According to Webster’s 11th “infringe” means “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” One would actually have to get back to the understanding of the words at the time in which they were written to know precisely what those terms mean. Nevertheless, I believe there is sufficient doubt to believe the government has no right to make new laws pertaining to the control of arms even in light of the amendment. Therefore, I am not so certain you can make the inference you have made about laws regarding such “battle rifles” unconstitutional. I will grant it that the need exists for a certain definition as to what an “arm” is exactly, although I don’t see any problem with states developing their own laws regarding what is and is not illegal (your still cool with states’ rights, right?). And, before you go there, don’t. An atomic bomb could be considered an “arm” as well, but I think we are all glad back country conspiracy theorists don’t have them (they don’t, do they Ben?). I am glad to see you would prefer that no blood be shed in the hypothetical scenario, although your preference strikes against the philosophy you’ve espoused.
Ultimately, brother, your comments do bring up serious questions for Christians to consider. I believe we would all agree that the Bible gives warrant to protecting one’s family from harm, but can we say we are ready to kill those who only threaten us with harm, but really just want our food? Furthermore, Christians need to develop their ideas on recognizing attacks from the government versus attacks from malice filled citizens. Above all, regardless of our circumstance, we must train ourselves to rely on God as our shield (Genesis 15:1), the source of our every need (Psalm 23) and our very present help in trouble (Psalm 46:1).
And, yes, it is too late regarding my assessment of your mental condition. But fear not with your comments; I think the total number of people that read this blog equals four, counting myself and my mother (thanks Mom!!).
Josh (unverified): I'm down with the pizza meeting. Somebody organize and we'll make "it" go down!
In all seriousness, this has been a battle I've fought in my own mind. I've been prone to a gun-toting mentality, but at least for me, I know it's a temptation to trust something and love something that I find security in, other than Christ. Jesus said in Luke 6 "and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back."
Now I know there are exceptions we bring up, and this doesn't have anything to do with government authority, but it does have to do with the way we regard earthly things. To quote the great philosophers .38 Special (ironic huh) "hold on loosely" to the things of this world. If the government wants the guns, let them have them. The same as if they raise taxes, let them have it. God has given them the authority.
With that said, God does use means to accomplish His purposes. Yes God led Gideon to destroy the enemy with lamps and trumpets, but most other times the Israelites used weapons. God gave the victory, protected His people, He deserved all glory, but He used means. So long as we have the laws to protect ourselves and our family, I don't believe it wrong to do so. The struggle is to not find our security in it. The same as with money. We can find security in it, or we can find all hope and security in Christ, and simply see the money (or guns) as a means of accomplishing His purposes.
Keep up the discussions,
Josh
Ben Hartwig (unverified): Thanks for your addition Josh.
And so to the place that I wanted to take this discussion...if you haven't grown weary. This isn't really about guns, at least for me. Guns are a means, but ultimately this is not about guns.
TJ--I am not sure whether your analysis of the 2nd is an exegesis or an isogesis but it really doesn't matter because that is where the discussion is--what does it mean... And as I told Josh, many times we are faced with 2 choices and both of them are sin. We must take the path that leads to less sin--in this case preservation of life. A wise man once told me (you) after I was scolded by a fill in prof for doing situational ethics, that "we do situational ethics everyday." (quote of the great Dr. Milam)
Ben Hartwig (unverified): Quote from TJ "I believe, brother, that it would be helpful for you to dichotomize your thoughts from Scriptures regarding each of these eventualities." What?!?! Maybe I am not reading you clearly but why would I want to do that. I don't want the Scripture to be one side of a dichotomy against anything. I am sure that isn't what you meant.
Ben Hottel (unverified): I have thoroughly enjoyed it going down here! Woo-hoo!
Anyway, I would like to add that, if I understood correctly, neither TJ nor I was arguing for pacifism. The comments I made were dealing with reasons why people hold the perception of "They gonna take my guns!!!!!" (Exclamation points added for effect). Further, TJ seems to be emphasizing that some who hold this view also attach Christ's name to it. . .this is danger zone as I understand him.
I think we have dealt enough with the governmental issue. I don't think any of us argues against the biblical duties of the state. Ben, I would like to hear you flesh out in more detail the issues regarding the 2nd amendment. I could read the resources you suggest. But if you feel you have a good handle on things, let's hear your thoughts. If it's not really about guns for you, then what? That's the original post.
We as husbands and fathers are called to protect our family. In the case of someone breaking and entering, we are justified in allowing some friends, such as Misters Browning and Ruger, help us in such an instance. However, we also protect our families when we give up our weapons at the government's insistence, for none of us, I pray, would wish to leave our wives and children without a husband and a father over this issue.
In the end, let us all follow the psalmist's lead: "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God"--Psalm 20:7
Whether we live or die and regardless of how we die, let everyone see Christ and Him crucified as the driving passion of our lives.
tjmilam (unverified): Brethren,
Awesome discussion- very needed and helpful.
Brother Josh-
Right on, my friend. This is the exact dichotomy between the two events I urged Ben to realize. Also, your thoughts on trust are dead on. I believe this is probably a problem for all Christians in some shape or form- myself included. To get really convicted about it, I encourage you to do a search on the words “Siberian Mission Mike Meagher.” He is an example to us all on how to trust God.
Brother Hottel-
You have understood me correctly and our positions agree; Christians are neither to be anxiously paranoid (1 Peter 5:7) nor pacifistic. And yes, one of my foremost concerns is the attachment of Christ’s name to ideas and philosophies that are clearly not of Him (Deuteronomy 5:11). You have also displayed the dichotomy between reactions to the governmental law and personal/family protection that I have urged upon Ben and others.
I am not for certain we all agree on the issue of governmental submission. I’ll look back to through the blog to see if I missed anything.
Brother Ben-
I was interpreting the constitution by reading my own conclusions and arguments into it. I do this in preaching with the Bible as well- it just saves so much time. Seriously though, as I said before, I am not a constitutional scholar and my conclusions weren’t my own but drawn from Webster. Other sources, such as the Federalist Papers you mentioned could be used as well and for what it’s worth, I may very well look into this matter some more.
And you (or me or both of us) are correct that we do situational ethics everyday. This is nothing new; it was a rabbinical method that even the Apostles used and particularly urged us to do when God’s Word did not clearly dictate a course of action in certain situations (Romans 14:23). I do believe, however, that there is a sinless path to take in the situations we’ve discussed.
I am curious, with Brother Hottel, as to exactly what this is about for you if not about guns- do tell and expound if you please.
You are correct as to my position on the dichotomy issue not being as you believed because we evidently do not share the same definition of what a dichotomy is. Brothers Josh and Hottel have excellently revealed the proper course the Scripture directs us to in different cases regarding governmental submission and personal/family protection. I wanted to see you arrive at these positions on your own (sorry, still got a bit of the mentor in me). I refer you to their words to see what I was hoping to see.
tjmilam (unverified): Friends,
Just as sort of a wrap up to this thread, I thought I would share that I met with Brothers Hartwig and LaGrange, for the purpose of ministerial edification, over a pizza buffet last week. It was a good meeting and, of course, we talked much about this blog.
I had some questions arise in my own mind which I shared with Ben and Josh. I think I too have been wrong about a few things. Namely, what if a major economic collapse occured spurring civil unrest- or what if something that would have similar effects shattered my community, like a major storm. I realized that while I believe my position on how to handle the issue personal is completely in keeping with the Bible, I have nevertheless forgot that in such situations I cannot merely look out for myself and my own. I need to find a way that I can prepare the church to truly be the church in such times. In fact, after talking with Ben and Josh, I think it prudent to communicate someway in which many Christians could come together in such times for support and protection.
The exact way in which this can occur I am unsure of- but the discussion has lead me to deeply consider it. Perhaps sometimes in the future I can work with my brothers to develop a plan in which the church (or our churches) can band together to support the needs of each other as well as the needs of the lost in hopes of showing Christ's love and thus, His gospel.
I have found I have much to think about in this regard. I have decided something must be done, because the very last thing I would hope to ever see happen is a widow or someone in need go without because we never considered such possibilities.
So, thanks everyone for the discussion- I needed it and I hope it has been a source of consideration for us all.
Post a Comment