Oh, it's only been the last couple of years...
Posted on 10/26/2017 9:57:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Since when did the gospel become associated with guns? Since when did the Christian faith become linked to the right to bear arms?
Lest I be misunderstood, this article is not about gun control, nor is it about the Second Amendment.
I am not asking whether Christians should serve in the military and I am not questioning our right to defend ourselves.
I’m simply asking why conservative Christianity – in particular, American evangelical Christianity – is so strongly linked with a passion for guns. There’s certainly no scriptural connection to be made.
Again, I’m not advocating for new gun control laws, and I’m not saying that we roll over and die when attacked by our enemies. I’m not even questioning to what degree churches should have security in place in their assemblies.
That’s not my focus or issue at all, and I understand clearly: 1) the importance of the Second Amendment in American history; 2) the emphasis many American evangelicals put on holding to our Constitutional rights, and 3) common sense issues of self-defense.
Still, I find it odd that many Americans associate evangelical Christians with guns – and I don’t just mean that some evangelicals enjoy hunting. I mean that “gospel” and “guns” seem to go hand in hand. If ever there was an example of odd bedfellows, it’s here.
It would be one thing if radical Muslims were associated with guns or if white separatists were associated with guns. But conservative followers of Jesus? What’s our specific and unique connection to guns? Frankly, I don’t see it.
In contrast with Muhammad, who was a warrior as well as a spiritual leader, the Founder of our faith was crucified. And in contrast with the early followers of Muhammad, who went to war on his behalf, the early followers of Jesus were put to death as lambs going to the slaughter.
In the words of Paul, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, ‘For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Rom. 8:35-37, quoting from Ps. 44:11).
This remains the pattern around the world today, where followers of Jesus are the persecuted, not the persecutors. How did this switch so dramatically in American culture?
Again, I’m not questioning whether Christians can serve in the military and fight against our enemies, and I’m not raising the issue of self-defense or security.
My point is that the New Testament faith was not a faith of physical violence or swords or martial confrontation, and Jesus himself said to Peter that “all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (See Matt. 26:52; for the record, it is quite specious to build a theology of carrying arms based on Luke 22:35-38, as I demonstrate in The Real Kosher Jesus.)
The point of all this is simple: Our debates about gun control and the Second Amendment and the strength of our military should not get in the way of our discussion about Jesus and the gospel. Fundamentally, there is no connection between the two, and there are devoted followers of Jesus who serve in the high echelons of the military and devoted followers of Jesus who are conscientious objectors. (Would anyone question the Christian conviction as well as military valor of the subject of Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge?)
What prompts me to write this article, though, is the increasing connection in our culture between the gospel and guns, and it is as foreign to me as would be a connection between Jesus and roller coasters or Paul and soccer or Peter and airplanes. To repeat: There is no scriptural (or logical) connection between them.
So, while it’s fine to have our uniquely American discussion about these issues, given our roots and the purpose of the Second Amendment, let’s separate the gospel from guns. I can preach the former without carrying the latter.
Maybe we don’t want to become the Jews from 1930-1945. Just saying...
“Clinging to their Bibles and Guns” Obama
This is not well-written: “Still, I find it odd that many Americans associate evangelical Christians with guns...” He is questioning the actual supposed association but here is remarking on “many Americans”, not necessarily evangelicals, perceiving there to be an association. And read literally, it is that perception that he finds odd.
There is a season for all things. A time to fight and a time to die.
Luke 22:35
5Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36“Now, however, He told them, “the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.
This is also a poorly written, half-backed thought: “This remains the pattern around the world today, where followers of Jesus are the persecuted, not the persecutors. How did this switch so dramatically in American culture?” He appears to be saying that gun possession has turned American Christians into persecutors.
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration; and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not.The full quote is way worse than that—just like any leftist, he makes the false correlation between religion and the kind of hatred that the left is actually about. He blatantly stereotypes, and of course he turns around and makes the conditions he’s describing far worse than his predecessors did.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter: they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations. …
Oh, it's only been the last couple of years...
Are there Christians who advocate gun possession as a part of their theology? This seems like a straw man argument.
Do Not Murder
by Dennis Prager
------------
You would think that of all the Ten Commandments the one that needs the least explaining is the Sixth, because it seems so clear. It is the one that the King James Bible, the most widely used English translation of the Bible, translates as "Thou shall not kill." Yet, the truth is the quite the opposite. This is probably the least well understood of the Ten Commandments.
The reason is that the Hebrew original does not say, "Do not kill." It says, "Do not murder." Both Hebrew and English have two words for taking a life - one is "kill" (harag, in Hebrew) and the other is "murder" (ratzach in Hebrew).
The difference between the two is enormous. Kill means:
1) Taking any life -- whether of a human being or an animal.
2) Taking a human life deliberately or by accident.
3) Taking a human life legally or illegally, morally or immorally.
On the other hand, murder can only mean one thing:
The illegal or immoral taking of a human life.
That's why we say, "I killed a mosquito," not "I murdered a mosquito."
And that's why, we would say, "the worker was accidentally killed," not "the worker was accidentally murdered."
So why did the King James translation of the Bible use the word "kill" rather than "murder"? Because 400 years ago when the translation was made, "kill" was synonymous with "murder." As a result, some people don't realize that English has changed since 1610 and therefore think that the Ten Commandments prohibits all killing. But, of course, it doesn't. If the Ten Commandments forbade killing, we would all have to be vegetarians -- killing animals would be prohibited. And we would all have to be pacifists -- since we could not kill even in self-defense.
However, you don't have to know how the English language has evolved in order to understand that the Ten Commandments could not have prohibited all killing. The very same part of the Bible that contains the Ten Commandments -- the Five Books of Moses, the Torah as it is known by Jews -- commands the death penalty for murder; allows killing in war; prescribes animal sacrifice, and allows eating meat.
A correct understanding of the commandment against murder is crucial because, while virtually every modern translation correctly translates the commandment as "Do not murder", many people cite the King James translation to justify two positions that have no biblical basis: Opposition to capital punishment and pacifism.
Regarding capital punishment and the Bible, the only law that appears in each one of the Five Books of Moses is that murderers be put to death. Opponents of the death penalty are free to hold the view that all murderers should be allowed to live. But they are not free to cite the Bible to support their view. Yet, many do. And they always cite the Commandment, "Do not kill." But that, as should now be abundantly clear, is not what the commandment says, and it is therefore an invalid argument.
As regards pacifism, the belief that it is always wrong to kill a human being, again, anyone is free to hold this position, as immoral as it may be. And what other word than "immoral" can one use to describe forbidding the killing of someone who is in the process of murdering innocent men, women and children, in, let's say, a movie theater or a school?
But it is dishonest to cite the commandment against murder to justify pacifism. There is moral killing -- most obviously when done in self-defense against an aggressor -- and there is immoral killing. And the word for that is murder.
The Ten Commandments are portrayed on two tablets. The five commandments on the second tablet all concern our treatment of fellow human beings.
The first one on that list is "Do not murder." Why? Because murder is the worst act a person can commit. The other four commandments -- prohibiting stealing, adultery, giving false testimony, and coveting, are all serious offenses. But murder leads the list because deliberately taking the life of an innocent person is the most terrible thing we can do.
The next time you hear someone cite "Do Not Kill" when quoting the Sixth Commandment, gently but firmly explain that it actually says "Do Not Murder."
I'm Dennis Prager.
------------
It is not murder to kill in the legitimate defense of one's own life or the life of another, to kill the enemy in battle, or to kill those who have been judged to be truly wicked.
Excellent article. Thanks!
A local church here, historic, has gun racks for setting your old flintlock in a convenient spot while worshiping.
“Luke 22:35
5Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36“Now, however, He told them, “the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.”
Thanks! Was headed there also.
KYPD
You're welcome.
It's actually the transcript of this five minute video:
This covers the United States of America.
Now let us cover Judeo-Christian tradition.
In the Torah or Old Testament, there were battles. In one important battle, all it required for People of Israel to win was for the Prophet and Law-giver Moses to hold up his arms.
This is very important point!
And the people of Israel were badly outnumbered, as I recall.
When Moses would drop his arms, the People of Israel (army) would lose the battle.
But Moses had two helpers who helped him keep his arms raised - his arms were propped up.
Anyone who has ears need to listen
It is the Tradition of the Christian Church that the Good Shepherd is very important. Jesus is considered the Good Shepherd. Jesus told parables using the shepherd to make his point (does not the GOOD SHEPHERD leave to go after the one lost sheep?)
And shepherds, from the Bible/Torah, carried a Staff.
It was an instrument to gather the sheep.
But if a WOLF attacks the sheep, was not the STAFF of the SHEPHERD something to defend the flock with.
Finally, was Jesus was taken prisoner for his passion and death, he ordered his Apostles to carry a sword.
Why?
How do you defend CHILDREN and the HELPLESS? Sometimes (not always), it is necessary to carry a weapon to protect CHILDREN/the HELPLESS.
WE MUST PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. What did Jesus say about those who would be a BAD EXAMPLE to children: it is better that they put a YOKE around their neck and be thrown to the sea.
My wife and I have a large collection of firearms including many of historical significance and we reload our own cartridges to feed them. A majority of our Christian friends have no guns. The “strong link” between Christianity and guns cited here has been created by the left for political purposes.
Thank you!
misguided
A whole lot of confusion inside and outside the church is about _natural_ _law_ which is linked to Creation, and is not always explicitly called out in Scripture. But it’s taken as a given in Scripture.
So many controverted and confused things in the church are about natural law, not the Gospel, and not even about explicit law in Scripture.
Because Christians are more likely to be conservatives and understand that the Constitution allows that God gives us our rights and that people try to take them away so they can play God by having life and death control over us at their whim....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.