Pastor integrates gun ownership with Christianity
(Note: In a
comment, Brandon F. says, “As regards the gun slingers in church I am a little disappointed in your praise of such stupidity,” and I reply.)
Last week I came upon an intriguing article in the New York Times, “Pastor Urges His Flock to Bring Guns to Church.” It is about Kenneth Pagano, pastor of the New Bethel Church in Louisville Kentucky, who is promoting responsible gun ownership and support of gun rights and was going to hold an “open carry celebration” at his church. I wanted to know about this Christian leader who was combining Christianity with gun ownership, but the Times reporter, Katharine Seelye, was only using Pagano as a hook for an article that was mainly about the spread of gun ownership and support for gun rights throughout the country. Seelye never go around to explaining what Pagano was about. Was he seeking to make gun ownership a part of the Christian worship of his church (which is what it sounded like when she wrote that Pagano “is inviting his congregation of 150 and others to wear or carry their firearms into the sanctuary”)? Was he inviting people to bring guns to church as defense against possible church invasions? Or was he merely seeking to promote gun ownership in addition to Christianity? Seelye didn’t get into any of that.
So I looked up New Bethel Church on the Web. The open carry celebration, which was open to anyone who supports gun rights, whether gun owners or non-gun owners, occurred Saturday June 27, so it’s too late to fly out to Louisville to participate. But Pagano has a statement at the Church website explaining the open carry celebration that I like very much. I’ve been holding off on posting it because I wanted to write a commentary showing all the good things about it, how it properly balances Christianity with this-worldly concerns, which, I’ve often argued, is exactly what our civilization needs to do if it is to survive. In this instance, the this-worldly concerns are individual and collective self-defense and the defense of liberty. However, I haven’t had time to write the commentary, and I would like readers to see Pagano’s excellent statement. So I’m posting it now, and will add the commentary later.
An “Open Carry Celebration” to promote responsible gun ownership and firearm safety. Saturday, June 27th 2009 @ 5pm
This event is to celebrate the birth of our nation. It is open to any and all who cherish 2nd amendment and 1st amendment rights given to us in our constitution. A person does not have to be a member of our church nor even be a believer in God to attend. It is open to any religious, racial or ethnic group. It matters not what your political or personal preference may be. One need not own nor wear a firearm to attend. If you support 2nd and 1st Amendment rights, you are welcome.
Our specific objective is to promote responsible gun ownership and firearms safety. At the same time we would like to see more responsible “non-gun ownership.” Firearms education is necessary in order to alleviate unwarranted fears of guns in general. Firearms are inanimate objects incapable of acting independently of human influence. Guns merely carry out the bidding of those who wield them. For a majority of legal firearms owners a gun is a means of recreational enjoyment. In the hands of others they are a means of life and liberty. Providentially we are privileged to be Americans. We as individuals and collectively as a nation are not here by accident or chance but rather by divine appointment. America was founded upon a deep-seated belief in God and the freedom to own and bear firearms without which this country would not be here today. We are not ashamed of this historical fact nor are we ashamed to proclaim it. We see no inherent contradiction between a devout belief in God and a desire to keep and bear arms.
The Christian faith we profess is of a Protestant, Evangelical heritage. As a Church body, one of our mission statements is to proclaim the gospel. The message is unchanged. The methods of proclaiming the message are in continual flux. We must adapt, improvise and overcome accordingly.
If one studies history they will find that not all Christians, or Christian denominations are pacifists. Christian pacifism is an option, not a requirement. In fact there may be times when being non-pacifistic is a Christian duty.
Gun ownership is not part of the gospel message. The gospel message is Jesus Christ, His life, death, burial and resurrection. He came to reconcile sinners unto God. One is saved by faith alone through grace alone by Christ alone. Gun ownership falls under the scope of Christian liberty. One may either choose to own or not own a firearm. But as soon as someone yells “foul” or that this event or activity is not something that one may do as a Christian, the matter now becomes inextricably linked with the gospel. We believe that a person can neither add to nor take away from their justification by Christ. It is a matter of Christian liberty that flows directly from one’s justification in Christ. The gospel makes Christian liberty an issue that must be exercised in the face of legalism.
When someone says, “What would Jesus do?” we reply, “What did Jesus say?” Since we believe the Bible is God’s written Word to us, what Jesus may do must be drawn from the truth of Scripture. Scripture must interpret Scripture in order to remove one’s own subjective thoughts and/or feelings concerning texts. We believe that there is no Scriptural contradiction in this event. We believe there is only one document that has inherent power to change lives, and that document is the Bible. All other documents are just ink on paper and men in power make policy that is carried out by men with guns. So we promote the Bible, which changes men lives. And we promote responsible gun ownership to protect a person’s political freedom and if need be, their very life. We believe that one day Christ will establish His physical kingdom upon this earth at which time, “swords will be beaten into plowshares.” But until that time we also believe that those who only live by the plowshare will always be slaves to those who possess the sword.
This event is not taking place on the Lord’s Day. This is not a Church worship service, where the focus is on Jesus and our responsibility to Him. Rather, this is merely a Church hosted event, similar to any other event that any other Church may do to celebrate their heritage. It would be our hope to see this event become a nationally celebrated, annual occurrence on the last weekend of June.
We recognize that some will disagree with us about this event, and we respect their right to do so. Yet, in the words of one of the greatest theologians ever to come from the Christian faith: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”—St. Thomas Aquinas.
New Bethel Church
__________________
Open Carry Celebration Click to Enlarge
To ensure safety for everyone:
1. Openly carried handguns must follow “cold range” rules.
a. Cold Range
. Handguns must be cased or remain in holster, magazine removed. Unless in a designated safety area. (All guns will be inspected.)
. Handguns must be carried with the “Hammer/Striker Down.”
b. Designated Safety Areas
. The Safety Areas will be clearly marked with signs.
. Unloaded firearms may be handled and/or displayed only in the Safety Areas.
. No ammunition may be handled in any Safety Area.
2. Legally certified Carry Concealed Deadly Weapons (CCDW) holders might act accordingly as prescribed by Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS 237.110)
3. The handgun to be given away is not owned by the Church. All monies to supply the handgun will be coming directly from those who donate money towards this event. The handgun will pass directly from a certified dealer to the winning individual. The individual must be a Kentucky resident or a legal out of state resident that will have to follow all laws concerning interstate transfers.
a. All State and Federal laws apply.
b. A National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS will be performed.
4. Monies received in excess of the cost of the handgun will be given to a local charity and/or charitable foundations outside of the Church.
5. To further promote our goal of promoting safe and responsible firearms ownership, A Kentucky winner will receive a voucher for a FREE CCDW class valued at $75.00.
6. No celebration attendees shall consume or be under the influence of alcohol or non-prescription drugs at the event site. Any participant found to be impaired, will be requested to leave.
7. Official and Private security personal will be in attendance.
- end of initial entry -
Gintas writes:
In that NYT article, near the end, the reporter finds the usual “opposite point of view.” Naturally, she found a preacher named Phillips who had been shot in church. If Phillips had been packing a gun, something suitable for a Christian (is a Peacemaker Colt good enough?), he could have pulled, and scared off the varmint.
Brandon F. writes:
As regards the gun slingers in church I am a little disappointed in your praise of such stupidity. I don’t think it is necessarily consistent with what kind of world view you’ve advocated before, i.e. “balance between worldly needs and Christian spirituality.”
Not only do these people project the image of ridiculous hicks by taking open weapons in church but they also help endear that negative image of conservatives to those in the middle and independent types so crucial to getting conservative politicians elected. I really believe it is nothing more than a cultural expression, a big middle finger in the face of the liberals they so despise. “Look at us, we love Jesus and we’ll bust a cap in your a.. if you cross the line.”
I would say it is up to the individual to carry a concealed weapon but the brandishing in the open, in church, is a ludicrous move designed to provoke. Church is a place of peace and non-violence and this kind of display sends a pathetic mixed message to their children. I hope these silly people unload their guns before they decide to beat them into plowshares. [LA replies: the open carry event took place on a Saturday and was not connected with any church service, as Pagano clearly explains. His idea is that gun ownership and gun use are a legitimate part of life, and therefore there is a way of gun ownerhip and gun use that is consistent with Christianity. Your comment is filled with tendentious language, “gun slingers,” “ridiculous hicks,” “brandishing,” “a big middle finger,” “and we’ll bust a cap in your a__,” that does not fit the event as described and is highly prejudicial, In fact, your language sounds ike the standard language used by liberals against all gun owners. So really your problem is not with the gun event at the church, your problem is with guns, period, and in particular against people who openly assert the right and the propriety of owning and using guns. Let me say further that the statement by Pastor Pagano is not the statement of a ridiculous hick but the statement of an intelligent man with a a rational and intuitive understanding of the multilayered nature of the world in which we live, which was why I praised it and quoted it in full.]
I happen to believe Tolstoy when he, and others, insist that a Christian would never commit an act of violence for any reason. That may be debatable but it is at least a starting place for a Christian. [LA replies: now it’s my turn to be disappointed. Tolstoy’s pacifist beliefs were not part of Christianity and in fact he rebelled against orthodoxy Christianity and formed his own odd-ball philosophy. Tolstoy was a lost man, who at the end of his life even abandoned his wife out of some notion that the marital state is inconsistent with Christianity. Tolstoy represents the very worst of what I talk about when I say that Christianity if divorced from an understanding of the needs of this world turns nutty and suicidal.]
In the Minnesota post statements about what God wants/does/intends are brandished more boldly than those rednecks carrying their sweet piece in church. How can we interpret God’s will? Can anything happen that is not His will? [LA replies: see my reply below.] The idea of God as some alleged spider of purpose and morality behind the great captious web of causality, as Nietzsche puts it in Ecce Homo, is one reason why some smart conservatives look like fools when they comment on the state of our culture with reference to that “universal spider” as having a corrective hand in our affairs. These ideas need to be left by the bedside at night time prayers.
Decadence is decadence and we all know the consequences. I am not advocating some kind of atheistical conservatism. We don’t need evangelical one liners to defunct [debunk?] materialist atheists or evolution so I think it more conducive to winning hearts and minds of reasonable people by using the same rational approach when it comes to commentary and analysis on cultural and political themes.
And I declare my faith:
I mock Plotinus’ thought
And cry in Plato’s teeth,
W.B. Yeats, “The Tower”
LA replies:
Here’s the comment by the L-dotter that I quoted in the Minnesota entry and said it “says it all”:
“God hates America. He hates America enough to give us what we want. And now we have it.”
What did I mean when I approved of this statement? The moment I read it, I thought of the saying (I think it comes from the Bible) that God chastises those whom he loves. Meaning that God doesn’t want those whom he loves to do evil, so he punishes them when they go wrong, to bring them back to the right way. Now the corollary of that Biblical statement is that God gives to those whom he hates what they want. He doesn’t chastise them. He lets them have their way. He lets them follow their disorderly desires and bad behavior all the way to destruction.
Now, one doesn’t need to believe that one is literally seeing into the will and the specific decisions and actions of the Almighty as he pulls the strings in each individual life in order to see the truth of this idea. The truth of it speaks from human experience. People who do not encounter obstacles and punishments when they go astray keep increasing their bad behavior, until they destroy themselves. And that precisely describes modern society, doesn’t it? We keep behaving worse and worse, more and more outrageously, and no lightning falls on us from heaven. We get the notion that everything we do, everything we can conceive of doing, is ok. The moral framework of the world, of society, of God, seems to have gone into abeyance, so that we are left increasingly free to do evil.
That’s the meaning of the statement that God hates us. He has withdrawn his protection from us by letting us pursue evil. What I’ve just said describes much of modern culture, especially over the last 15 years, and we could adduce many examples.
Again, to say this is not to claim that one knows the will of God in some literal or personal sense or that God literally hates us. It’s a way of expressing the truth about the moral structure of the world. And for Christians, the moral structure of the world is an expression of God.
You write:
“How can we interpret God’s will? Can anything happen that is not His will?”
I don’t know where you’re going with this and I found your reference to Nietzsche in that paragraph confusing [the passage has since been modified by Brandon], but I’ll say something I’ve said many times before: Most of what happens in the world is not God’s will. God does not will evil. He wills only good. The Lord’s Prayer says: “May your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” Meaning that in the normal course of life on earth God’s will is not being done. Meaning that we, humans, need to bring ourselves into harmony with his will. Or, rather, we are asking God to do that for us, to bring us into harmony with his will.
Finally, you quoted three lines from Yeats’s “The Tower” but left out the next four lines:
Death and life were not
Till man made up the whole
Made lock, stock and barrel
Out of his bitter soul
What could be more appropriate to members of Christian church practicing responsible gun ownership? And what could more contrary to the pacifist Tolstoy, who rebelled against the exigencies of this life, including the need for the use of force, seeing them as anti-Christian, and finally even ran away from this wife, because he saw normal family life as anti-Christian?
Charles T. writes:
Brandon’s comments are strangely familiar. Tolerant liberals use bigoted, intolerant language like this regularly.
I wonder what Brandon would say to Nehemiah. He wrote:
So in the lower parts of the space behind the wall, in open places, I stationed the people by their clans, with their swords, their spears, and their bows. And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people. Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for you brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes. (Nehemiah 4: 13-14).
Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites taunted and threatened the Jews who were rebuilding their capital. Read all of Nehemiah 4. The taunts and threats are familiar to our time.
Nehemiah heard reports of all this and understood the necessity of self-defense. He knew what to do in the face of threats.
Pastor Pagano understands this as well:
So we promote the Bible, which changes men lives. And we promote responsible gun ownership to protect a person’s political freedom and if need be, their very life. We believe that one day Christ will establish His physical kingdom upon this earth at which time, “swords will be beaten into plowshares.” But until that time we also believe that those who only live by the plowshare will always be slaves to those who possess the sword.
Pastor Pagano and Nehemiah lived in different ages. Yet their message is the same. We must retain a right to defend our families and our lives.
Pastor Pagano is a Nehemiah of our time.
July 2
Brandon replies to LA:
I realize Tolstoy is an extreme but I think his pacifism represents a legitimate interpretation of Christianity. While these rednecks represent the other extreme. No matter how articulate a person is, taking a gun into church in the open to make a political statement is almost as base as you can get.
The fact is that people love to entertain scenarios where they can use their guns: “What would I do here, what would I do there?” This kind of silliness leads to ignorance if not violence. I’ve been in a gun store when one of these freaks didn’t like the way I looked and rested his hand on his holster with a stern eye.
Its always the default position of my fellow conservatives to accuse independent thinkers within their midst of being liberals when they have a contrary opinion on certain issues.
It is always the default position of some Christians to resort to the violent Old Testament as a response to criticisms of the violent culture many of them embrace. Killing children, impregnating your daughters, collecting foreskins, all of these things could be justified as well (there I go being a liberal again). [LA replies: you said it.]
Taking a killing weapon into church, as I said, is nothing but a cultural statement.
LA replies:
How is it any more a “cultural statement” than any other activity in society involving guns? If guns, gun ownership, discussion about guns, training in proper use of guns, and other legal and proper activities pertaining to guns are legitimate elsewhere in society, why do they become illegitimate when done once a year by a Christian congregation on its church grounds, with the aim of showing how gun ownership can be made a part of, and brought into conformity with, Christian life? It strikes me as something noble and uplifting.
Charles T. writes:
Brandon F. wrote: “It is always the default position of some Christians to resort to the violent Old Testament as a response to criticisms of the violent culture many of them embrace. ”
The NT is just as violent as the OT. The entire Bible—from beginning to end—chronicles the violent, fallen nature of mankind. This violent nature is what necessitates the proper use of violence in self-defense from other humans. Nehemiah did not threaten his opponents. They threatened him. He responded by organizing a self-defense force in Jerusalem.
So why does Brandon object to this? Simple. The church of modern day liberalism—atheism?—has made self-defense a violation of liberalism’s moral tenets.
Thou shalt not defend thyself is a liberal commandment. It is a product of the secular church of liberal elitism. It IS NOT a Jewish or Christian one. It would be interesting to know how many liberals own guns—secretly.
Oh, BTW, why was Brandon in a gun store? I thought he hated those violent things.
Terry Morris writes:
Brandon wrote:
“I’ve been in a gun store when one of these freaks didn’t like the way I looked and rested his hand on his holster with a stern eye.”
That just seems like a complete fabrication to me. But let’s assume Brandon is being absolutely honest with us about the incident, and that his interpretation of the posturing of these individuals is the correct one uninfluenced by his personal bias against gun carriers. Here he is talking about gun carriers (in a gun store) as “freaks,” and “rednecks,” and then complains that these freaks and rednecks look at him with a ‘stern eye.’ What’s wrong with this picture?
LA replies:
It’s obvious what’s wrong. Brandon has an intense animus toward certain types of people, and so, naturally enough, he either triggers animus toward himself on their part, or he imagines threatening actions by them against him. The flagrantly hostile language he has used about gun owners throughout this exchange disqualifies his opinions on the subject. He needs to realize that if he wants people to attend to his arguments, he’s got to tone down the emotionalism.
July 3
Brandon writes:
My emotions aside:
1. A Christian brandishing weapons in a church for political display is ludicrous and only meant to provoke. It is borderline violence and there is no justification for it in light on Christ’s teaching. Read the Sermon on the Mount.
2. There is an element in conservatives that is highly paranoid and the gun culture promotes and condones it. My experience in the gun store was real.
3. I own guns though I keep them locked up and don’t wave them around.
LA replies:
No one is “brandishing” anything. That’s a loaded word, suggesting showing a gun in a boastful, aggressive, or threatening way. You keep using this loaded language.
Brandon writes:
Excuse me for being dramatic. Guns are intimidating to many people especially when they are carried unconcealed. I cannot believe anyone could do so without being completely self conscious about it. What if it was legal to carry a sword? Wouldn’t that person look ridiculous?
How are we supposed to know who has a permit and who doesn’t? How are we supposed to know what that person intent is? I am a little offended at your commenter not believing my story. Maybe my language deserved some reaction but the story in the gun store is true. It’s as if people who carry are somehow virtuous for doing so.
Everyone I know that is a “gun guy” loves to whip them out and play with the idea of using it. It’s a big game people play though they won’t admit it.
I don’t question the right to own guns. I do question the motives of people who wear them like wardrobe accessories.
Mixing religion and guns is a bad idea.
LA replies:
You write:
I don’t question the right to own guns. I do question the motives of people who wear them like wardrobe accessories.
Mixing religion and guns is a bad idea.
Please try to understand why you are not persuading people in this argument, and how you can improve your argument:
1. It would be perfectly reasonable to argue that mixing religions and guns is a bad idea. Obviously mixing them is, in the present societal context, the new, controversial idea and can be challenged and criticized. I have no problem with you or anyone challenging it.
2. But you have not just challenged it. You have repeatedly used overloaded prejudicial language which suggests that you see these particular people as fitting some extreme image of “gunslingers” and “freaks” “wearing guns like accessories,” etc. But you have no basis to say that in this situation. There is nothing about Pagano or New Bethel Church which suggests that the gun use there fits that obnoxious, thuggish image. Perhaps it does fit it. Perhaps if we had gone to their open carry celebration we both would have been put off by it. But I personally was impressed by the intelligence and maturity of Pagano’s statement and the description of the event. To combine Christianity with legitimate self-defense, i.e., to combine Christianity with the protection and defense of a social order, goes to the very heart of my concerns as a traditionalist conservative.
3. So if you are to make headway in your argument, you’ve first got to distinguish between gun use that you regard as legitimate and gun use that you regard as illegitimate. Once you’ve shown that you’re not against gun ownership as such, and that you recognize that some people own and use guns in what you regard as a responsible and acceptable way, then you could make your argument that even in the case of responsible gun owners, mixing religion and guns is a bad idea.
4. See my point? Leave out the prejudicial scenarios of “freaks,” “gunslingers,” etc. and focus on the essential issue. Make your case that even in the best of circumstances, i.e., with mature, non-braggadocio gun-owners, religion and gun ownership don’t mix.
Paul K. writes:
As an unabashed gun guy, I have followed the discussion with interest. You are correct in pointing out that it is off-putting that Brandon consistently describes gun owners in the charged language of a liberal.
In his recent reply, he writes, “Everyone I know that is a “gun guy” loves to whip them out and play with the idea of using it. It’s a big game people play though they won’t admit it.”
Ignoring the “whip them out” phrase, which is yet another pejorative, I think I understand what he means here. On the occasions I show a like-minded guest the .45 automatic I keep for home protection, he might say something like, “Anyone who breaks into your house at night is in for a nasty surprise,” or something of the sort, and I might heartily agree. I assume this is what Brandon means by “play[ing] with the idea of using it.” If so, what’s the problem? We’re just articulating the natural comfort one draws from an effective weapon. I wouldn’t call it a “game.” I don’t say, “I could hold up a liquor store with this!” or “I could go on an insane rampage with this!” Instead, I’m saying, “No harm will come to my family if I can prevent it.”
In over 35 years of owning guns and getting together with other responsible gun owners I have never heard one suggest he wanted to use a weapon for anything but self protection, the protection of loved ones, or, in the event of civil breakdown, the protection of civil society.
As far as mixing guns and church, Brandon must be aware that in recent years there have been several armed attacks on churches, and a number of churches have made sure that members of the congregation who have had firearms training are present at every mass, carrying concealed.
Van Wijk writes:
Brandon wrote: “Guns are intimidating to many people especially when they are carried unconcealed.”
Respect for guns is a healthy attitude to have. Fear of guns is not. The armed private citizen has played an integral role in the history of this country. The fact that so many people are intimidated by the mere sight of a firearm speaks to the profoundly anti-gun nature of the establishment. Liberals see gun owners as criminals.
Fear of guns is a societal failing, not a virtue.
Full disclosure: I am a redneck and descend from a long line of rednecks.
Terry Morris writes:
Brandon is just full of it!
When I first got to Alaska while serving in the military, one of the first things that stood out to me was the number of men walking around in public with a big ol’ Bowie knife strapped to their sides. Now, this was something of a shocker for me because we didn’t do that normally back in (redneck) rural Oklahoma. But, you know, although I must have given some weird looks and probably some weird vibes, not a single one of these people ever took a threatening posture towards me. At least, if one of them ever did, I damn sure didn’t notice it.
But, you see, I just thought it kind of strange; I didn’t have a hostile predisposition towards these people like Brandon obviously has towards people that carry guns.
Kristor writes:
You wrote, “Christianity if divorced from an understanding of the needs of this world turns nutty and suicidal.” Yes. Anything divorced from an understanding of the needs of this world turns nutty and suicidal.
What you have said here is a restatement of something Whitehead said, which is I have always thought a profound insight into the nature of human error. I paraphrase him: “Most philosophical error consists of the exaggeration of some truth.” The reduction of the whole of life to any one factor thereof, which you have consistently decried, falls victim to this error. At its worst, it descends to idolatry of one sort or another.
Christianity is true, and it is true everywhere, true of and in every situation. But there is no such thing as Christian chemical engineering, for example, or Christian accounting. If we are to prove adequate to things as they are, then it is the concrete fact in all its anfractuous complexity to which we must address ourselves, and not to any of the abstractions thereof, to which we may find ourselves attracted, if only because the abstractions are simpler and therefore easier to handle. The Christian accountant is called to the same standards of virtue in the practice of accountancy as his pagan brethren. The difference between the two is that the Christian is called also to give to the poor, render unto Caesar, love God with all his heart and mind and soul and body, and so forth. The Christianity of the Christian accountant permeates everything he does, including his accounting; but it does not change the nature of the excellence in accounting to which he aspires. The Christian sees virtuous accounting as a special case of virtue in general, evident everywhere In nature, which is the duty of all creatures to God; the pagan accountant sees virtuous accounting as a special case of virtue in general, evident everywhere in nature, and to which he is (for no reason he can elucidate) necessarily called, simply because it is the order of nature. Thus the difference between the equally virtuous pagan and Christian CPAs boils down to the fact that the latter sees the order of nature as divinely ordained, while the former does not. But for both the Christian and the pagan, virtue derives from an honest encounter with brute fact; with a proper regard for the order of nature.
Brandon says, “taking a gun into church in the open to make a political statement is almost as base as you can get.” But, taking your very body into church, or anything appertaining thereto, or to the life thereof, is a base presumption. We take our bodies and our money into church, polluted with sin though they be, to offer them up for sanctification. My parish has a tradition on the Feast of St. Francis that all the congregants bring their pets to church for blessing. But this is, not an absurd presumption, but a plain recognition of God’s total sovereignty. And the power of God is such that it sanctifies everything that happens, including Rover and his doggy enjoyments and disasters; this is why, even in the tragedies of the pagan Aeschylus, we catch a whiff of the Holy.
Brandon writes, “Christian brandishing weapons in a church for political display is ludicrous and only meant to provoke. It is borderline violence and there is no justification for it in light on Christ’s teaching. Read the Sermon on the Mount.” St. Longinus brought a weapon to Golgotha, and there used it upon the body of God. We do the same at every waking instant, with every secular instrument at our disposal. God responds in the same way to this our doing as he did to the stab of Longinus: he uses the violence of our alienation from His purposes as an instrument thereof, to the end of our own salvation—just as he saved Longinus. That Longinus was a soldier, and that in stabbing the heart of God was doing his plain duty so far as he could then understand it, was no obstacle to God. And nor therefore were these facts finally detrimental to Longinus. So it was that Longinus’ Spear of Destiny became a sacred relic of the faith. Let Christians and pagans then bear both their spears of destiny and their Glocks of destiny, carefully and duteously, doing always what is right with them, so far as they are able ever to understand. God will sort out the rest.
James P. writes:
Brandon says,
“they also help endear that negative image of conservatives to those in the middle and independent types so crucial to getting conservative politicians elected. I really believe it is nothing more than a cultural expression, a big middle finger in the face of the liberals they so despise.”
Isn’t pretty much everything in popular culture today a big middle finger in the face of the conservatives whom liberals despise? Only a completely blind liberal could possibly complain about conservatives giving liberals the finger as if this is actually the dominant scenario in American culture right now, rather than the opposite. Furthermore, Brandon advances the usual argument that conservatives should abandon or conceal their principles if they want to be popular and get elected, which is self-defeating nonsense. Tell you what, I’ll give up ostentatious public support for gun rights as soon as liberals give up ostentatious public support for abortion, gay marriage, and all their other despicable crusades.
Brandon says,
“I’ve been in a gun store when one of these freaks didn’t like the way I looked and rested his hand on his holster with a stern eye.”
I find this ridiculously implausible. I have been in gun stores (and gun shows, and shooting ranges) many, many times and never seen anyone behave this way. Indeed, I have never seen any kind of confrontation occur in a gun store (or show, or range). I also find his claim that all the “gun guys” he knows “love to whip them out and play with the idea of using it” absolutely preposterous. I know many “gun guys”—and I could be considered one myself—and never, ever have I seen anyone do this. Every “gun guy” I know, including so-called “rednecks,” believes a gun is not a toy. You don’t “play” with the idea of using it, and you don’t draw a weapon unless you intend to use it.
Brandon says,
“It’s as if people who carry are somehow virtuous for doing so.”
It is indeed virtuous to take responsibility for your own self-defense rather than abdicating this responsibility to the state.
If it is “borderline violence” as well as ludicrous and provocative to wear a gun in church then it is “borderline violence” and ludicrous and provocative to do so anywhere. But then apparently that’s what Brandon thinks, since he says, “Guns are intimidating to many people especially when they are carried unconcealed. I cannot believe anyone could do so without being completely self conscious about it.” In my experience, open carry is not uncommon in rural areas out West (and used to be fairly common in big cities out West, except for California, though I’m not sure this is still the case), and nobody who does so is self-conscious about it.
In sum, Brandon’s whole line of “argument” shows that liberal propaganda has done an excellent job of creating a hysterical gun-phobia in his mind. Guns generate a viscerally negative emotional reaction in him—he regards them as something shameful, that nobody “normal” would ever want to have or carry or take pride in. That is exactly the response that the liberal anti-gun crowd wants everyone to have, because this psychological state is necessary in order to make future gun confiscation measures politically acceptable.
Fergie (male) writes:
For Brandon F. See Luke 22:36-38
LA replies:
Please give us the text as well.
Fergie replies:
Certainly.
Luke 22:36: Then He said to them, But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack, and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me. And He was numbered with the transgressors. For the things concerning Me have and end. So they said, Lord look, her are two swords. And He said to them, It is enough.
Nelson NKJV Study Bible
LA replies:
I hadn’t remembered that. That is remarkable.
Which leads to an obvious question to pose to our friend Brandon. Given that Jesus commanded his disciples to buy swords for self defense against robbers and desperadoes whom they might encounter while traveling on the road in 1st century AD Roman Judea, is it ok for a Christian congregation in 21st century Pennsylvania USA to get together and share with each other their expertise and training in the responsible ownership and use of firearms?
Fergie continues:
In addition, the study notes state the following for verse 36.
Jesus here instructed His disciples to take a money bag, a knapsack, and a sword on their journeys in order to be prepared for the rejection that was to come. In other words, for their own self defense.
That is the way I understood it anyway, but that is what the editor of the Nelson NKJV Study Bible sees in that passage as well apparently.
July 4
Ferg writes:
Excellent. Glad to have been of some help. I found it interesting that he found it so important and urgent that he told them to sell their garment to raise cash to buy a sword.
Brandon F. writes:
Given that Jesus commanded his disciples to buy swords for self defense against robbers and desperadoes whom they might encounter while traveling on the road in 1st century AD Roman Judea, is it ok for a Christian congregation in 21st century Pennsylvania USA to get together and share with each other their expertise and training in the responsible ownership and use of firearms?
This is really a dangerous game and makes my point about people entertaining the possibilities of using their weapons. Several things come to mind: I am sure there are alternate interpretations of this scripture. Just like Gandhi’s interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gita, which seems to command violence, offers a spiritual interpretation. [LA replies: Then Gandhi was a complete idiot. The whole point of the Gita is that Krishna is telling Arjuna that he must kill his relatives, as a duty of war, though without attachment to the act of killing. If it’s not actual act of killing that Krishna is ordering him to perform, then the teaching of non-attachment to the act of killing would be rendered meaningless.] What about “Resist not Evil”? [LA replies: I’m sincerely appalled at your misunderstanding. Do you actually believe that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was speaking of actual life-threatening situations and telling his disciples they must let the innocent be killed by violent men? Do you actually believe that “resist not evil” means that if your family is threatened by killers, you shouldn’t resist the killers? But of course you do. You’ve already told us you’re a pacifist and a follower of Tolstoy.] What about the example of Christ never using violence and stopping Peter from using it? [Well of course, that was about Jesus himself. It was his mission to be arrested and crucified. The fact that Jesus did not use violence did not mean that anyone following Jesus must not use force to protect their lives and property is just complete madness. No Christian church has ever taught this. No Christian church tells its members that they must get themselves crucified either.] Also, the example of the early Church and the many martyrs who voluntarily went to their death shows they didn’t interpret it as a call to violence.
Lets assume that Jesus was telling these people to take swords and use them if necessary. That means God Himself unquestionably told them to do something. Here is where people can get into trouble. When people use their religion to justify anything but peace, non violence, empathy, and love they are treading dangerous water. When a person straps on his gun, giving himself a sense of pride and justification and entertaining the idea that God Himself is condoning it, there is trouble. That person may never use violence but he is entertaining the thought and possibly crippling his own spiritual development by insisting on interpretations of the bible that lend him his sense of importance. George Bush certainly thought God was on his side when he got us into these wars. It is the same mentality: “God Wills It!.” [LA replies: Honestly, this is getting tiresome. You keep repeating the same obsessive imagery of the thuggish gun owner over and over and I think there’s no point in continuing this discussion.]
Guns are the way of the world. Violence is the way of evil. A Christian is unequivocally called on to reject the world, embrace poverty, give, and suffer for God. This is the example of Jesus. Of course many will dispute this because it doesn’t give them the sense of power they get carrying around guns. [LA replies: Ok, we got it. For you, Christianity means that if your family, your neighbors, your fellow citizens are threatened by violence and death, you don’t lift a finger to help them, because that would be evil. Clearly you haven’t thought this out, because your focus is on your own virtue, not on the effects of your acts. So tell us, Brandon, does Christianity require allowing the innocent to be robbed, beaten, raped, murdered, and sold into slavery by wicked men?]
I am not criticizing all gun owners as some of your self righteous commenters are implicitly suggesting. I own guns. My Grandfather took me hunting as a child. I have hunted as an adult. Where I draw the line is when people want to mix their religion with their weapons and display them. Implicitly entertaining the thought of killing people, no matter how justified we may feel, is unnecessary and certainly unspiritual.
There was a video recently showing a pharmacist who was being robbed by two young blacks. One had a gun. He was justified, in my mind, to fire in self defense. The problem is that when he came back to where one had fallen half dead he reloaded and executed the kid. This is the mentality of many, but not all, people who see guns as essential to their cultural expression. I will also suggest that a Christian, one who follows the example of Jesus and doesn’t make convenient interpretations, would be right in considering not resisting that evil and submitting to the Will of God rather to their own.
Some of your commenters still insist on denying my gun store story. Again this denial is about them not me. “Gun owners are so responsible and virtuous they just couldn’t be guilty.” Here is the story in brief: My friend and I were working out in the gym next store. We had on sleeveless shirts and were sweaty and laughing as we decided to browse the gun store. The man behind the counter did not like us for some reason and postured himself with his right hand on his gun slightly turned away from us. It was subtle but real. My friend who is gentle and does not have my kind of engaging personality noticed it too.
We also live in a neighborhood where there are lots of trees and land. The people behind us decided to erect a gun range where they rudely fire off clip after clip of rounds. I have called the police four times on them as there are children in this neighborhood. I have had real experiences with gun owners that show less than virtue.
I agree with your commenters about liberals giving their finger to society by supporting abortion, etc. I am suggesting that we not take an eye for an eye by committing the moral equivalent (finger in eye, I am not suggesting that carrying guns and the act of abortion are in any way comparable) by reminding them that we are armed.
Violence is not a principled way of life. Implicitly suggesting to the world that we will use it creates an atmosphere that is not conducive to peace. This whole church/gun thing is really just an extension of the phenomenon of people buying guns and ammo after Obama was elected. Go to World Net Daily and you’ll get a picture of the way I am characterizing some of these types of (non-intellectual) conservatives. Seed banks, gas masks, survival supplies, a paranoid lot for sure.
Charles T. writes:
Brandon wrote: ” I own guns though I keep them locked up and don’t wave them around.”
Brandon owns guns!!! Hot-*&^ %! He admits it!
Somehow I am not surprised by this. This quote is from my last post above: “It would be interesting to know how many liberals own guns—secretly. ” Brandon is one of those liberals who owns guns—secretly.
Strange, is it not, that Brandon uses such pejorative language against other gun owners—calling them freaks, gunslingers, etc—and yet he owns guns. I can come to no other conclusion that Brandon must be equating most gun owners with an economic/educational level of people he despises.
Brandon has now unmasked himself as a liberal, gun-toting, bigot.
It is the next step in the evolution of mankind. Darwin would be proud. (Sarcasm, folks).
Charles T. continues:
I do not know if you got this or not. It is a bit harsh on my part, but despite my educational and professional accomplishments, if Brandon saw me in my blue-collar habitat mode, he would probably label me in the same pejorative way. He has earned the criticism he has received on this thread.
LA writes:
To boil this long discussion down and bring it to closure:
Does Brandon believe that Christianity requires Christians not to use force to protect the innocent from criminal violence?
Does Brandon believe that Christianity requires a Christian society not to have police trained and enabled to use force against criminals?
Does he believe that Christianity requires a Christian society not to have an army, and not to use force against invaders?
Brandon writes:
You are right about this needing to come to a close but I must say I have been mischaracterized in the same way I have been accused of being. I am a blue collar worker and own guns. I don’t like the idea of open carrying and flaunting gun ownership or mixing violence and religion.
I am not a total pacifist. I only said Tolstoy had a point. I’d much rather be in the company of someone like Tolstoy than some of your commenters. Accusing people of being hypocrites and liberals is really just too easy. They can do that but they can’t answer when I suggest they may be equalizing themselves with prophets by insisting Jesus wants them to carry a gun. How ludicrous. I realize my first words were harsh and corrected it by trying to be more reasonable. Some of the words I used may not be the words you use or your readers but the harshness and aggressive rhetoric is as bad or worse.
LA replies:
I don’t want to stop you from speaking, if you have more things to say. Obviously you’ve been the target of a lot of tough criticism here and you have the right to reply. But I don’t want more repetition of the same things that have already been said here many times. And in this your latest comment, I just see you saying the same things as before, personalizing the issue by professing to see some ugly, unpleasant quality in gun owners/defenders.
More importantly you haven’t replied to the three substantive questions I asked you.
James P. writes:
Here are some articles on Christianity and Guns:
Christians and Guns
Does God Believe in Gun Control?
The Old Testament and Self-Defense
What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?
July 5
Charles T. writes:
Brandon writes: “Accusing people of being hypocrites and liberals is really just too easy.”
Yes, and accusing people of being “freaks” and “gunslingers” is just way too easy as well. Brandon does not hesitate to insult. In fact, he initiated the insults on this thread. Yet he backs off and whines when it is given back to him in full measure. Brandon, perhaps you have not learned this yet, but, if you are going to insult people, there are many who will throw it back—full measure—in your face. It is part of life. You need to learn to think a bit before you start the name-calling.
Now Brandon states he is blue—collar and owns guns. Given his behavior on this thread, I am not sure I believe him. All of his anger seems to have been vented toward people who are blue-collar. It is quite possible Brandon is not sure what he believes.
LA replies:
Agreed. Brandon has done the following three things: (1) repeatedly uses highly insulting language toward an entire class of people (he says he doesn’t mean that entire class of people, only the “bad ones,” but the sweeping nature of his attacks belies that qualification); (2) expresses his regret for using the insulting language; (3) complains that others have hit back at him with tough language, even though their language is far less insulting than his own.
Se we’ve already had enough of a debate which has been driven too much by Brandon’s emotions. I again call on Brandon to answer briefly the three questions I’ve posed to him, so we can know definitely where he stands vis a vis guns and Christianity, and then we can let this thread come to an end.
Brandon writes:
Does Brandon believe that Christianity requires Christians not to use force to protect the innocent from criminal violence?
I am not saying a Christian should not defend himself I am suggesting that if a Christian did not defend himself, as was the case with many Christian martyrs in the early Church, I would not think that inconsistent with his beliefs. I am exploring that possibility, not demanding it be adopted. My problem is with open carrying of weapons especially in a church. A church is not a place for militant posturing. I am saying unequivocally that a church promoting bringing weapons for a political display is a crude place that is flirting with hypocrisy. I am saying that there is a psychological/spiritual element to carrying a gun and entertaining using it that is deleterious to the carrier and the people who have to be subjected to the sight in public. I am saying emphatically that tying your gun carrying to scripture or fantasizing that God wants you to carry is not acceptable.
Does Brandon believe that Christianity requires a Christian society not to have police trained and enabled to use force against criminals?
My objection to the gun culture extremities has nothing to do with police officers.
Does he believe that Christianity requires a Christian society not to have an army, and not to use force against invaders?
No.
LA replies:
I’m glad for Brandon’s rational, negative answers to my questions. I must say, however, that anyone reading some of Brandon’s comments in this discussion could be forgiven for assuming that Brandon’s answers would have been in the affirmative.
And that’s the end of this thread.
July 14
Kristor writes:
This was indeed a provocative thread, which I much enjoyed. I have always been struck by the passage Fergie quoted from Luke 22. It has seemed to me for a long time that there is a pervasive warlike subtext to the Gospels. Not only does Jesus adjure his followers to buy swords, but in Gethsemane they were apparently armed; Jesus had to dissuade them from giving battle to the Temple police. Then there are the surnames—or are they nicknames?—of some of the apostles: Simon Zealotes (Simon the Zealot), Judas Iscariot (Judas Sicarius, literally Judas the Knife—the Sicarii were particularly feared Jewish nationalist assassins, who would stab their targets in the midst of crowds with daggers they had concealed in their sleeves, and then melt away), the Sons of Thunder, and so forth. One gets the impression that quite a few of Jesus’ disciples belonged to the most violent wing of the Resistance.
Finally, consider Barabbas. The name means, literally, “son of the Father.” He is described as a robber, but this is code for the bands of brigands who hid in the hinterlands and preyed upon travelers. Now, an ordinary Jew or Samaritan tramping along the road would have been of no interest to such men as Barabbas. He would have wanted to rob and kill prosperous people. But he would not have been interested in generating too much attention from the Roman authorities. So he would not want to target prosperous Romans, but prosperous Jews. More likely than not the prosperous Jews he would have targeted would have been the collaborators, who had got rich on the backs of their fellow Jews: tax farmers, priests, and the like (note that in those days the ancient priestly and kingly houses had been replaced by the Romans with compliant men (Herod hadn’t a drop of Jewish blood; he was Arab and Idumaean), so that many traditionalist Jews considered them illegitimate). These were the most hated people in Palestine. So Barabbas, it has always seemed to me, may have been something of a Robin Hood figure; a revolutionary, at least incipiently. Perhaps Jesus even knew him; perhaps the release of Barabbas was even part of Jesus’ plan (if Jesus was who he said he was, then Barabbas’ release had to have been part of Jesus’ plan).
Now, there is an interesting parallel between Jesus and Barabbas and the two goats sacrificed on the Day of Atonement. One goat was sacrificed in the Temple. The other was the scapegoat; on him, all the sins of the people were laid, and he was driven out of the city to the desert, there to fall into the pit of Azazel, the fallen Angel, the demon. Jesus was sacrificed, and Barabbas was released—no doubt to flee again to his mountain hideout. But the sins of the people were laid, not on Barabbas, but upon Jesus—also a son of the Father, albeit (unlike Barabbas) begotten, not made. Barabbas fled, and we hear no more of him in Scripture. But 40 years later, when men just like him had stirred up Judea to revolt, Rome landed upon his ilk with terrible force, and destroyed the Temple, just as Jesus had predicted.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 01, 2009 01:29 PM | Send