POST SERIES
Introduction
Views of Christian Participation and War
Jesus on Violence and the Kingdom in Matthew 5:38-44
Paul on Empire and Submission in Romans 13:1-7
The Kingdom of Heaven and Christian Identity
Analyzing War and Christian Participation in Light of a Kingdom-Identity
A Christian Response to War
Conclusion
A few days after the Aurora, CO shooting I posted a link from a NY Times article on my Facebook wall and said that “‘There is something sick and wrong about a country that allows its citizens to purchase “3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun’…all ONLINE—not to mention said handguns, assault rifles, and 12-gauge shotguns in the first place!”
Boy was that a mistake.
I got all kinds of responses ranging from the absurd—comparing what can result from gun ownership to an overweight person’s fork—to the accusatory—insinuating I was demeaning military sacrifice for our freedoms by challenging an aspect of the Constitution. I’m quite amazed at the level of fervor reached when someone tiptoes up to the plate to suggest we should mess with the 2nd amendment via stronger regulation and oversight. I am especially amazed and baffled that Christians join in such fervored and fevered defense of the 2nd amendment—as if our faith tells us nothing about guns and violence.
Now I am all for the right for people to own guns—hunters, have at it; I’m even slightly for the ownership of handguns for personal and familial protection, though as Christians our normative ethic is peacemaking. What I am not all for is what has happened when President G. W. Bush allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004: massive deregulation of absurdly non-essential guns, like the Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
As Christians, how should we view issues relating to the 2nd amendment? Is it ethically wrong for Christians to own guns for the purpose of hunting? Is it ethically wrong for Christians to own a gun for protection? Is it ethically wrong for Christians wield a gun in armed military conflict?
This revived conversation about gun control and regulation in light what happened in Colorado has got me thinking not only about guns, but the broader conversation about violence and even war, and particularly Christian participation in such activity, one I’d like to entertain for the next week. I’d like to use an essay I wrote on a more narrow topic relating to war and Christian participation to talk about our posture to a broader conversation about violence—and even guns—in light of our citizenship in Christ’s Kingdom, under His Lordship and ethic
And here’s my thesis: Christians are called to a way of peace that negates any participation in war and calls believers to actively promote and make peace. I would add, in light of this broader conversation that includes guns, that our Christian posture should be one of regulation and a curbing of the 2nd amendment in order to promote peace (which would not include recreational gun use, like hunting).
I will look forward to your feeback and pushback, particularly as we broaden this topic beyond war.
————————————————–
INTRODUCTION
Though subcultures within the Church believe that war and violence are a just and proper aim for Christian participation within a democratic society, members of the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ are called to a way of peace that negates any participation in war and calls believers to actively promote and make peace. A survey of scholarship will reveal how and why peacemaking is the normative Christian ethic. First, while there are three main modern views of Christian participation in war, pacifism/nonresistance is the most biblically tenable. Secondly, the teachings of Jesus, specifically in the so-called Sermon on the Mount, support this conclusion by precluding any Christian from engaging in retributional violence, the type of which is found in nation-state war efforts. Also, the teachings of Paul regarding government authority form the basis of resistance against nation-state actions which the ethics of Jesus’ Kingdom entail. Thirdly, after establishing and analyzing the survey of scholarship, this essay will synthesize the modern views and biblical witness to explain the practical implications for the social ethic of a pacifism/nonviolent witness that participates in peacemaking activity.
Considering our contemporary context in a post-9/11 world, the issue of violence and peacemaking is incredibly important. Rather than following the ethic of Caesar, members of the Kingdom are called to imitate the ethic of Jesus, which centers on loving God and loving others. As an eschatological community, the Church is called to bear witness to God’s movement to re-create the world anew in Christ, a world where violence and war has no place. As citizens of the Kingdom, which was inaugurated through Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, we are called to live into a new ethic, of which peacemaking is primary. The meaning of this new ethic will only be understood properly, both inside and outside the Church, when communities of Jesus followers actively and deliberately embody the costly way of peace. ((Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 344.))
I think it's important to realize that making peace is what Christians should be striving for, but at the same time in scripture you have in Luke 3:14 Jesus telling the soldiers to be content with their pay rather than telling them to leave the military. In Luke 22:36 Jesus instructs the disciples to get swords. Now, I'm certain all of this is self-defense. They weren't to go looking for a fight.
The 2nd Amendment was put in place so that citizenry could protect themselves from the government. At the time British soldiers could simply take over someone's house in the colonies and they basically had the authority to do whatever they wanted. The founders felt the 2nd Amendment would prevent that happening again.
Of course, we have the same problem with guns that we have with the Bible. When Luther translated the Bible to German he was warned that false teaching would expand, but Luther felt the benefits of the people reading the Gospel would outweigh that tragedy. With the state of our country and the lack of responsibility and the loss of ethics we are seeing more and more irresponsible people obtaining weapons.
The catch-22 is that if we regulate weapons now, in an extreme sense, the only people hurt will be the innocent people.
If guns were outlawed the shooter at the Aurora theater would still find a way to find a gun. Just like when they outlawed alcohol it never actually went away, it just became the most sought after item on the black market.
I am with you that "pacifism/nonresistance is the most biblically tenable" view of Christian participation in war. Looking forward to what you have to say in this series.
Re. the political side of the debate, let me offer two thoughts for consideration/pushback in response to the previous comment:
(1) The 2nd amendment was not put in place so that citizenry could protect themselves from the government. It was put in place because the founding fathers had a justifiable fear of standing militaries (as did anyone with European roots, who had learned the hard way that governments can use standing armies against their own citizenry all too easily). To avoid the need for an excessively large standing army, the founding fathers stipulated that citizens should be able to "keep and bear arms" – for use in the event a militia had to be called up. That's why the 2nd amendment begins with a reference to a "well regulated militia."
(2) I'm not persuaded by the argument that regulating weapons now will only hurt innocent people. Yes, some really determined criminals will find a way around the system. But many others would be stopped, including the great many who commit violent crimes without much (if any) premeditation (e.g. "crimes of passion"). I think it's hard to argue that gun regulations don't work when almost every industrialized country on the planet has stricter gun regulations than the United States AND a lower rate of gun crime.
Again, looking forward to the series…
Hey Jeremy, I love your choice to contend with this very hot topic. Look forward to see what you have to say.
As a Mennonite, part of the historic Peace Church, whose people were slaughtered by Protestants and Catholics alike, I sometimes find it odd when Protestants or Catholics begin saying the sort of things my church has been declaring for centuries… that, for instance, peace and nonviolence is the way of Christ, that returning evil with good is what it means to be part of the kingdom of God, and that anything less is compromise to sin… that there is an inconsistency between saying love your enemies and shoot them… Etc. I guess I expect people more like cliffymania who quote the single verse Luke 22:36 without paying attention to its context or its sister passage in Matthew or who point to things Yeshua didn't say to people instead of looking at what he did say to them. And perhaps my shock at a Protestant taking up the cause of peace and nonviolence is equally matched by watching Mennonites and other Anabaptists join the Evangelical rush into nationalism. Anyway, I look forward to reading more.