Knowing that the good folks of SBC Voices tend to sometimes skip the main course (the article) and go right to dessert (the comment section), let me make some clarifications at the start of this post, which hopefully will be read by all!
1. I love Liberty University. My second son attended there, and I tried to get his younger brother and sister to follow in his footsteps. His little brother got involved in a band and didn’t want to leave town. His little sister rebelled against her father’s wishes and last May graduated with honors from that bastion of liberalism, Cedarville University. But my #2 son walked on campus for a visit over 10 years ago and fell in love immediately – he was home. That school helped to shape him into the man he is today. He found a wife there and gave me the two finest grandsons any man could ever have (any attempts to debate that will met with the harshest moderation). I will forever be grateful to Liberty University for the impact it had on my son’s life.
On the other hand, I’ve been disturbed at times since young Jerry took over. On June 25, 2010, he told Mormon Glenn Beck,
“I mean, that’s what my father believed when he formed Moral Majority, was an organization of Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, people of no faith. And there are bigger issues now, we can argue about theology later after we save the country.”
If Beck were Presbyterian or Assembly or such, I would give a hearty amen to that, but to say that “saving the country” supersedes fundamental, gospel doctrine? That is disturbing. We must never make the gospel secondary to political gain. I wonder if the son has the same moorings as the father.
On the other hand, I’m a big fan of the policy he has continued from his dad of inviting people from the other side of the aisle to speak at convocation at LU. Remember when old Jerry invited Teddy Kennedy to speak? What a scandal. Recently, Bernie Sanders spoke and was received cordially at Liberty. That is healthy engagement.
All of that is to say that these words do not come from one who disdains Liberty. They take a lot of ridicule, some of it ignorant, based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation. That is not this!
2. I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, theoretically. My dad never owned guns and I’ve never owned a gun. I have never spent the night in “my” home with a loaded (or unloaded) gun, unless you count a bb gun. But I believe that the constitution gives us the right to own guns and I believe that right should not be abrogated. I am not viscerally opposed to things like background checks or some limits (keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, etc), but in general, I’m a supporter of Second Amendment rights.
3. I have never gone hunting. I watch those shows sometimes on ESPN where a guy sits in his perch in a tree and watches a deer wander by, shoots him and then acts like he just won World War II. I’ve never done it. I’ve competed in just about ever form of sport. I’ve run marathons. Maybe if I hunted I’d get it. Bow hunting? Now that seems like a real challenge! All of that is to say that I am anything but a gun enthusiast. I don’t own them. I don’t shoot them. I don’t carry them. I hear some folks talking about their guns with the kind of passion I reserve for my grandkids. It baffles me. Seems a little odd. But people probably think my passion for the Yankees is a little odd, right?
What Jerry, Jr Said
At last Friday’s convocation, Jerry Falwell, Jr, the president of Liberty University made some shockingly strong statements about guns and violence. Here is the clip of what was said. It comes from CNN (you may have to watch an ad). He proudly claims to have a gun in his back pocket and encourages all students to get their gun permits for concealed carry.
Here is the money quote.
“If more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them.”
That is certainly not a politically correct statement. There is a core of truth there; much that I agree with. This Thursday night we are have a local police officer come to our church to give us “active shooter” training – what we should do if someone shows up at our little fellowship. We have people in our church who have concealed carry permits and if someone ever were to walk into our building as a terrorist or in some other way to create havoc, it is comforting to me that we are not helpless.
What I Agree With
1. Disarming America is NOT the answer
It is true that most of these acts take place in states with the strictest gun control laws and in places that are designated as gun-free zones. The knee-jerk reaction in liberal circles is “let’s get rid of guns.” But France has some restrictive gun laws – it didn’t stop terrorism there. Connecticut has gun laws and so does California. Schools are gun-free zones. This cartoon has been making the rounds and I think it makes a pretty good point.
Declaring places “gun-free” is about as useless and stupid as you get. Really? I’m sure that ISIS is going to see that and have a change of heart. We are rightly concerned that the movement to take away guns is a movement toward greater authoritarianism and even totalitarianism. Every despot wants to have his side armed and the other side not. The founders of our nation had been on the wrong side of that and wanted the people to have the right to keep and bear arms.
But there are a lot of guns in America and removing them from law-abiding citizens is a prescription for failure. I’ve visited Israel twice and it is quite jarring. You walk the streets knowing that threats are everywhere, and yet it is generally safe, as long as you stay away from certain areas – probably safer than most big cities in America. And it is not unusual to see young men and women walking around with semi-automatic weapons draped over their shoulders. Military service (and some of the best training in the world) is mandatory. There is a widely circulated picture of a teacher on a playground with her small children, carrying a rifle over her shoulder.
If there had been one person with a concealed weapon in the theater in Colorado, James Holmes might be dead, but 12 people might not be (as 70 people might not have been injured). What if the professor or one of those 8 students at Umpqua Community College had been able to shoot back? Maybe the death toll would have been much different.
I do not believe that the liberal knee-jerk solution “take the guns” is the answer – either practically or biblically.
2. Ignoring Radical Islam is not the answer.
I do not understand the president’s attitude on this. He seems more intent on defending Muslims than on defending America from Islamic terrorism. Marco Rubio did a masterful job in an interview responding to Obama’s speech concerning the California terrorist attack. ISIS is a form of Islam with an apocalyptic doctrine. They believe they are hastening a form of Armageddon that will usher in a worldwide Caliphate. You cannot say that “ISIS is not Islamic.” It is a form of Islam. Extreme? Yes. Does it represent all of Islam? No! A majority? I don’t know. Statistics vary. But ISIS is very much an Islamic “denomination” with a vision of worldwide domination by Islam. to pretend that anything else is true is simple ignorance – likely willful.
3. Preparing ourselves is wise.
Of course it is. We are under threat. When there is a threat, you prepare. If Obama really believes that disarming is the key to safety, then he should demonstrate that by disarming the Secret Service detail that protects him. We know he won’t (and shouldn’t) do that. But isn’t it hypocritical for him to want himself and his children to be made safe by people with guns, but demand that same protection be removed from the rest of us? I want a few people with concealed weapons in my congregation on Sunday morning.
If Liberty is not prepared for a terrorist attack, they are negligent beyond defense.
4. The untold story.
If you watch the whole video, the part that isn’t told is that just before the gun part, he offers scholarships to the children of the victims of the California tragedy.
Where Dr. Falwell’s Statement Erred
1. Our goal is to reach Muslims, not to kill them.
On top of Falwell’s previous statement to Glenn Beck, I am troubled by the tone of this statement. I would guess that if you pinned him down, Falwell would agree that our ultimate goal is to reach Muslims, but he seems, at times, to prioritize political over gospel action. This is symptomatic of American Christianity today. We tend to lump all Muslims together as the enemy. There’s a sense of glee that comes through at the thought of killing Muslims that ought to trouble us. Is ISIS an enemy of Christianity? Of course. No doubt about it. They kill Christians and are determined to destroy us. They may hate us as badly as many Muslims have hated the Jews through the years. But just because they are our enemies does not mean that we as Christians can regard them as enemies. Yes, our government should engage them militarily and we should take reasonable steps to protect our schools, churches, and homes, but we cannot see Muslims as enemies to kill, but as people to win to Christ.
I have been told by more than one person that there is a harvest happening among Muslims right now – many are beginning to come to faith in Christ. I cannot verify that, but I have been told this by people who work with Muslims. That is our primary concern.
Yes, we want to KILL Muslims – in the same way each of us should die. “I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live.” “Buried with Christ by baptism into death and raised to walk a new life…” We don’t just want these adherents of a false faith to die, we want them to die to self and rise with Christ. This has to be our heart, our priority. We must make this our goal, our prayer, our focus in all that we do.
2. Our rhetoric matters.
“But he meant terrorists…”
Some have pointed out that Dr. Falwell did not mean to lump all Muslims into one group and condemn them all. He probably didn’t. When he said, “those Muslims” he simply meant terrorists who carry out attacks. I will concede that point. But he didn’t say that. He was speaking in convo at Liberty. These were prepared remarks. Even if he was speaking extemporaneously, a man like Falwell who knows that the press reports every word he says should be careful, but this was a public forum. He intended for these remarks to be heard publicly. If he wanted to say, “Islamic jihadists” then he should have said that.
We can argue about what percentage of Islam is radicalized or sympathetic to the radicals. But as Christians, we must be careful, every time we speak on the topic, to distinguish Islam and Islamic terror, radical Islam, or Islamic jihadists (choose your term). I’m traveling to a nation in a month that is Islamic, and is probably much safer than the USA. It is filled with moderate Islam. I’m not saying that Islam is a “religion of peace” because it’s sacred writings most definitely open the door for radical teachings. But we need to be careful when we speak.
What harm does it do to be respectful? How does it hurt us to distinguish the radicals from the moderates? How are we hurt by indicating our willingness to live in peace with those who are willing to live in peace? Every time we speak we need to make this clear.
Intemperate rhetoric like Dr. Falwell’s hurts our gospel cause.
3. Our tone matters.
Tone matters as well. It really does. There was a note of glee in his voice as he talked about killing Muslims. That sends the wrong note in every way. Are we justified in defending ourselves against criminals or terrorists who try to kill our people? Absolutely. Should we be happy about it? Should we rejoice because someone has been sent to hell? We should not.
Reading a tone of voice is dangerous, of course – it is an assignation of motive, deciding what is in someone else’s heart. But when there is even a hint of joy or enthusiasm for the death of sinners we do not have the heart of Christ.
The issues here are not as simple as they are presented by many. Some have leaped to condemnation of Dr. Falwell and others have defended him completely. As usual, the truth is nuanced. He is right about the need to defend ourselves and to defend our young people. The liberal solution is so empty of merit as to lead to the suspicion of other motives. But Christians ought to remember our higher calling, our gospel purpose. We are not here to kill Muslims but to bring people to Christ. Our rhetoric and our tone must be guarded when we address issues such as this.
Christians, we are citizens of the kingdom first and must never forget that.
Thanks Dave. One thing that frustrates me about many evangelicals is that when we are asked, “what is the answer to all of this mess?” and our first inclination is “guns!”, not the Gospel. I’m not against guns, but guns won’t be the solution. We need to be quick to be Gospel centered first. I was disappointed with Dr. Falwell here.
I will say this, I’m glad this wasn’t said from a church pulpit. I was disappointed by some well known pastors who irresponsibly abused the pulpit by bringing politics into the pulpit during the Refugee conversation. We need to be sure that the church is not propaganda for political parties. So I’m glad this was in chapel, not the church.
In fairness, Convocation at Liberty is not exactly chapel. It is most of the time, but they also have politicians, businessmen, civic leaders, etc – I think that’s why they call it Convo and not chapel.
Gotcha. Thanks!
First I would like to point out that President Obama “is not,” trying to take anyone’s guns. He said we need some common sense laws concerning guns. The criminals, mentally ill, or children shouldn’t have guns. In my opinion all hunters should have a gun safety course before being allowed to purchase guns. Just the other day a baby was shot and killed because the father was cleaning his gun loaded. This is pure ignorance. I have five guns, and one remains loaded in the nightstand in reach from my bed. I have no desire to carry a gun, I would if I had to, but until then I will not.
Jerry Falwell Jr. later recanted and said he meant radical Islamists. The NRA has folks eating out of their hands spreading lies. The NRA called Government law enforcers a bunch of gun toting thugs. This is when George Bush Sr. stopped being a member of the NRA.
We have to have some commonsense laws concerning guns. If we do not, may the Lord help us. I’m not afraid of anyone to the point of having to carry a gun. I realize there are circumstances that a concealed weapon may be handy.
I am a pro-lifer, I would shoot only when I would absolutely have to. I think we maybe asking for trouble when everyone starts carrying a gun for the simple fact that there are folks who would shoot when they don’t have to.
I submit to you that police is not for just handing out speeding tickets they are for our protection.
I’d just like to say that California has some of the toughest (common sense, some not so common sense, and some nonsense) gun laws.
There is absolutely NO GUN LAW that could have prevented the incidence in San Bernardino. That’s a fact.
What could have prevented the tragedy would have been a “common sense” approach to terrorism by the Obama Administration. The blame for San Bernadino lay at Obama’s feet–not the NRA.
To even mention “gun control” in regard to San Bernadino is nothing more than Democratic propaganda-pure and simple . . . well, maybe not so pure.
If people want to kick around the political football of gun control, have at it. But, for Obama, clearly the weather and gun control are his top priorities. That is sad.
Jack,
Next time it rains, I’ll blame your president. Obama is your president.
Jess, I don’t really understand your blind loyalty to Obama simply because he won an election.
Who was in charge when this radical Muslim intent on harming Americans was not only give a visa, but a green card?
Does not Obama bear responsibility for that failure? Doesn’t it concern you at all that Obama’s response to this terrorist act is to push his agenda on “gun control?” Even if I were a gun control advocate, which I am not, I would despise the politicizing of a terrorist act.
I know I might as well be talking to a wall, but I cannot comprehend an allegiance of a professing Christian that is so blind as to not at least hold open the possibility that Obama’s policy on fighting terrorism is inept at best and treasonous at worst.
And, Obama’s incompetent foreign policy has placed us in the same predicament as existed before we entered WWII. While the world is engaged in a war on terror in the Middle East, China is revving up it’s war machine in the Pacific.
It is ironic that I am writing this on the day after the 74th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. My son’s ship is readying for conflict in the Pacific.
Jess, I am not an Obama hater simply because he is Obama. I know there are some that have a hatred for him that is as blind as your allegiance, but I’m not one of them. He had a “golden ticket” when he was elected to make a real difference in the U.S. and around the world–for good.
His legacy will be a disaster that can only be savaged by a revisionist progressive history. He will go down in history as the President that knocked Carter out of last place.
The sad reality is that his incompetence or ideology (I don’t know which) has placed America in a very weak position.
Please don’t just make this about “Obama Haters.” I had high hopes for his presidency even though I did not vote for him or support his basic platform. I did not abandon Obama as my president–he abandoned me.
Thanks Dave for opening up comments on this matter. To date, enough words have been printed to fix the whole mess, were verbiage a real solution.
I am reminded of Mr. Einsten’ comment, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Bottom line: Mr. Falwell was totally wrong, totally un-Christian and totally destructive. While I appreciate your excellent instruction and well-balanced understanding, I do not sense that you are ready to proclaim how very evil this man has behaved. It came from his heart and I don’t care what school or church pulpit he used. His attitude and fundamentalist fear mongering is no different than the other side.
This man, (all respect to your sons education) reveals a frightening addition to the world of hatred-turned-violence. Nothing about what he said or did may be justified by the Jesus he claims to follow. The harm to the students alone demands his public repentance.
If the trustees do not demand his resignation, it is a sad day.
If other Christians do not speak out against him, the war of attrition will escalate and our country is in for yet another round of decline in Christendom born of idiocy and shallow leadership in Christ name.
Radical Islamist–meet Benign Christian. Let the wars be fueled and grow.
This was written after I had calmed down a good bit.
Glenn Harrell,
No truer words have ever been spoken. Thank you so much.
I also would point out that when the disciple Peter pulled out his fishing knife and used it on a man. Jesus put Peter in his place.
First, Peter used an actual sword, not some silly “fishers knife”. Second, one should point out that Jesus knew that this was the point in which He would fulfill His purpose, that is being taken to be crucified so He could be our sacrifice. Anyone using this instance as a case against self defense is butchering the text worse than what Peter did the the soldiers ear.
SVN,
Nope not a sword!
In martial contexts, Marchaira in Greek is used to signify a sword with a non-forward curving blade (that would be a Kopis). Yes, in other contexts marchaira can mean any bladed instrument. But context determines meaning. Unless you suggest that in Romans 13:4 Paul meant that the government “does not bear the ‘fisherman’s knife’ in vain”? Same Greek word, same martial meaning, both signifying a weapon of war. A sword.
SV is correct Jess
SV,
First of all Rome would have not allowed Israel to be armed, a knife would not be considered a weapon by the Romans.
Second, anything longer than a fisherman’s knife would not have been convenient for a fisherman to wear. Remember all the nets fisherman had to clean. Anything longer than a knife or dagger would become entangled in the nets.
Thirdly, Machaira in the Greek means dagger or short sword and is totally different from Rhomphaia which means long sword or spear. It had to be something a working man would carry, short and convenient. It is a fisherman’s knife.
Jess…
1. Wrong on Roman Law. Private weapons were commonplace. Google “The Roman Legal Treatment of Self Defense and the Private Possession of Weapons in the Codex Justinianus”
2. Weren’t fisherman back then were basically naked while working on the boat? If so a sword would have been put aside with the cloak and such.
3. Short swords and long swords are both swords. Either way it is presented as a weapon rather than a vocation-specific cutting tool.
4. In the movie it was a short sword…. and while this means little it does a pretty good job of showing how such a sword could be conveniently concealed and used to cut off an ear
SV,
You cannot clean fish with a sword. You have to gut them, and scale them, maybe.
Notice how Jess has completely ignored the identical word being used in Romans 13:4. Clearly pointing out that fact disrupts his narrative and extra-biblical hermeneutical gymnastics.
What Jess is missing is that Peter left his nets to follow Jesus, and the only time he returned to them was when he was out of fellowship with Christ. He also caught one fish to pay his and Jesus’ temple tax. He would not have needed a fishing knife everyday.
I’m not sure what has aroused your anger so much, Glen.
I chose my words carefully. I think he was intemperate in his words, but I think the idea of self-defense against Islamic terrorism is reasonable. The idea that a reasonable number of people at Liberty would be armed and ready to defend others is not unreasonable. Have you ever been on campus? It is not isolated. It is not exactly Ft Knox and it would be hard to make it so. A major highway splits the campus. His idea is reasonable. The way he expressed it was unreasonable.
He failed to distinguish radicals and other Muslims. He was cavalier in the way he expressed the concept of killing people. It was crass. But I think your words are intemperate as well. Your rhetoric is as overblown as his.
I am certainly not angry or upset with you Dave. You are one of the most sensitive, truthful and balanced men I read. Thank you for your integrity and honor to God and His Word.
We all know the story of the watermelon farmer who put up a sign that read, “guess which melon is poisoned”. The next day the teens he had hoped to frighten away had left another sign that read, “no–you guess”.
Mark my word. These extremest’s have seen this You tube disaster speech of cocky absurdness and Falwell is a marked man. And this school had better provide another several tiers of security for their precious children who, because of their presidents inappropriate behavior, are now in danger themselves. This Falwell debacle now requires Fort Knox type security for the unforeseeable future. (unforeseen huge budget allocation)
This is exactly why I am so upset. These Islamic extremest have long arms. They are armed with wickedness by the wicked one. They want and need us to act just as Falwell. It will assure that their retribution is holy and Jesus is but a mere figure head.
Mr. Falwell, this is more of a tongue control issue than gun.
If I had done this as he and did not receive scathing admonition from my fellow ministers, this too is a disaster and sad commentary of the state of Christianity in this country.
Glenn,
I agree with you from the beginning part about Dave to the end part of the sad commentary.
The purpose of terrorists is to install fear. Religious terrorists seek to install fear to show how weak all other gods are but their own. And when Western leaders react with fear, it is understandable for they serve people and are in power to protect the physical lives of their people. But when religious leaders show fear, they betray their own god or in our case The God and present Him as weak before the world.
Our Shepherds are to not show fear. We are to react like the three Hebrew young men about to be tossed in the fiery furnace: Our God can save us from death, but even if He chooses not to, we will seek to serve Him.
Or as Paul tells us in 2nd Cor. 10:
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. You are looking at things as they are outwardly.
These religious terrorists are raising up ideas and speculations against the true knowledge of God. We don’t win that battle brandishing pistols or rifles.
And this battle has cost many the life of a brother and sister, and will continually do so. Onward Christian Soldier, but not with a gun.
Parson,
Curious as to why you equate being armed against random violence is somehow based in fear? I would say it is wisdom.
Dave, I was uncomfortable with Dr Falwell’s words. Everything about it seemed wrong coming from a man of God. We are working on our policies, constitution and bylaws at VBC. We will include an emergency response plan in our policies. Part of this plan will or will not call for certain law enforcement officers to have concealed firearms. If we choose for these gentlemen to be packing will it be as bad as Dr Falwell’s comments?
As I said in my piece, I think it is reasonable for churches, schools and other institutions to have security, even armed security in place. I would think that except in the most extreme of circumstances it should be as “behind the scenes” as possible – “concealed” carry is the operative word.
My biggest problem with Falwell was with his tone and attitude.
Thanks Dave, this is a real issue for me. I remember the first big conflict in the first church I pastored was if it was appropriate to ever lock the church doors. Now we are putting together a plan that includes armed men in the church.
I pastored a church whose doors had never been locked. The current pastor is a friend we share. I do not know if they lock the doors now.
Still unlocked. A few look at me funny and jokingly mock me when they see me unlocking the door to the parsonage.
If you get a ticket anytime soon, it might be my fault. I was selling some stuff on eBay and one address was the Court House. I mentioned that I used to live in Drakes Branch and he said he is a cop there! I told him to give you a ticket and sign my name.
Funny. Small world.
This kind of thing frustrates me. The NRA and the like-minded have this vision of a wild-west utopia where we are all safe because everyone is packing. I’m all for letting people who want to carry guns legally, carry them (within reason). I’m NOT for encouraging your whole student body (or even a significant portion of them) to carry guns. As a professor, I can tell you I would definitely NOT feel safer if I knew thousands of gun-toting college students were wandering around with the conflict, stress, pressure and strife that accompanies being a student. I’m NOT for gun toting students (not the most mature people I’ve ever met) wandering around, looking for a chance to “end those Muslims”. I’m NOT for letting people know exactly where they can get a gun (e.g.: I have a gun in my back pocket). People blithely think in a crisis they will simply blaze away like Wyatt Earp and be the hero. Handguns are notoriously harder to shoot accurately than people think they are. Confront an active shooter, and maybe you’ll save the day. But maybe you’ll shoot an innocent bystander, or a first responder, our yourself. My son is an emergency physician, and has treated plenty of people who have shot themselves pulling their loaded, chambered gun out of their pocket.
I have guns, and I hunt. I’m a fan of the 2nd Amendment. But there are already enough guns to arm everyone in the country, so I’m not going to lament the dearth of guns in the country. How crazy have we become when we think people on the no-fly terror watch list should still be able to buy guns?
Two things ought to bother you.
1. How often we think alike.
2. Those few things on which we disagree.
I just got chills.
“How crazy have we become when we think people on the no-fly terror watch list should still be able to buy guns?”
Yep, some folks are so open-minded on that one that their brains have fallen out. “I’m on a watch list, watch me buy a gun!” Only in America.
Bill,
It is true that the art of pistolcraft is on the decline due largely to urbanization and the decline of shooting sports. We have a group of folks who have been trained who are armed everytime the church meets (current and former peace officers and military). I am confident that we also have a lot of other folks who are armed.
If I am ever in a room full of people and someone comes to kill us all, I will be happy for every single person who is armed. I will happily take a stray bullet to save 20 other people.
Donald,
This is a tricky subject for me. As I said, I like the 2nd amendment, and I’m glad we have trained people around who carry weapons. But we also seem to have a generation of people who think they aren’t safe unless they have a loaded, chambered gun with the safety off (or no safety) on their person or in their house. And then you have toddlers shooting each other, or their parents, or people shooting themselves or their friends. I grew up in a hunting family, and hunting camp was a place of dubious morals, but one thing was hammered into me at a young age: You don’t bring a loaded gun into the camp (or house). I won’t go into details but our family has had its own tragedy regarding someone who thought it was a good idea to have a loaded gun in the house. I don’t begrudge people carrying handguns, I have served as a reference for several people applying for pistol permits. But I refuse to believe people other than law enforcement or the military need to carry a gun with one in the chamber and the safety off (or no safety). The 1 second it takes to chamber a round or take off the safety might just give someone 1 more second to think through a crisis situation before deciding to try to kill someone. Can 1 second make a difference in a negative way too? Sure, but I’m willing to bet the positives of taking one more second to think outweigh the negatives not being ready to kill at a moment’s notice.
I get you Bill. I do have fundamental disagreements with your suggestions (due to my training) but I want to say I appreciate where you are coming from and I agree that there are always examples of freedom/liberty being abused. I don’t have all the answers. What I can say for sure is that anyone who is being attacked will wish they had some way of effectively defending themselves and their loved ones.
I currently own 2 handguns, (use to have another that was made by a different manufacturer), do not have a manually operated safety. And yet, they are without a doubt, the safest firearms I own. These firearms cannot, in any circumstance be fired with out pulling the triggers. You could drop it from 10,000 feet and the gun would break before it triggered a round. Another handgun I own is a 1911. The safety can only be engaged with the hammer locked back. If I carried it with the hammer down (which would be required for certain styles of holsters I would like to get for it), I cannot engage the safety. This is a firearm that could, if dropped with the hammer down and the safety off, actually result in a discharge. Thus I do not carry it that way.
In all three, for me to rack the slide to load a round in the chamber (after first having drew it from my holster) would take much too long in a situation that I need to defend myself. Most people, like you, seem to think self defense situations happen like in the movies, where the bad guy is dozens if not hundreds of feet away allowing you plenty of time to draw, rack the slide, point/aim and shoot. In reality, most cases of self defense use of firearms happens within 7 yards (21 feet for those bad at math). The average person can close that distance in a matter of seconds.
This is to say nothing about the disabled, people who cannot use one of their hands/arms. How exactly would you say they could rack the slide to load a round in the chamber?
Did you know revolvers always have a round in the chamber? That is unless you leave one empty, turning your (at best) 6 shooter into a 5 shot gun. Where is the sense in that?
Now my next firearm purchase will likely be a handgun that does have a manual safety, and I will carry it with a round in the chamber and the safety on (because I can draw and release the safety in one motion). My AR is in its case right now unloaded with the safety on. When I had my .308, I stored it unloaded and with the safety on. You do not need to tell me about gun safety, I likely know more than you. I never have had an accident, and (Lord willing) I never will due to the steps I take and have put into active practice every time I handle a firearm (which is every day).
Good comment. I don’t own a gun. I recently shot my dad’s pistol and was very disturbed by my inability to hit the target under the calmest of circumstances. I hate to think what it would be like if I had to shoot the thing at a killer in a crowded area. I may still purchase a gun for defending my family at home, but I cannot imagine being comfortable carrying it in public.
“I cannot imagine being comfortable carrying it in public.”
Get training if you are going to get a handgun. For under $2K you can have the best training in the world @ Gunsite.
Since the “no fly” and terror lists got brought up…I’m not a fan of denying people their constitutional rights without due process. As such, until someone on said list has been convicted of a crime, their rights should not be abridged.
So…how crazy have we become that we’re talking about doing away with constitutional rights without due process?
Joseph,
Fair enough, then let’s let them fly as well.
Flying is not a constitutional right and certainly not a fundamental one -,
Imo, Being a legit suspect of terrorism is enough to restrict flying – but not for denying a fundamental constitutional right.
Having said that I’m concerned that the process by which a person is added to the no-fly list has very little oversight and can certainly be used as a tool of government depression if not monitored. Having said that I’m concerned that the process by which a person is added to the no-fly list has very little oversight and can Potentially be used as a tool of government oppression if not monitored.
This is why I do not support the people on the no-fly list ( The way is currently set up) being denied the purchase of a gun.
*Government oppression
Civil rights during wartime is an issue that really needs to be dealt with. Especially now that we are going to be in perpetual undeclared war.
Shall we also restrict their freedom to worship as they see fit? To peaceably assemble? What other constitutional rights should we abolish due to someone’s name being on a list, whether appropriately or inappropriately?
It’s a dangerous path to walk, hoss. I’d rather we not go there, wouldn’t you?
I just wish the world was talking more about Radical Christians (of a good sort), than Radical Muslims.
David Platt worked that term radical to good effect, but perhaps in this day we need to make use of a different term. Not completely sure. Maybe passionate? Committed. Maybe go back to the term from my youth. Back then we were “on fire.”
Yea, unfortunately the word “Radical” is starting to have negative connotations. I wish that weren’t the case because I love everything David Platt has done.
Dave,
Was the term “on fire” in vogue during your youth because fire was invented during your teenage years?
Where is that doggone “ban” button.
I can see why a lot of people are afraid of Muslims or people who look like they are from the Middle East. Some of them might be terrorists. They are afraid of death.
I can’t see why Christians are afraid of terrorists. They shouldn’t be afraid of death. In fact we are plainly told not to fear the one that can harm the body only.
I’m not saying Christians shouldn’t carry a gun. I am saying he shouldn’t carry a gun because of fear.
One of the things I see wrong with the health and wealth movement is that their focus seems to be on enjoying this world, the here and now, this life. But it seems quite similar to those Christians who are fearful of terrorist caused death. They don’t want to die, they want to live, and they want to live so badly they will shoot and possibly kill another to stay in this world.
And what is the message, Dr. Falwell, and others, is giving to the lost world? Our God isn’t big enough to keep us safe, and He isn’t wonderful enough that seeing Him in death is attractive.
I’m not saying we should court death, that would be foolish. We shouldn’t try God. But some people trust in horses and chariots and guns. For what? For physical life.
I think we should be a people who don’t trust in those things, and instead trust in the Lord our God.
ParsonM said: “I’m not saying Christians shouldn’t carry a gun. I am saying he shouldn’t carry a gun because of fear.”
Why do you assume that fear is the motivation? In your theology of emotion, what place does fear hold?
Dr. James White just brought up something similar to this on his Facebook. I think its worth noting to post. I think it’s relevant to Dave’s last two points.
Islam is not a monolithic religion. There is not a “single” “true Islam.”
First, ISIS draws from a stream of Islamic thought and jurisprudence that goes back to the earliest periods of Islam. Though the final very closed, radical, unreformable (note this!) form that is plaguing us today took time to develop (for example, the concept of the Qur’an as uncreated and eternal took generations to evolve), it is plainly ISLAMIC in its theology and its sources. It obviously isn’t Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Mormon! This is not only indisputable, it is likewise what I have been saying consistently, as the documentation plainly shows.
But it is just here that many of my critics jump the rails of rationality. If ISIS is Islamic, then is it the ONLY form of Islam? OF COURSE NOT. This would require us to hold to the absurd belief that there is a monolithic, consistent form of Islam worldwide. Not only does history prove this ridiculous, but it likewise would mean that the source documents (Qur’an and Hadith) are consistent enough to produce such a monolith. And it is painfully obvious that those sources are NOT consistent or coherent, an argument that again I have made over and over and over again.
So while ISIS is Islamic, it is not the ONLY stream of Islamic thought, doctrine, and practice. The stream that produced the narrow, destructive form of Islam we see today did not produce the high levels of culture that flourished in early centuries in the Islamic empire, a culture that produced high levels of scientific, philosophical and mathematical inquiry, for example. The streams of thought and belief that can be traced to that period have produced other forms of Islam today. Sadly, however, the narrow, destructive form of Islam destroyed that very civilization and, clearly, today, remains just as destructive and regressive as it has ever been.
So, what is the problem? To the serious student of Islam, history, theology, etc., this is not even a dispute. Islam is a multi-faceted movement. But the narrative that is predominating in many quarters of American media (and outside the US) is not willing to take the time to listen to the facts. Instead, this shallow, emotionally-laden mindset does not wish to do the work necessary to distinguish, honestly, between thoughtful and non-violent Muslims and violent jihadis. It is much easier to accept the narrative that all Muslims are jihadis who want to kill you and are simply looking for the opportunity to get around to it. It is much easier to foster hatred that way, and it sure sells, too! So ignore the facts, ignore history, ignore reality—throw all Muslims into a single big pile, make Anjem Choudhry their primary representative, and go to town with the wholesale promotion of—yes, are you ready?—Islamophobia! Because that is what that kind of emotional bigotry is.
Now, it is not helping MY bottom line to stand against this movement. But the fact of the matter is, as a Christian, I have no choice. I cannot sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy and depth of consideration and grace on the altar of what is popular today, EVEN WHEN MANY WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS ARE INVOLVED IN THE MOVEMENT. If you cannot control your emotions and insist upon broad-brushing every Muslim into the ISIS camp, that is your choice: you are dishonoring the gospel to do it. And when you are broad-brushed into being responsible for the crusades or Westboro Baptist or whatever else—don’t complain. You have no grounds to. Remember the Golden Rule?
A couple of questions for anyone who has the answer.
1. Doesn’t Liberty have Muslim students? 2. How does this statement by Falwell affect missionaries who are in Muslim countries? Does it endanger them further?
Tyler I agree 100% with Dr. White on this subject.
I assumed they did not. It was my belief that students had to sign a statement of faith to enroll. But when I tweeted my belief to that effect to Rod Dreher (he has written some WONDERFUL articles on this) Dr. Moore responded that there are 15 or 20 Muslims at Liberty. Evidently they are required to live according to basic code of conduct.
Thank you for checking Dave.
Dave,
Thank you for having the courage to voice your views on Jerry Falwell Jr’s comments on guns on campus. I might frighten you to know I agree completely with your thoughts. I support the 2nd amendment but do not support the NRA. I have for long time wondered why the conservative position, either theologically or politically, has seemed to be so pro-gun and pro-NRA. It didn’t necessarily correspond with my early learning regarding Jesus’ teachings or my conservative law and order upbringing. You and I have both lived in a country with extremely strong gun control laws and I am glad for it. The rate of gun related deaths in the US is approximately 12 times greater than in our former home. Can you imagine every taxi driver in that country carrying a fire arm? It would be suicide to get on the road.
I would like to comment on one point. I have friends whose children attend Liberty University primarily because they formerly let MKs attend for free. I am sure you can get a good education there and meet other strong Christians. I read your statement concerning Jerry Falwell Sr. and Jr. when you said, “I wonder if the son has the same moorings as the father.” If anything Jerry Sr. was more radical that Jr. when comes to working with and cooperating with those with aberrant theology. Jerry Sr. attended several rallies and appeared on stage supporting Sun Myung Moon. Moon declared Jesus Christ a failure and said that he himself was the new messiah. This did not seem to bother Falwell when he was organizing prayer breakfasts with Moon. In fact, in the early years when Liberty was experiencing financial problems, Falwell travelled to Seoul to ask for money from Moon’s organization. Falwell also was active in and supported the Council on National Policy. This was an organization that was heavily financed by the Moonies and the Coors beer family. It also contained many whose theology and moral values would be anathema to most Southern Baptists. I hope Jerry Jr. and has moved away from his father’s affiliations.
How can we not see this? The goal of ISIS and like groups is to make all non-muslims hate all muslims. It’s working. See Donald Trump for details. When non-radicalized muslims see the entire non-muslim world (or country) unite against them, then where will they go, but to ISIS, or Boko Haram or other such groups? How do you radicalize people but to convince them that those unlike them are enemies? Radicalization begins with polarization, and that’s happening right now, aided by unwitting non-muslims who have fallen into the very trap ISIS has set for them.
Boy is it working.
“But people probably think my passion for the Yankees is a little odd, right?”
“Sinful” is really the word that comes to mind.
I keep hoping your heart will be reached.
I am absolutely ashamed of what the church is becoming. The church supposed to be the body of Christ with Christ being it’s head. At what point do we stop being the body of Christ? Answer–When the body is no longer controlled by it’s head.
Friends,
I own two grenade launchers and about fifty grenade’s. I only would use them for protection. I have a right to bare arms. I would love to purchase a working tank. Can anyone of you fault me for owning such protection weapons? I carry my assault rifle in the restaurants where I go. I have a legal right.
Now, I have to say that I am lying, I own no such weapons and would not own such. If we live in a country where citizens think more of guns than people, we are already defeated. May God help us.
“””I have a right to bare arms.”””
Could I ask what wearing a short-sleeve shirt has to do with this discussion 🙂
Jack,
You know that was funny, you were the only one who caught it. Lol
Jess,
Ordnance vs arms. Your analogy falls apart immediately.
A university news story added a qualifier that Falwell had issued to the media and on social media — “that when he referred to ‘those Muslims,’ he was referring to Islamic terrorists, specifically those behind the attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino.”
-Falwell’s concealed-permit comments enter gun debate
http://bpnews.net/45968/falwells-concealedpermit-comments-enter-gun-debate
I’m all for those with concealed carry permits, who are comfortable doing so, carrying a gun. You might even want to keep a larger gun in your car.
As the saying goes, usually the only thing that stops a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun.
David R. Brumbelow
Dave , Thank you, excellent article. I wish Jerry jr. had challenged us all to go out to Muslims with the gospel. ( BTW I am a CC permit holder usually have mine in my car) but I chose to first go out with the other G, the gospel. Dr. Nik Ripken ( Author of The Insanity of Obedience) says that we are having to fight wars in places that the church has refused to go for the last 100 years. It would be sad if that now includes our own country and our refusal to take the gospel to Muslims who live here.
Dave, you siad:
“Some have pointed out that Dr. Falwell did not mean to lump all Muslims into one group and condemn them all. He probably didn’t. When he said, “those Muslims” he simply meant terrorists who carry out attacks. I will concede that point. But he didn’t say that. He was speaking in convo at Liberty. These were prepared remarks. Even if he was speaking extemporaneously, a man like Falwell who knows that the press reports every word he says should be careful, but this was a public forum. He intended for these remarks to be heard publicly. If he wanted to say, “Islamic jihadists” then he should have said that.”
He was clearly speaking off the cuff and was allowing himself to be drawn into the echo chamber of the cheering students….it was not prepared remarks.
He came out numerous times after the convocation speech and clarified that very point. He was talking about terrorists…not all Muslims.
I think this is much ado about little. His words were ill advised and should have been phrased better – but clearly they were not hateful, malicious, factually inaccurate and certainly not sinful.
In fact, I contend that had “Muslims” not been part of the comments this whole hoopla would not have had near the “news cycle” that it has.
Look, It is no surprise that Falwell and most of the LU students and faculty come down on the second amendment…nor is it truthfully any doubt in any reasonable person’s mind where they come down on reaching out to, ministering to, and evangelizing Muslims.
Like I said – much ado about little. I did not say nothing…I said little.
All of us, anyone who speaks regularly, has said something stupid. Since clearly the mission of Liberty is to reach people with the gospel and not kill them (back up by track record) – I prefer to give him a pass on this. He’s not the camera savvy Falwell in the bunch anyway…come on…every time he speaks in convo it almost seems like he’d rather be getting a root canal. I think he got carried away and worded it badly – but that is the end of it – IMO.
His immediate context was the California attack, and it seemed obvious that “those Muslims” were his target.
Liberty U has always held positive views on the second amendment. I met NRA President Charlton Heston on the campus of Liberty University when they hosted an NRA 4th of July celebration in 2002. Mr. Heston was not feeling well and did not give his intended speech. He joked that he would sometimes mistakenly repeat the same story, but that his stories were pretty good so it is OK.
I saw an interesting question this am on Facebook, one that a lot of our rhetoric would validate. We ask, “Is Islam actually a religion of peace.” Wouldn’t our rhetoric and some of our actions lead the average Muslim to wonder whether Christianity is a “religion of peace?”