Progressives, Non-Violence and Gun Control

  Should a Christian store a gun at home for self-defense? As a probation officer, I was entitled to own a gun, but I decided against it. However, this wasn’t because I thought that it was wrong for me to have a gun. Instead, I just didn’t want the hassles associated with it.

In contrast, in a blog entry entitled What Would Jesus Say to the NRA?, progressive Christian, Shane Claiborne, argued that Jesus was against all forms of violence:

• Everything in Jesus' world, just as in ours, contends that we must use violence to protect the innocent from violence, which is the very thing Jesus came to help us un-learn through his nonviolent life and death on the cross. Surely, we think, if God were to come to earth, he should at least come with a bodyguard -- if not an entire entourage of armed soldiers and secret service folk. But Jesus comes unarmed. Surely, we think, if God were about to be killed he would bust out a can of butt-kicking wrath; but Jesus looks into the eyes of those about to kill him and says, "Father forgive them." The Bible goes so far to say that the wisdom of God makes no sense to the logic of this world, in fact it may even seem like "foolishness" (or at least utopian idealism).  

Claiborne mistakenly interprets Jesus’ prayer, "Father, forgive them," as His rejection of any punishment. However, it can’t possibly mean that. Jesus had talked more about the consequence of hell than did anyone else in the Bible!

More to the point, Claiborne insists the Jesus’ “nonviolent life and death on the cross” represents the rejection of any use of the sword. However, this is contradicted by many NT verses (Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:14).

However, it’s necessary to acknowledge that Jesus’ cross is supposed to guide our conduct:

• To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps…When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. (1 Peter 2:21-23) 

Clearly, Jesus’ life models for us non-retaliation. However, does this say anything against  defending our families? Evidently, Claiborne thinks that it does:

• When soldiers come to arrest and execute Jesus, one of his closest friends defensively picks up a sword to protect him. Jesus' response is stunning: He scolds his own disciple and heals the wounded persecutor. It was a tough and very counter-intuitive lesson: "The one who picks up the sword dies by the sword ... there is another way."

Claiborne seems to think that any use of violence is unacceptable. However, should we never pick up the sword? Should we never own a gun or defend the vulnerable? This brings us to the question: What does it mean to pick up the sword? Certainly, we can’t take this statement literally. There is nothing wrong with literally picking up a sword. The criminal justice system picks up the sword. Their very role requires this (Rom. 13:1-4).

Nor can we maintain that Jesus swore off of all violence. He forcefully drove money changers out of the Temple (John 2:12-16; Mat. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46).

It’s therefore hard to maintain that Jesus had taught against all force or violence. In fact, the use of force was very much a part of the revelation of the Hebrew Scriptures. God had ordained certain wars. He had also mandated capital punishment, even before the Mosaic Covenant (Gen. 9:6), and there is no reason to believe that the cross changed any of this. In fact, Jesus even reaffirmed capital punishment:

• “For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'” (Matthew 15:4) 

But what about owning a gun for the defense of one’s home and family? While God clearly ordained certain forms of violent judgment – wars and capital punishment – does Scripture make any allowance for self-defense? There is surprisingly little written about this in the Bible. Perhaps it’s not because self- and family-defense were not acceptable, but perhaps because it was such an obvious truth that it didn’t require biblical support. Perhaps the concept of self-defense was as acceptable as drinking water.

However, there are verses that do speak to this:

• "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” (Exodus 22:2) 

Although murder was such a serious crime, defending one’s home and family took precedence!

Jesus Himself even seemed to endorse a forceful defense of one’s home. He likens the necessity for keeping watch spiritually with keeping watch over one’s home:

• "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. (Matthew 24:42-43; Luke 12:39)

According to Jesus, the homeowner has a perfect right to forcefully resist the thief from breaking in.

I am not suggesting that we all go out and buy a gun. Sometimes, the Lord is best served when we simply rely upon Him. If we do buy a gun, we need to note the very limited circumstances where lethal force is justified.

Guns are not only powerful instruments, they can also powerfully affect our attitudes and behavior. They can wrongly teach us self-reliance as opposed to God-reliance. Power can mysteriously wean us away from our real source of power, placing our focus on the things below instead of the Transcendent. Power can cause us to forget to love and seek first His kingdom and righteousness, knowing that if we do, He will watch over us (Mat. 6:33).

What then does it mean “to live by the sword?” I think that Jesus was referring to trusting in the sword – the wrong object.

Church-Bashing and Genocide

(With thanks to David Singer for the photo!)

Genocide is not a weed that just suddenly appears. It has to be deliberately cultivated over a long period of time. The henchmen have to be prepared and convinced that they are doing the right thing. The target group has to be defamed and demonstrated that they do not have a right to exist. They are vermin that have to be eliminated in order to create a better world.

The Communists did this with the land owners. They were consistently cast as the “oppressors.” The National Socialists did the same thing with the Jews; the Hutus with the Tutsis – first vilify and then eliminate!

This is part of the reason why I object to the overwhelming torrent of criticism aimed at the church in the West. It is not that we are totally innocent; nor is it that we cannot profit from the criticism. We can! However, there is a point when criticism ceases to become constructive and instead becomes systematic defamation, and defamation opens to door to subjugation and even elimination.

It is so troubling to hear the many voices calling for the silencing of the church. And what a stark contrast to the Western acclaim for diversity and tolerance! While they wave the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, they are intent on marginalizing or even eliminating the church. As one atheistic group, I’m Proud to be an Atheist, advertised:

• I’ll stop attacking religion when religion stops hurting people and telling lies.

According to this group, we hurt people by our very nature. We talk about eternal judgment, and that bothers people. Consequently, the attacks will not stop. But talk about calories bothers people! Another group, Atheism and World Peace, declared:

• I have no reason and no intention to respect a religion that violates basic human rights. 

In other words, “I refuse to respect you unless you agree with my philosophy of life.” In this intolerant social climate, we are now charged with “hate speech” when we don’t agree, and therefore, we must be silenced.

However, what are even more troubling than the hypocrisy of the West are the voices within the church, especially among the evangelical break-away group calling itself the “Emergent Church!” One of their exponents, Shane Claiborne, described the traditional church this way:

• When studying sociology, I saw a lot of disturbing things. Sociological studies show that the higher a person’s church attendance, often the more prone they are to be racist, sexist, anti-gay, pro-war, pro-death penalty, and known for a lot of things that Jesus wasn’t know for…Just a few years ago, friends of mine did a study; they asked non-Christians around the country, “What do you think when you hear ‘Christian?’” And the number one answer was “anti-homosexual.” (ALife, 7/15/13, 14)

Well, this is not surprising, given the anti-Christian animus in the West! While I will not dispute that Christians haven’t always conducted themselves as they should have, my experience runs counter to the narrative ubiquitously promoted in western media – Christian parents disown their gay children. I have never seen an instance of this. However, I know many Christian parents who have been rejected by their gay children!

It is not surprising that Claiborne has referenced  selected studies that have reflected badly on Christians. However, I have seen many studies with the opposite findings. However, Claiborne has concluded that these studies represent, proof-positive, that the church has failed to follow Jesus and that He and his Emergent Church movement are correcting all of that by simply taking Jesus literally.

Well, let’s look closer at his critique. Perhaps serious Christian are more “sexist.” It depends upon what Claiborne means by “sexist.” If he is referring to biblically ordained role distinctions, then he is right. Perhaps serious Christians are also more “pro-war” and “pro-death penalty.” However, to deny that war is ever necessary is also to deny that police are ever necessary!  Perhaps Christians are more, “anti-gay,” depending upon what he means by that. If it means that we are against this highly self-destructive lifestyle, then I guess we are anti-gay. But is this in opposition to the love of Jesus, calling everyone to repent of their sins? And is this an adequate basis to join the prevailing culture to vilify the church?

It seems that Claiborne entered into his sociology classes with a worldview already poised against the biblical church. We then have to ask, “What does he mean by Christians being more ‘racist?’” Perhaps he simply means that many churches congregate according to race. Although I wish this wasn’t the case, this is certainly a far cry from his charge of racism.

Here’s what troubles me – so many members of the Emergent Church are just as critical of the church as those on the outside. In Claiborne’s case – and his worldview is reflective of the attitudes of many young Christians – his contempt for the traditional church has led him and other Emergents to reject the church and to reinvent it in a way that it more congruent with Western tastes.

Although the Emergents do not want to see the church eliminated in the same way that atheists want to see it eliminated, their criticism of the traditional church reflects an unbiblical contempt and a willingness to misuse Scripture to support their own agenda.

Claiborne claims that the traditional church has not reflected Jesus as they ought to have. He cites, “And they will know you are Christians by your love,” to prove his point. However, he has wrongly quoted this verse:

•  ^“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35)

According to Jesus, the world will know that we belong to Him by our love for the brethren and not by some amorphous “love” that is supposed to embrace all lifestyles, no matter how sinful or destructive. Sadly, the Emergent Church has failed in Jesus’ love. Instead of loving the brethren, they have rejected us.

I have my own sins, and I am very willing to confess them. We all must confess our sins. However, according to the National Socialists, the Jews had devolved far beneath other peoples. According to Muslims, the Jews had become children of apes and swine, far beneath any Muslim! Therefore, it was fitting to eliminate them as they would any disease. This is precisely what has been building in the power structures of Western society regarding the church.

Criticism has its place, but it also must be kept in balance, the very thing that is now lacking. Once people believe that we are worse than others, they will begin to treat us as such!

What is the source of the contempt for the church? Instead of answering this question, I want younger Christians to do a little self-reflection. Are their negative attitudes about the church a product of cultural influences? Has their criticism ceased to be constructive? Is it merely serving to further marginalize the church or even to eliminate it? Is this what they want? Above all else, what should the love that our Savior taught us look like?

Shane Claiborne and Minimizing Doctrine

Shane Claiborne is the co-founder of The Simple Way, a ministry that is attempting to take Jesus’ teachings into his Philadelphia community. In an interview carried by ALife of the Christian Missionary Alliance, he states that, according to the Sermon on the Mount:

• We are to love our enemy…we’re not to worry about tomorrow. It would flip the world upside down if we really read the Sermon on the Mount and tried to live as if Jesus meant it.

Although much of what Jesus taught shouldn’t be taken literally – He taught us to figuratively pluck out our eyes and cut off our hands and even to “hate our parents" – Claiborne is correct that there is much that Jesus taught that the church has largely ignored to our detriment. Claiborne is probably also correct that our failure to love others as we ought has served to marginalize the church in the Western world.

However, much of Claiborne’s rhetoric is troubling:

• Jesus says at the Judgment all of us will be gathered before God and asked a few questions as we give an account for our lives. The questions are not doctrinal – “Virgin Birth: agree or disagree?” “Creation or evolution: did it really happen in seven days?” According to Jesus we will be asked, “When I was hungry, did you feed me?” “When I was a stranger, did you welcome me?” “When I was in prison, did you visit me?” The real test of our faith is how it works itself out in love and compassion.

Claiborne is correct that real faith “works itself out in love and compassion,” as James affirmed:

• But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? (James 2:18-20) 

A faith that fails to produce obedience is a faith that isn’t real – a faith that doesn’t save. However, a real faith is also one that has content. A changed heart that produces faith also illuminates Biblical truths. According to John, a real faith has the anointing of the Spirit, which teaches us all the things that we need to know (1 John 2:20, 27). One of them is the truth about Jesus:

• My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)

Consequently, if faith doesn’t include certain truths, it is not a saving faith. Saving faith must perceive that Jesus is the Savior – and this is what He requires:

• “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24)

When asked about the “work” that had to be performed in order to be saved, Jesus answered:

• "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:29)

However, Claiborne maintains that judgment has little or nothing to do with doctrine:

• Jesus says at the Judgment all of us will be gathered before God and asked a few questions as we give an account for our lives. The questions are not doctrinal – “Virgin Birth: agree or disagree?”

Instead, it seems that faith, and not works, is the key to salvation:

• "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

• "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” (John 5:24)

This is certainly not to dismiss or minimize our responsibility to follow Jesus. However, following Jesus is the fruit of believing and being born from above:

• For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day…No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40-44)

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus taught that bearing fruit must be preceded by the seed of the Word of God:

• But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown." (Matthew 13:23)

Hearing and understanding the Gospel must precede the crop! As there cannot be any harvest without the planting of seeds, there cannot be any spiritual growth without understanding the Word. There are many reasons for this:

Without faith it is impossible to please God. The Book of Hebrews explains why:

• Because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

Clearly, there are certain beliefs that are essential to a relationship with God. The rest of the chapter then demonstrates how faith served as the engine to produce good works. It was by faith that Noah built the ark and condemned the world (Heb. 11:7-8)

Without the teachings of the Bible, we do not know how to love and to be the light to society. Without understanding the teachings of Jesus in the light of the rest of the Bible, we cannot follow Him. For many, adultery equates with love. For others, the welfare state represents a form of love. The communists believed that their revolution was an expression of love. However, it seems that such “love” has done more to undermine the family and entire communities than it has benefited them.

Good deeds, without a changed heart and Gospel knowledge, inevitably produce arrogance and self righteousness. I have seen so many who have unselfishly sacrificed for others who have developed an entitlement mentality. They subsequently feel entitled to look down on others because they have now become more worthy. In one parable, Jesus demonstrated how the self-righteousness of the Pharisee enabled him to look down on others (Luke 18:9-12; also 7:47).

A good-deeds-mentality tends to give us the wrong idea – that we are deserving. However, Jesus taught that this was the last thing we should think (Luke 17:10). Instead, the only two people Jesus praised were Gentiles who displayed an incredible understanding of their unworthiness (Mat. 8; 15).

Without faith – growing in the knowledge of God – we will not be grateful, an essential quality to serving Christ. Instead, we have to know and remember from where we have come in order to be grateful as a motivation to produce good deeds:

• At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures…But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy…I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. (Titus 3:3-8)

We are what we believe. If I hadn't believed that I was forgiven (1 John 1:9) and totally cleared of all of my sin (Rom. 8:1), I would have remained a dysfunctional mess.

Most importantly, without the Gospel, we cannot be saved. Therefore, Claiborne’s emphasis on a judgment based exclusively on works is, at best, unbalanced. In place of this simple assurance or grace, Claiborne insists that judgment will be based exclusively on works - did I show enough hospitality? Did I feed the hungry often enough? The consequences of this thinking will lead in either of two directions. Either we will become arrogant, thinking that we have performed better than 95% of the church, or we will be morbidly self-conscious and depressed, knowing that we have consistently failed to live up to the example of Jesus (1 Peter 1:15).

While it is true that the fruit of our lives (good works) is relevant to the final judgment, this is only because our fruit reflects something far more important - our faith (who we are before the Lord). As apples reflect the apple tree that bore them, our fruits reflect our changed status before God, and this is the most important thing!

Claiborne’s understanding of judgment is superficial. It focuses on works and not the changed heart that produces them. Although a number of verses do associate judgment with works, these works are significant because they reveal the state of the heart:

• "I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve." (Jeremiah 17:10)

Our deeds reveal the more important question of the heart and the mind. For our Lord, it is the tree (the heart of faith, the heart that clings to Him) that has priority over the resultant fruit. Consequently, if we are His – and this is the main issue - we will follow Him, however imperfectly.

Believing and following are inseparable. Therefore, if we are judged by what we do, ultimately, we are judged by the renewed heart that enables us to do.

Claiborne claims that his outreach to his Philadelphia community has “been fun.” There’s nothing the matter with fun, but what happens when the fun stops. We are instructed to not weary of doing good (Gal. 6:9). This is because good deeds can become wearying. They loose their psychological payoff.

What will happen to Claiborne and the rest of the Emergent Church when they become weary? Will they have the theological roots to keep them on course, or will they simply dry up when the hot sun scorches their ground?