Strider is an IMB Missionary who has served 20 years in Middle Earth among Muslim peoples.
I believe that God is not only on His throne but moving in the world today in ways that have never been seen before. Many people long for the ‘good ol’ days’. Years ago we even took to calling ourselves ‘New Testament Churches’ implying that we were meeting and believing just like the original first century Church. There are some very valuable lessons to be learned by looking back at what God has done among us through the centuries. We stand on the shoulders of giants for sure! But far from longing for the past I am very excited about the future. From my little outpost here in Middle Earth I have seen God do amazing things around the world and I believe that we have been and will continue to be privileged to see some of the greatest moves of God in human history.
Let’s look at the big picture. For 1700 years after Pentecost God moved mightily in Europe and America. We know that the Nestorians went East to China but for the most part the Church did not do much to fulfill the Great Commission. I am aware of some really amazing heroes of the faith who were exceptions to the rule. I also am aware that I am not anyone’s judge. Perhaps this was all just God’s timing. Perhaps the Church was just not ready to move to the ends of the earth as quickly as we might wish they could have. At any rate- or at least at the rate we are going- things really changed about 200 years ago with William Carey and the Modern Missions Movement. We Southern Baptist were involved early on in getting busy with the work of the Gospel going to the Nations. Personally, in spite of lots of negative stuff surrounding our beginnings, I am proud that our heritage is a Great Commission heritage. We went to Brazil, China, Nigeria, later Indonesia and that is where we concentrated our work for many years. As we moved into the post-World War Two phase of our journey God shut one big door- China- and opened up many other doors that we boldly walked through. The cost was incredible but the returns on investment were astounding! Missionaries were funded by the poor of the rural south to pack their meager belongings in coffins to go to places like West Africa where they could hope to share Christ for a few years before dying of some tropical disease. Millions came to faith. By 1976 Southern Baptists decided it was time to dream even bigger. We passed Bold Mission Thrust at the convention and dared to believe that we could have 5000 missionaries in 125 countries by the year 2000. We dared to believe that we could see over 10,000 volunteers on overseas mission trips. We believed we could be the generation to see the Gospel get to the ends of the earth. We achieved every goal ahead of schedule and while we were not looking God rewarded our small steps of faith in world-changing ways.
I pity the country that tries to keep the Gospel out. I really do. We could not go to the Soviet Union so God shut it down. Now the Church has grown in every republic of the former USSR in outrageous ways! Kazakhs from 2 believers to 30,000, Uzbeks to over 15,000, Kirgiz to over 40,000, Tajiks to more than 3000, and the Turkmen church continues to grow in spite of horrific Government opposition. Most of you know the Chinese story. We lost our missionary presence in 1950 with perhaps 100,000 believers and today we think there may be as many as 250 million Chinese believers. We could not get into some parts of Indonesia, the Maldives, southern India and God thumped the ocean floor in 2004 and every one of those places have now been impacted by the Gospel- some in huge ways. Afghanistan was 20 million people locked in an eternal civil war with no access to the Gospel. 9/11 happened and now more than 10,000 Afghans worship our savior in what is still one of the darkest places on earth. I just finished the book Too Many to Jail which estimates that there are more than 380,000 Iranian believers meeting in small persecuted house churches. The massive numbers of African believers are well documented and I have had the privilege of working with a number of missionaries from South America. We used to go to them now they are sending in big ways. And let’s face it, I could continue this list for two more pages and not come close to describing what God has done in just the last 20 years. God is calling to Himself massive numbers of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Animists, and a whole host of others.
This is unprecedented and most of you don’t know much about this and too many of you are not that interested. You are in the middle of a confusing election and what is happening in our beloved America is heartbreaking. I get that. How are we going to see God move in America like He is moving in the rest of the world? We need revival. We pray for revival. When will it come?
It will come when God’s two great commandments are OUR two great commandments. We must love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. Many of you reading this believe that you are living this reality already. From my seat here in Middle Earth I see the American Church differently. Here is a short list of things we must correct in order to align ourselves with what God is doing in the world.
- The health/wealth non-Gospel must die. I know what you are thinking, ‘But Strider, have we not been faithful to blast Joel Osteen at every opportunity?’ Yes, you have – I admit to some of that as well- but it is not enough. We cannot preach against prosperity gospel nonsense while making every decision based on how it impacts our health and wealth. Even here on the mission field countless (no really, I can’t count them all!) people make decisions about where they live and who they will serve based on safety. Our forefathers did not do that. We do. When my wife and I obeyed God’s call to serve a people in civil war, economic collapse, and societal chaos we prayed together and told Him that He could take our lives and the lives of our two little girls if that was what was necessary to see His Kingdom come and His will be done. Many of my pastor friends thought we were crazy and even the good people who supported what we did declared that they would not be willing to do the same. As long as you are not willing to lose all you have- your money, your things, your health, your all- for the sake of God’s Kingdom you are no better than Brother Joel.
- We must repent of our adultery. I won’t quote Ezekiel 23. I used to read it as a teenager and snigger. I don’t snigger anymore. We are an adulterous generation. How? By looking to politics and earthly power instead of the Gospel to change our nation and our world. In Ezekiel’s day the nation of Israel had political alliances with Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt. They played one against another. Why not? All three claimed sovereignty over Israel at one time or another. It was prudent for the Kings of Judah to look to Egypt when Babylon was threatening. It was sensible. It was well within their rights to do. It was adultery. They looked to Egypt instead of God. We have done the same now for the best part of 30 years. I am still hearing it from people that I admire and love. ‘Hey did you hear that Trump was led to faith by so and so? If we can just get him discipled then WE will have someone in the White House.’ Who is we? The Church? Almighty God’s eternal Church needs a US president to help them out? That is adultery and we have been at it, ‘lusting after our paramours’ for far too long. The Gospel does not need political power. It is the power of God. We must look to that power alone for the future of our society. I pray for our nation’s leaders. I pay taxes. I put my trust in the Gospel. No law will correct our broken society. Only the Gospel can change America. If we align ourselves with political power then we forfeit the right to proclaim the Gospel. We have for too long forfeited that right and our nation is in the condition it is in because its priests have been sleeping with politicians instead of standing before Almighty God on behalf of our people.
- We must love others well. God is love. We must love if we will be of God. Most of us say we are loving as we are inpatient, insisting on our own way- after all we are right!- are unkind, rude (well, they started it!), jealous, envious (of each other and the world). We don’t believe all things, hope all things, and heaven forbid we have to endure anything. We are known for correct doctrine. All doctrine is utterly false without love. We must be known for love. We must come to believe in love again. We don’t believe in it anymore. We believe that unless we rail against others then they will keep going down sin’s path. We fail our Master completely when we point out the truth of other’s lostness while not communicating the love and great grace of Jesus.
- Get rid of your guns. I know, this is too far for too many of you. But this idol must die. As an American citizen you have the right to bear arms. As a citizen of God’s Kingdom you have the responsibility to lay your life down. When Jim Elliot and Nate Saint went to see the Indians of South America with their three lesser known friends they had guns on the plane. The guns stayed in the plane. They refused to shoot the Indians they had come to love to protect themselves, and more interesting to me, they would not even shoot the Indians to protect each other. They died with Bibles in their hands and love in their hearts and the fruit of those deaths was eternal life to thousands. I live that way. I will not take up a weapon to protect my things or myself. I encourage you to do the same. America is a paranoid bastion of self-centered self-interest and ‘heaven help the person who tries to take what is mine.’ They can’t take it if you lay it down. Revival will come when you lay it down.
Jesus said that the people of this world were more discerning of the times than the children of the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God is advancing like never before and it is past time for us to invest in eternal securities. The fruit of the Spirit is eternal- it is a gift from Him. Cultivate it, let it grow in you. I have bragged about my meanness and judgmental spirit for far too long. I must pray for more patience, kindness, more hope, more endurance, more love. People are eternal. God made them that way, so, invest in people. We Southern Baptists are pretty up on the law and doctrine. We need to be up on people for whom the law and the doctrine were meant to serve. When we love people more than anything else then we will be more like Jesus than we have yet been. I should make one more thing clear as I conclude this long paper. God’s Kingdom is coming- we can’t stop it- God’s Bride will be ready- it is His work. The question is will we be found ushering in our Bride-groom with full oil lamps or will we be out in the cold dark? He is coming soon.
Strider, you speak my heart here, and I daresay most Americans, even Christians, even in the SBC, don’t fully get it. While despising the bias of the media we still let lit color our perception of the world by allowing it to direct our focus. So people despair because the US isn’t the country the founders intended and much of the US is filled with God-haters. We should rejoice because finally Christendom is becoming divorced from the culture where it’s easy for the unregenerate to fill pews, and the Church is starting to become more faithful. The amazing thing is how God is working around the world. For every Christian ISIS beheads at least one ISIS soldier who witnesses it comes to faith. (We have friends who have new churches in ISIS territory. So many people are coming to Christ that they can’t disciple them all one-on-one, and many MBBs are walking the streets in their area proclaiming Christ openly without fear.) It’s like the days of the early church where the blood of the martyrs caused the Gospel to spread.
My wife and I have taken our kids with us on our international endeavors. They’ve seen the third world, had to dig their own toilet, washed in rivers, faced military checkpoints (Once, they thought to keep my youngest son because he looked like a local.), suffered through parasites, faced hostiles… but also saw many come to faith. People said, “It’s not safe enough to take kids!” We say, “There are kids already there who don’t know Christ yet. Is it any safer for them?”
These are exciting times for the people of God and it’s no time to be dormant, as though it were ever time to be dormant!
Strider has never softened the blow!
He speaks forcefully and doesn’t hold back.
Every single sentence a treasure.
Thanks Dave….. I think.
Lots os good here. Thanks for writing.
But, “Get rid of your guns. I know, this is too far for too many of you. But this idol must die. As an American citizen you have the right to bear arms. As a citizen of God’s Kingdom you have the responsibility to lay your life down.”
Guns, and the 2nd amendment may be idols, but they need not be necessarily. And, I may choose to lay dow my life, but I cannot make that choice for my wife, children, and grandchildren. They each have to make that decision. I cannot do that for them if harm is heading their way.
Otherwise, good points.
I agree with much of this article, not all.
I do not look at guns as an idol. I think few do.
Nor do I look at guns as evil; it depends on who has them and how they are used. Usually, “The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun.”
Nor do I see why laying down our guns will bring revival, unless God specifically asks us to do so.
I certainly do not demand all have guns, that is up to the individual, and many unique situations.
If God tells you to give up your guns, then do so. I don’t, however, see, a general commandment saying so.
If God wants you to lay down your life, then do so.
I have great respect for Jim Elliot and Nate Saint.
I fully understand a missionary may need to give up his guns, but don’t view that as a blanket commandment. As a matter of fact, many missionaries have hunted with guns in their leisure time on the mission field.
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. -Luke 11:21
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. -Exodus 22:2
But in the Millennium, we will no longer need weapons of war.
He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore. -Isaiah 2:4
He shall judge between many peoples, And rebuke strong nations afar off; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore. -Micah 4:3
Just a few of my thoughts. I am certainly for revival.
David R. Brumbelow
American Baptists and their guns….
I do appreciate a rare article about revival here but I am afraid the author is too strong and forceful about some issues outside Biblical parameters for revival.
One good question though: how in the world did the Great Awakenings ever happen in a land with nearly 100% gun ownership at the time (Quakers and other pacifist groups being the exceptions at the time)?
Strider dwells in Middle Earth, a long, long way from here, and I don’t know when he will be able to respond. I hesitate to speak for him and I don’t share all of his convictions on things.
I’m neither a gun enthusiast nor a gun enemy.
Here’s the thing – I don’t think the issue he’s getting at is GUNS, but the idolatry of them. I think he’s looking at them as a thing so many folks are so passionate about. We tend to get ourselves focused on so many things that are not Christ, not the mission.
So, Strider, feel free to correct me. Maybe you are just a total and complete anti-gun guy. But it is my impression that your animus goes toward idolatry more than guns, and you believe Americans have put their hopes in guns instead of in Christ.
So, let’s not make this just about the 2nd amendment. It’s about idolatry, about obedience, about putting our hope in Christ.
Again, I’m trying to speak for someone else. Don’t hold Strider responsible for everything I think he might think.
Well said, Dave. I’m not a gun owner, but guns are definitely handy for hunting, defense, competition, and entertainment. (I was born in Annie Oakley’s home town.) I was a tank commander in the US Marines, so I’ve had a lot of firepower at my disposal. But there’s definitely a difference between being “pro-gun” and having guns as an idol. While the US was founded on Christian principles, we shouldn’t confuse the bill of rights with the law of God. I was willing to go into harm’s way for the Constitution of the United States and kill its enemies. How much more should I be willing to lay down my life for the Gospel so that the enemies of God might live? I’ll take Jim Elliot’s example since Strider mentioned it and not let a gun keep me from that task. To do so would be to commit idolatry with guns. Too many well-intentioned Christians are blind to their own idolatry.
Wow, stepping on a lot of toes, mine included, but I agree with you. Our/my idols are comfort and safety. I continue to pray that I will serve the Lord regardless of where he leads me.
I am 10 to 12 hours ahead of most of you and will be traveling tomorrow up a valley with no internet access. By the way, I will be going to see a family that has come to faith in the last village up a narrow valley in what is truly the ends of the earth- God is moving!
But, before I get out the door let me unpack the gun thing a little more. Yes, it is not about the Second Amendment, it is about Lordship. I was made aware of the idolatry issue after Sandy Hook. On my Facebook page the posts lit up after the massacre and it was alarming. I have a couple hundred conservative, believing Christian friends and a couple hundred non-believing (some very liberal) friends. ALL of my conservative friends who posted anything posted, ‘They better not take our guns.’ ALL of my liberal/atheist friends posted, ‘Praying for those poor families!’ Ironic, no? When I hear conservatives saying things like, ‘I believe in, rely on, trust in’ my guns we have a Lordship problem. Southern Baptists taught me to say those words when describing my faith in Jesus. Now I hear lots of Southern Baptists use these words for guns. If you do, this is idolatry.
Secondly, we have a perception problem. Liberal unsaved America knows we love guns. We have told them often enough. They have not heard us say that we love the orphan, the widow, the poor, the needy (even though many of us do that well). They have heard us say we love guns and hate homosexuals. How can we change the conversation? Paul again and again cautions us not to get involved in ‘civilian’ affairs and not to do or say anything that would distract from the Gospel. But we have. Laying down our politics, our economics, and our guns publicly is the only way I know to restore Jesus to the front of our hearts, lives, and conversations. If you know another way, please do that and let us know how that is working for you.
Third, most of you have not thought through the gun issue. You are conservative and so you tow the conservative line. I challenge you with this: guns kill people. The best scientists, industrialists, engineers, and inventors have been perfecting the ability of a gun to kill people for over 500 years. If you own one for sport, for hunting, great. Enjoy your leisure time and please be careful. If you own one for self-defense please consider that you are prepared to kill. That thing can and will kill a person for whom Christ died. I was in the coffee shop last year in Arkansas talking with some leaders of a local Church. Two of the guys were convincing a third guy which ammunition would be the most effective…. the most deadly, and encouraging him to buy it. I was nauseous. I had no words… I do now. Jim stated above that our Nation was filled with God-haters. I don’t believe it. I think it is filled with people who don’t believe that we trust in Jesus. They see Pastors as power hungry and manipulative. They see conservatives as paranoid, controlling, and only out for themselves. Sell your guns and give the money to the poor. Be public about it and see if that doesn’t make the liberals ask, ‘Who is this Jesus?’
Well said Strider!
Strider, again, you say some very good things. And then this, “Third, most of you have not thought through the gun issue. You are conservative and so you tow the conservative line. I challenge you with this: guns kill people.”
Brother, you just don’t know “most of” us well enough to make a statement like that, credibly. There are a lot of us who have given the gun issue quite a bit of thought, and we’ve come to different conclusions than you. Owning a gun for sport and/or protection is not a biblical/moral/gospel issue.
As an American I support our second amendment. I oppose the acts of those “anti-gun” Americans who want to neuter or destroy it. BUT, many American Christians do have a gun idolatry problem that they need to destroy. If you don’t believe it, you don’t have the same fanatical gun friends that I have on Facebook! Guns are not the answer, God is. You don’t have to get rid of the gun, but get rid of the idol. (But if the idol is too strong, get rid of it. Hezekiah had to destroy Moses’s brazen serpent that God had used miraculously.)
I think Robert strikes the right balance here and gets to what I think is the heart of Strider’s point. I’ve known people who go into an absolute frenzy over the thought of any type of gun control, and wouldn’t think of disagreeing with the NRA to save their lives.
It’s odd that a great article about revival hasn’t generated discussion on anything but the second amendment.
Jim I agree. It’s unfortunate. But from my view, the guns issue is the distraction in an otherwise good piece. There are a host of other idols in American culture that are of a moral nature that could have been focused on and the distraction would never have occurred. We all agree that anything can become an idol. But I fail to see how giving up our guns is even close to the solution for Christians.
Les: If anything I believe Strider has placed the gun issue right where it belongs. What strikes me is how many toes this small insert has caused. Good grief.
As part of the revival in his day, Hezekiah destroyed the brazen serpent Moses had made and called it Nehushtan (just a piece of brass). If guns aren’t “just a tool”/just a piece of wood & metal, then they are idols.
You all will not consider this fair but I think it is true and so I will say it out loud. The fact that the gun issue is the issue that has drawn a response is proof to me that it is the issue that needs to be addressed. My dad always said, ‘People get pretty upset when you mess with their gods.’
But, consider this, revival in our land has not come today. We would like very much for each one of us to continue to do what we have always done and for revival to suddenly come. It wont work that way. We need to align ourselves with the Savior. Looking to guns for our protection instead of Jesus is one issue. I have mentioned others and there are likely more that we have not mentioned. Spiritually speaking there is a truth we will not get out of and that is that finding leads to losing and losing lets you find. We will all go to the cross if we will see a resurrection.
Strider,
“Looking to guns for our protection instead of Jesus is one issue.” It is not an either/or thing brother. When a Christian undergoes chemo, he or she is not looking to medicine rather than Jesus. He or she is looking to Jesus for healing, using the very things Jesus has given us FOR that healing. You assume here that a man, using his gun, stopping a home invader he believes intent on murdering his children is somehow engaging in idolatry and not trusting Jesus because he doesn’t just allow the murderous home invader to kill him, his wife and children, thus “laying down” his life (and the lives of his children).
“You all will not consider this fair but I think it is true and so I will say it out loud. The fact that the gun issue is the issue that has drawn a response is proof to me that it is the issue that needs to be addressed.”
Not necessarily. As I have agreed, guns may be idols to some at times. Just as sports, sex, tv, politics and a host of other things. You just happened to bring in the gun issue.
Yeah, well suspiciously it was number four after money, politics, and love. And, when I use Chemo to attack cancer I am not killing someone else and sending them to a Christless eternity. I am asking us to live a Gospel centered life that loves everyone even to our own hurt. I am not asking us to consider anything simple or easy. In all the places around the world where the Lord is on the move like never before followers of Jesus are unarmed, imprisoned, abused and even occasionally killed. Can we trust Jesus like that?
For the record, I realize I am not offering something simplistic here. I get up each morning and spend a minimum hour and a half praying and reading the Word and I spend most of that time – and very often much more time than that- asking God to protect my family, our team, our national partners, the churches, and the nation i serve. I am a priest and we are a Kingdom of Priests. We stand between God and the people He has called us to. We put on the full armor of God because we are going into a real war each day. I really believe that we are not allowed to utilize our spiritual weapons while holding onto the weapons of the world. I can only offer you my own testimony to God’s faithfulness. I have been to violent places and horrific situations with nothing but the Word of God in my hands and I have seen Him move in amazing ways.
Strider,
I think we (you and I ) have said enough about the gun issue.
But I do want to thank you brother for your service to our Lord as you seek to advance His kingdom in what appears to be a very difficult part of our world. May God bess your ministry, protect you and your family, and may He bring revival such that we would all be in awe!
It’s possible that people see those who promote guns for self defense as lovers of violence, which is an indefensible postion for a Christian. If the peacemakers are to be blessed, then how can we promote violence, even in self defense, when Christ never did.
I own two guns, both from my grandfather. I live in a rural community surrounded by guns. Guns are not the issue, but the devotion that people has to them is. If they are seen as promoting violence, Christians will never be taken seriously as lovers of peace and of all men as made in the image of God. I don’t know if they are a stumlbing block to the gospel to some lost people, but it’s certainly not out of the question.
Back to the original article, thank you for the words Strider. Your outside perspective is one that we really need to hear, as we are so swimming in our culture we can’t see all the problems that is presents. It’s clear that God is moving powerfully in other parts of the world, and I pray for blessings on your work for the kingdom.
“If the peacemakers are to be blessed, then how can we promote violence, even in self defense, when Christ never did.”
Jesus made a whip and used some violence to drive the corrupt livestock sellers and money-changers out of the temple. Sometimes peacemaking requires a principled and controlled application of violence, or the threat thereof.
Christ never promoted violence in self defense, refusing to call down legions of angels to His defense.
I don’t think it’s right to compare the violence of our world, with the righteous anger of Jesus. Is the “violence” of Jesus in that situation an example to us, one that we are to follow? How do I know when violence is acceptable, according to the Bible?
Can you give me an example of when a Christian’s application of violence, even a principled and controlled application, would be warranted by the life of Jesus, or by any of the rest of the Bible in order to keep the peace? I mean a real world application of this, in our times today. This is a genuine question, I’m interested to hear your response.
I’m disturbed at how easily we accept violence of the world around us as just part of it, and don’t grieve over it. I’m including myself in this. It’s so easy to turn a blind eye to things that don’t affect me.
Let’s start with an easy one. If you are married and you are in a public, outdoor setting, a park, and a man comes up and knocks you to the ground and then proceeds to attack your wife and starts raping her. Would you counter attack (some level of violence like hitting him, kicking him, etc.) to get him off your wife? Anyone, not aimed at you Luke.
Thanks, Les. Yes, there are surprisingly no-brainer examples like this one. If I see a pedophile dragging a kid off, I’m going off on the pedophile with extreme prejudice without apology. If I see a man beating his wife, same thing. If I see an armed robber, I’ll weigh my options carefully but quickly and act appropriately to neutralize him. If I can pin him alive, then I’ll share the gospel until the police come and take him off.
I was baptized in a Church of the Brethren, the denomination where my mother had been raised. It’s a pacifistic denomination. (They don’t have much in the way of doctrinal conviction other than trine immersion and pacifism.) However, it was my pacifistic mother, a schoolteacher no less, who taught me to defend myself against bullies on the playground. Pacifism doesn’t mean presenting yourself as easy pickings.
I’ve thought through this – a lot – having been in the Marines and now traveling in order to spread the Gospel in various parts of the world. In these travels security is an issue, not only for us but also for the locals who are with us (and we rely heavily on the wisdom of the local church members in this). I’m never armed because you simply can’t take guns with you. In many of these places there isn’t law enforcement that would act unless you bribe them. You have to know how to present yourself simultaneously as one who is kind and trustworthy, but also as someone who isn’t going to put up with a violent threat against the company of those being ministered to. Part of the Gospel ministry is securing a safe enough place to meet with people so that they actually come.
Guns kill people. They also save people’s lives. Just like a car or a computer, a gun can be used for good, or evil.
American (and Allied) guns saved the lives of countless Jews and ended the holocaust.
I have thought through the gun issue. In great detail. Just because we disagree with you Strider, does not mean we haven’t studied the issue, or that we are just plain ignorant.
We are to be peacemakers. But sometimes you have to go to war to make peace. Sometimes you have to fight to protect the innocent. Ever heard of the Colt Peacemaker? It works.
By the way, God Almighty has been known to use violence from time to time.
I seriously doubt many lost people are saying, “If those Christians would just turn in all their guns, I would trust Jesus as my Savior.”
I guess in this atmosphere, the real question is, “Is giving up our guns a gospel issue?” ?
The reason we are not arguing with you about revival is because we agree with the need of revival. But we do disagree about your view of guns.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-control-in-light-of-connecticut.html
David R. Brumbelow
I am sorry about the ‘not thought it through’ statement. I didn’t mean that none of you had thought deeply about this. I meant that if you have a gun for self-defense you are preparing to kill someone. The colt peacemakier? Sorry, that is the kind of might makes right imagery I find so offensive. I believe that the State should have a police force and a strong military. If others want to carry guns good on them. I am attacking the trust issue. Are you afraid? Do you turn to God or your gun? I have been listening to many many conversations across the US and I can tell you the answer I hear consistently. We trust in our guns. And I am asking you to look at this thing in your hand and say, ‘is this not a lie?’
This is not a real world application. I doubt this has happened to anyone that you know. Not that rape and abuse don’t happen, but this is worst case scenario we present to say, “see, some violence is okay.”
If this did happen, it would be evil, and we are not to sit by and let evil happen around us. We are to resist evil, to fight against it. I would stop this, I would fight against a pedophile, I would do all those things. But violence for violence’s sake still violates the example of Jesus. Jesus used the whip as a judge, and I certainly can’t act in that regard.
Lloyd-Jones said that there is exceptions to every rule, but we don’t make rules based on exceptions. I
Someone start another thread to discuss this if they like. Strider’s post was about revival, and I agree with what he wrote. We undoubtedly have idols we are unable to see that prohibit revival. Through prayer God can reveal them to us, that we can lay them aside.
Um, yes this has happened.
“But violence for violence’s sake still violates the example of Jesus.”
Who ever here advocates “violence for violence’s sake?” In any example of self defense or family defense against violence or impending murder, it is “violence for life preservation” or “for justice” sake. Protection AGAINST evil and violence.
Guns are the tools that people use to kill people. No gun, on its own, without outside human intervention has ever killed anyone. A gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen or just government official (police/military) is a tool used for the protection of self and others. A gun in the hands of a criminal is a tool of violence used to inflict harm. Blaming violence on the tool makes absolutely no sense.
We must also differentiate between being willing to lay down ones life for the gospel of Christ, and being non-resistant in non-gospel situations. Luke 22:36 seems to indicate Jesus commanding His disciples to purchase swords. Jesus clearly did not have an issue with Peter carrying a sword, until he used it when he should not have (Jesus knew he was meant to be betrayed, taken, and crucified, Peter should have known this too if he had listened to Jesus). The fact is, there is NO WHERE in scripture that prohibits self-defense using “violent” weapons/tools. Defending one’s self (or others) against simple violence is, and should be a duty of every honest citizen using the most effective means possible. If a person does not want to do that, I would not force them. It is their call, their choice. But just because someone else does not want to defend themselves should violence occur, does not mean I should not. And it most certainly does not make myself or even them less Christian because of our positions.
A Christian on the missions field, especially in areas where they are targeted for being Christian, live a different life than a Christian in the United States where most people would not know they are a Christian or not. A Christian on the missions filed targeted because they are a Christian is in a different situation than a Christian in the United States where they are targeted for no logical reason at all, just simply because the criminal views them as a target of opportunity. We cannot conflate the two, nor should we use the biblical standards of one as a blanket statement on the other.
Making a provocative statement about firearms, then using the fact people respond to that provocative statement as a reason to support your original provocative statement is circular reasoning at best. I also find it interesting that one of the common arguments by those against firearms is “I don’t need them, so neither should you.” Well…I don’t think women need to use makeup, so therefore no woman should use makeup. I don’t think people should own Ford’s therefore no one should own Fords. Sound’s silly doesn’t it.
It would also help if you define “guns” in your call to “get rid of your guns”. Does this mean you would deprive hunters from their means to sustain themselves? There are still places in the world where one must hunt to live. If you take away their guns, then what? Is that a small price to pay? Or do you make exceptions?
Insinuating revivals are dependent on human actions, in my opinion, places limitations on God. Revivals happen at the direction of the Holy Spirit. They happen in spite of human action, and are not limited because of human inaction. I have been around people who had church services, called them Revivals, and then wondered why there was not some great awakening springing forth. They basically tried to control the Holy Spirit. You are saying revival will not happen unless Americans “lay down our guns”, you are trying to limit the power of the Holy Spirit. Two sides of the same coin.
You have expressed your views on guns before and I don’t think I will change you mind. I will reply to a couple of things you said though, ‘Non-gospel’ situations. There shouldn’t be any. The Gospel is always the answer. We are to always be sharing the truth of Christ. Who told you it was different in the US than on the ‘mission field’? You are in a mission field. The church in the US acts like it is in Israel but it is most assuredly in Babylon. Love, not violence will bring about change. I believe in the power of the Gospel. I have seen it overcome the demoniac and the wife-beater; the alcoholic and the Muslim fundamentalist.
We are not twisting God’s arm to bring revival. We are being obedient to his call to lay down our lives in faith, hope, and love and we expect nothing but the cross.
I know a woman who was sexually assaulted. I wish she had the opportunity to defend herself or someone else had the ability to defend her at that time. Prayer and faith did nothing at that moment, but a gun could have saved her the trauma she faced. I know the wife of a minister who was assaulted and shot because a thug wanted her car. Her kids were in the car with her. She and her minister husband now are strong gun rights supporters and each have their CCW licenses.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Telling women that they should simply “take it” when being raped, do not struggle, do not defend herself, just take it because she might “damage” her witness if she does, is just down right demonic evil. It is a cowardly belief, and I would have no spiritual fellowship with a so-called “christian” if they profess such a belief. I do everything in my power to keep my female friends and family away from such a cowardly and despicable person. The same feelings are true for the people being assaulted because of the color of their skin. Or being robbed because of the car they drive or the house they live in.
As Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” And to adapt what James said, you say your faith is enough. I say faith in God, and trust in the tools He has given us. You sound just like the “faith healers”. You don’t need modern medicine. Just trust in God and that will be enough. You see I HAVE heard stories about people holding robbers at gun point AND sharing Christ with them. I know personally of faith groups who use shooting competitions and range days as a ministry opportunity and they ARE successful. Faith and guns are not mutually exclusive.
Prayer and faith did nothing in that moment…. Yep, that’s what I find blasphemous. You are citing examples of people facing the evil of this world and deciding to turn to guns and violence for the answer. I am telling you that Jesus way is another way. He lays his life down. He does not defend himself. There is a resurrection. I know that many of you cannot hear this, society is too violent and dangerous. I am saying that I live this way and I have seen God do amazing things.
:Taste and see’ is all I can encourage you with.
So you would have a woman in the process of being raped to just lie there and take it? You would tell her not to resist. You would tell her not to resist? Is that what you tell little Muslim girls when they are sold off to “men” 20+ years their age? Cultures that say it is a woman’s fault if they are raped, and you would tell them don’t resist?
Again how is this any different than the faith healers who say going to a “secular” doctor is wrong. That doing so shows a lack of faith in God.
If you don’t want to own/carry/use guns that is your choice. Just as Paul said if one has issues with idol-meat, don’t eat it. But there is no prohibition against self defense in the bible. None. So I will use the most effectual means of self defense available to me.
Lastly I would have you answer whether you would tell hunters to give up their guns. People who hunt to provide food. I guess they should just “trust” in God for their food.
After all, if you are waiting on God, you can ignore the truck, boat, and helicopter right?
SV,
Your assertion that we are called to defend ourselves against simple violence using whatever means is skewered by Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek” in the presence of simple violence. Your assertion also betrays a lack of understanding of the conditions endured by first century Jews and Christians. Giving your cloak, going the extra mile, etc were all in response to real, violent oppression foisted on the people Jesus was talking to by their Roman oppressors.
I am not saying that there is not a time to defend the lives of others, and possibly to use very violent means to do so, but what I am saying is that your contention that carrying and using a weapon is always biblically permissible and defendable is flawed at best and a hermeneutical disaster at worst. It ignores the very words of Jesus while I don’t think you want to do.
Many (if not most) gun owners like myself spend a lot of time working on our situational awareness. Because you are right, there are times where self-defense with a firearm is not appropriate. We study the laws, we focus on our skills, we continually improve ourselves so that IF (Lord forbid) a situation were to ever develop, we will act in the most responsible manner possible. However, because I am not all knowing, because I cannot see the future, I do not know those situations in advance. I carry as much as legally possible because I do not know what situations will occur. Peter defended Christ at the WRONG time. But there is nothing in scripture that says that Peter defending himself or others would have been ALWAYS wrong. We can actually learn from Peter in that we need to understand our situations, and understand when and when not to act.
There is nothing in scripture that says it is ALWAYS wrong. But there isn’t a time given when it would be right, either. No where does scripture say, “violence is acceptable in these situations.” If someone decides a level of violence is appropriate in a situation, is a decision they have made themselves. Don’t read into the text what is not there.
Strider,
In my opinion there is a basic fallacy in your argument when you say:
” In all the places around the world where the Lord is on the move like never before followers of Jesus are unarmed, imprisoned, abused and even occasionally killed. Can we trust Jesus like that?”
You are making an argument that part of the reason that revival is not coming to America is because of Americans, and more specifically, Evangelicals in America, have a fixation with guns. I don’t see any statistical evidence to show that cause and effect. There are a lot of other differentiating factors between America and the other cultures you speak of – mainly that there is more prosperity in the U.S. in the same way that there is plenty of prosperity in Germany, The Netherlands, the U.K. etc. and there is little evidence of revival in those countries even though they all have strict laws prohibiting gun ownership.
In fact, the terrorist attack in Paris last year is evidence that their population is extremely vulnerable in that no one could fight back and over 100 died passively in the same way that 49 people were gunned down recently in Orlando. Even though someone legally could have fired back in Orlando, no one had a gun and many spent agonizing hours waiting for the police to take action.
To get out of the hypothetical and to the everyday, here is a question which all pastors have to consider when their church reaches a certain attendance level: “Do I have armed police officers present during the hours of church services on Sunday mornings or other times the church has activities?”
I am personally familiar with two large churches where police are present. At a mega-church where I have been on the parking team, there are probably about ten officers on the property for both directing traffic and security purposes. Because the pastor has received numerous death threats, he has a personal security detail who accompanies him from the time he arrives on campus until he leaves. The church where I grew up, while much smaller, has two city police officers partly because the church has the service broadcast on T.V. and that attracts notoriety. Last year, the police officers had to confront some immigrants (from Africa) who attempted to disrupt the service.
From my experience, I would say that probably almost all churches in America which have over 1,000 or 1,500 in worship on Sunday have some form of armed security. That is the reality we live in here.
Strider, what do you think about churches who pay for local police protection during service hours? Do you think they are wrong in spending church funds for such purposes?
It seems the utmost in irony for people to take such a strong stand for eliminating gun ownership when this country was founded because of the shots that were fired at the Old North Bridge in Concord, MA and the village green in Lexington, MA. Sadly, so many today have so little knowledge of our country’s founding. America would have been a British colony for a lot longer if there had not been gun ownership.
I think your post was going well until you got to point 4. At that point, you interjected your own personal opinion and I said before there are numerous countries without gun ownership and without revival, too.
I don’t own a gun and don’t plan to, but I do have a home security system due to a home break in several years ago. I don’t consider myself idolatrous for having it because until you have had a thief walk through your home (fortunately no one was at home) you don’t know the feeling.
In general, the reality is that American Evangelicals are pretty content and that’s the reason there isn’t the revival seen elsewhere (not the minority who happen to own guns). Change doesn’t usually happen until discontentment sets in. When American Evangelicals get discontent, revival will happen.
Eliminating gun ownership… no, getting free from fear and idolatry is the real issue. I stand by that still.
There was an armed security guard at the Orlando nightclub.
Bill Mac, your point about the armed guard is what?
My point is that people are saying if only there was someone there with a gun, things would have been different. There was someone there, trained, with a gun. I’m not anti-gun, but guns aren’t magic.
Bill Mac, that’s patently ridiculous. Read the first reponders’ accounts of that horrific scene. And if 50 of the patrons had been armed, then it would have been over quickly. But no. It was a gun free zone.
Les: Which part is ridiculous? That there was an armed guard there, or that guns aren’t magic? I’m always hearing that if there was just one person with a gun, things would be different. Now you are upping the ante to 50 people with guns. No, make that 50 patrons in a drinking establishment with guns, an idea that even the NRA says is too radical, and that’s saying something.
I’m not opposed to carrying firearms for protection. I’ve served as a reference for several pistol permits. But I will say again that guns aren’t magic. Pistols are notoriously hard to shoot accurately even at a stationary target in a non-threatening, non-stress situation. Even trained law enforcement individuals miss, a lot. Add alcohol, noise, fear, low light ( I would presume) and a patron is possibly just a likely to kill a bystander as they are to take down the shooter. Frankly, 50 patrons rushing the shooter is, in my opinion, more likely to save lives than 50 nightclub patrons who have likely been drinking, pulling handguns and blazing away, and even that is too easy to say from my safe hotel room.
Bill Mac, both are ridiculous. To try to say, “See, there was one armed security guard there, so having an armed person didn’t work. So guns aren’t magic” is a supreme straw man and ridiculous. Who says guns are magic? Who says having one armed person in any establishment is the cure all? Both ideas are, as I said, ridiculous. No one with any sense makes such an argument.
I haven’t upped the ante. Most of us who believe in an armed citizenry believe that more legally armed citizens leads to less crime. And guess what? Stats prove that. I’ve never said having one person in an establishment is the solution, so I’ve upped no ante.
Look, the shooter knows that everyone, save one guard, is unarmed. Easy targets. But if he wondered how many have guns, different situation. And if 50 had been armed, guarantee the carnage would have been much less.
I went out tonight to a public place, concealed carrying. I do almost everywhere I go. And it was a place where there is a sign saying no guns. But I did anyway, because in Missouri me doing that is not illegal. So I do and will continue to.
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to prove.
Les: My point is that I think “if only we had more guns” is the kind of fear and idolatry that Strider is talking about. I’m a gun owner and hunter, but I certainly would not feel safer if I thought everyone around me was packing. Yeah, maybe your gun will save your life someday or someone else’s. Or maybe it won’t. Maybe you’ll miss. Or maybe someone will get it away from you, or maybe a child will find it. It happens all the time. I’m sure you take precautions so it probably won’t. Like I say, I’m not anti-gun, but I am anti-gunsaretheanswer. Bar patrons with guns isn’t the answer. Even the NRA agrees with that.
Bill Mac, I don’t live in fear. I just try to be prudent and prepared. I also wear seat belts. That’s not “fear” of dying. It’s just smart. And, guns aren’t my idol.
Just to be clear, I do not advocate packing in nightclubs. I was simply making a point of more armed people in general in a given place is better than not. Not about bars specifically. I agree with the NRA and you and I probably agree more than we disagree on the guns issue.
Strider,
Are you still employed by the IMB?
I am. I am heading up the a remote valley today will be gone for the next several days visiting some new believers there.
I really thought I would see you come on this thread though and thank me for not mentioning the idol of SEC football though.
For some reason I had thought you were no longer with the IMB.
Strider,
It is true that some people make sports an idol. However, I am not one of those people.
It is true that I am a great fan of the Crimson Tide. Yet, I am nowhere near as great a fan of the Tide as you are of yourself.
Ouch!! That was pretty personal! RTR (Roll Tide Roll for those who don’t know).
“Years ago we even took to calling ourselves ‘New Testament Churches’ implying that we were meeting and believing just like the original first century Church.”
Not everyone was making such an implication. When many and maybe most called their church a “NT Church” they meant their mission and focus was to be a local church seeking to fulfill the Great Commission and embrace the doctrines and principles revealed in the NT.
I appreciate the spirit and emphasis of the Bold Mission Thrust. And I appreciate that the recent situation undoubtedly felt like the right parenthesis of that era. But it is just as much idolatry to emphasize men’s programs to accomplish God’s plan. If there be any glory, let it be given to God for his role in blessing our efforts. That is the NT way.
And, no, Strider, I’m not saying you’re doing it wrong. I’m just more keen on lifting up Jesus so that he may draw all men to him.
If someone is breaking in my house, and is trying to do harm to my daughter, I will protect her with every available means. I do own a gun, but if I didn’t I would use a knife, ball bat, or shovel. I will show compassion to people just like we are called to in the Bible, but I also choose not to be a victim if I don’t have to be. I am absolutely amazed at the issues that get described as “Gospel Issues “. I never thought I would see the day when properly defending oneself from being a victim of a crime would be considered a “Gospel Issue “
It’s not a gospel issue.
I love Jesus and Go Vols! Beat Bama!
Vol,
On October 15, you shall have that opportunity. It is possible . . . . NOT!
ROLL TIDE!!!!
CB,
We moved our Annual Assoc. Fall Conference back a week so it would not be on that day!!
The Vols are ready!
Vol,
Tell your DOM that I said I will “PAY” your association to allow me to be the keynote speaker this year. You Volunteers will never forget that meeting. 😉
I love Jesus , CB and Vol and I say GO HEELS.
Love to see bama lose almost any team they play – but can tolerate he Vols a little better.
Tarheel,
You guys need to stick to basketball. Football is just not in you NC folks.
I feel like Times are achangin’ – we shall see.
Heels are expected to do well in football this year.
Quote Bob Dylan all you want, but remember, he’s no QB. 😉
Well said Strider. I agree with everything you said. We as Baptist and as a nation need revival and spiritual awakening. One thing that you must include in any call for revival is repentance and confession of sin. That would include a humble spirit. I do not see this when I attend Southern Baptist conferences and convention meetings. On the contrary I see pride and confession of the sins of others.
As far as the worship of guns, when I was growing up in America, I am 69 now, most people owned guns in Arkansas where I lived. They were for hunting, sport and protection. But we had common sense control of the use and availability of guns. Strider is right that today guns have become an idol. People did not demand the right to carry AR-15s on the shoulder while shopping at Walmart like they do in Texas. If there was a confrontation you might slug someone or get in a fight but now the first thing people do is pull out a gun and start shooting. I lived in for 30 years in a country with very strict gun control. I felt much safer there than I do here where we say we all need to have guns for protection.
So, rewest47, are you saying that back when you were growing up in Arkansas everybody had “common sense control of the use and availability of guns” and therefore they were OK to own and still have revival in the land, but now we have no “common sense of control of the use and availability of guns” and therefore need to rid ourselves of our guns in order to have revival?
If you think that gun owners “pull out a gun and start shooting” at the drop of a hat, then you don’t know anything about modern gun ownership, you are showing your ignorance, and you need to remove yourself from the conversation before make your self look even more idiotic. Here is a news flash. Concealed carry permit holders commit gun related crimes at a rate LESS than the average population. In the majority cases where guns are used in crimes, the gun was obtained illegally. In the past 30 years as states passed “shall issue” CCW laws, those states saw their crime rates go DOWN. There is a fantasy narrative by the anti-gun crowd that concealed carry, and gun ownership in general make this nation the “wild west.” Never mind that the “wild west” was never as “wild” as you see in the movies, crime statistics just do not support such conclusions.
So the next time you want to say something as moronic as “If there was a confrontation you might slug someone or get in a fight but now the first thing people do is pull out a gun and start shooting”, maybe you should educate yourself first.
“If you think that gun owners “pull out a gun and start shooting” at the drop of a hat, then you don’t know anything about modern gun ownership. . . ”
You’re right, svmuschany. Sometimes gun owners start shooting at the flip of a coin or when the clock strikes 12, or on the count of three, or as the great Andrew Jackson said at the Battle of New Orleans, “when you see the whites of their eyes.”
Yep, you’re right, svmuschany, gun owners don’t always “pull out a gun and start shooting at the drop of a hat.”
CB, the whites of their eyes was at Bunker Hill in the American Revolution. Sorry the history buff can’t let it go…lol
John Wylie,
I might be wrong, but I think that although Gen. Putnam said it at Bunker Hill, Gen. Jackson also said it at the Battle of New Orleans. Actually, and again I may be wrong, but I think it was a quite common thing said during the years when black powder was in major use.
The song mentions Gen Jackson saying “…till we look’em in the eyes…” but there is no historical evidence he said anything that. Indeed the British advance started pre-dawn under heavy fog. American batteries and riflemen started really opening up as the fog lifted, and they could see what they were shooting at. Had nothing to do with waiting until they saw the eyes. Songs, while popular, rarely are historically accurate.
This bit about the whites of their eyes is an interesting thread to the discussion and in part draws attention to the spiritual aspect of gun usage, ownership, and responsibility that parallels that of principled proclamation of the Gospel.
In the day of the Revolutionary War, it took time to reload. It was helpful to aim well for the single shot you had loaded. However, fear will cause someone to not aim well. Fear causes the capillaries to constrict in the forebrain and impairs the ability to think well. What you act on is what your midbrain is conditioned to do. Ideally, military training will condition a person to fight well in a state of fear. Training people to be patient with their firing solution will increase their accuracy and overall potential for killing enemy soldiers, winning the battle, and surviving with the least amount of bloodshed, especially from your side. If the troops on the other side fire early while everyone advances, then theoretically whoever shoots last will cause more damage. You have to be pretty close to see the whites of someone’s eyes. He also told them to aim low. This has the potential for wounding enemy soldiers instead of killing them immediately. Wounded solders are more of a liability than dead ones because you need to tend to them. You take more enemy soldiers out of the battle by wounding them than by killing them. The more patience a soldier has in battle, the less likely he is to be overcome by fear, and the more likely h is to fight in a principled manner.
Today we have automatic weapons on the battlefield. Also, we have areas secured by defensive positions prepared to be aggressed by offensive units. Enough ammo is distributed for the kind of battle that is expected. An aggressive force has intel from reconnaissance and a defensive unit has intel from reconnaissance patrols on enemy units nearby. So as the battle is fought, if the battle goes well, a unit (particularly the defensive unit) will finish their current distribution of ammo by laying down what is called FPF – final protective fire. From experience, I can tell you that is difficult. I was a pretty good shot and in training I wanted to keep hitting targets. However, an FPF is designed to lay down a wall of lead to take out anyone left from the aggressors who didn’t retreat and that couldn’t be seen. So once disciplined for controlled firing, one must also be disciplined for principled uncontrolled firing.
It’s this practiced discipline that is important. It was common in the past when guns were more commonly carried and displayed. Kids would bring their hunting rifles and knives to school all the time. However, we never had any shooting incidents because they were disciplined to handle firearms appropriately. It was common and expected because firearms were ubiquitous. Regarding firearms today, the expectation of discipline has been erased because less people are exposed to them.
I continually return to the example of Jim Elliot and his team. The fact is that they had firearms that they were able to use (or not use) with disciplined principle. They didn’t go without them. The ubiquitousness of weapons is not corollary to the idolatry of those same weapons. Jesus had Peter and the gang bring swords to the garden, however Peter didn’t use the sword in a principled way when the Romans showed up.
All the above verbiage only to demonstrate the fact that there’s a parallel with sharing the Gospel. If you are in a community of faith that has the practice and expectation of evangelism and discipleship, you will find people who are disciplined to do so most effectively. Part of the problem among the conservative American Church right now is that we are more on about defending the Second Amendment than we are about practicing the First Amendment regarding the spread of the Gospel. We talk about it but don’t do it anywhere near as much as we should. It’s more of an expectation to come to church, keep the kids quiet during preaching, complain about the liberal agenda, and bring a casserole to the pot luck than there is to actually be disciplined enough to tell your neighbors and coworkers about the great hope of Jesus Christ. If we want revival, this is what we need to be doing. My wife is the ministry coordinator for the local Child Evangelism Fellowship chapter. They have most of the elementary schools in five counties with Good News Clubs in them. The hardest thing to do isn’t to get into the schools. The hardest thing isn’t to get kids to come. The hardest thing is to get churches interested in sponsoring a club. We’ve had hundreds of kids come to Christ in the few years we’ve been building this chapter up and most churches don’t want to have anything to do with it. But the members of those churches will fight tooth and nail to keep their guns to protect them from the future criminals some of those kids will become without the Gospel. That’s an idolatry issue.
svmuschany,
Gen. Jackson was well known for his cussing, but his singing was not much to be enjoyed. He was no singer of songs. Also,the Battle of New Orleans was not during the Revolution, it was later. No longer did they use buzzards to drop bombs, they had advanced to kites.
Seriously guys, I think that if you check this out, the saying was quite common in those days and had a lot to do with the weaponry involved.
Jim, very good and interesting comments.
This is especially good, “Part of the problem among the conservative American Church right now is that we are more on about defending the Second Amendment than we are about practicing the First Amendment regarding the spread of the Gospel. We talk about it but don’t do it anywhere near as much as we should.”
Thanks for the reminder brother.
rewest47,
I agree with on the revival thing…… But, I’ve never seen any gun roll over and tempt a man to start shooting another man.
I find it hard to accept that an American Christian who supports the Second Amendment is hindering revival in our nation for that reason.
Then don’t accept it, Tarheel, because it is simply not true. Neither the Scripture, nor history substantiate such a claim.
Agreed, I was trying to be tactful.
As I’m sure you’re aware – I’m not always the friendliest of commenters.
My 14 year old son looked at my phone over my shoulder and said, “I wouldn’t listen to a brother named Tarheel.” I may have the brightest kid ever.
LOL. Gee thanks. 😉
Wait – he is 14??
Tell him I said – “I guess haters gonna hate.”
CB, my comments on revival were one thing. I commented on the above discussion about gun control in a separate paragraph. I said nothing about rid ourselves of guns. Every time some one mentions any restrictions on guns some accuses you of wanting to do away with all guns. If you are opposed to kindergarten students being able to carry loaded glock 42s to school to play with at recess, you are in favor of gun control. Everyone favors gun control. It just depends on the extent you wish to carry it. I think we have moved away from the type of gun control we had when I was growing up Maybe in Alabama where you were from people carried loaded weapons to church, the grocery store and to their school classrooms. That is what many seem to say is the desired objective. That way whenever you see something that makes you uncomfortable you can just shoot first and ask questions later.
Ron West
Ron West,
I did not respond to any comment you made. My response was to Tarheel’s comment. However, If you want to have a dialogue with me about the Second Amendment and whether or not to ascribe to such is or is not within the parameters of being a NT Christian, then leave your childish comments about K4 and K5 students out of it and we shall be able to discuss the issue.
😉 Looks like I got you in trouble, CB.
CB: I think rewest47 is Ron West
Ron West,
I owe you an apology. I did respond to a comment you made. You made a comment as rewest47. I did not realize that was you. Forgive the error on my part not to make the connection.
It is interesting that guns are the much more popular discussion topic and brings out more passion than revival.
When someone says that revival will only happen after people “lay down” their guns, yea it provokes a strong response. It demonizes literally MILLIONS of American Christians, implies they are to blame for the state of America (due to lack of revival), and turns God into the magic genie who will only respond if we rub his lamp the right way. There is nothing different between this, and the WOF crowd who continue to try and start revivals, and lay the blame at “sinners” when revivals do not happen.
True revivals, are a work of God through the Holy Spirit. Human action or inaction, prior to the onset of revival plays NO ROLE in making them come, or preventing their arrival. To claim such is to put shackles on the Spirit, implying there are things He cannot do, until humans do something first. If we want to talk about blasphemy, I would argue that that takes the cake.
The author of this piece turned what would have been a thoughtful post on the topic of revivals, into a political soapbox when he included the 4th point. To bemoan the response to that biased and inflammatory point, is to belittle an entire group of people, who have done nothing wrong.
Millions? Really?
According to statistics yes Debbie, MILLIONS!
Let us do some simple math.
There are just under 340 million people in the United States. The number of households is somewhere around 115 million. Study after study (both pro and anti gun) reveal that the lowest figure for guns in the home in the United States is 30%. Some studies have that number as high as 47%, but lets use that 30%.
30% of 115 million is 34.5 million.
Now let’s use a relatively low number of 10% of the country is genuine born-again Christian (likely higher…at least I would hope).
10% of 34.5 million is just under 3.5 million.
Thus statistics being what they are, it would be safe to say that MILLIONS of Christian households in America have firearms.
Now I would argue anecdotally that the majority of gun owners in American would identify as Christian, meaning the number of Christian households with guns, IMHO, is likely closer to 34.5 million rather than 3.5, but I hope you get my drift. It is THIS large group of people which the author of this thread is attacking and blaming the lack of revivals on.
svmuschany,
You might have answered the age old question about why so few Southern Baptists can be found in church on Sunday morning. There are millions out at the gun range.
Ron West,
I had hoped this thread was going to become a FOOTBALL thread. I did try to make it one along with a little help from my friends from UT and UNC.
I didn’t hear anyone say revival will only happen after people lay down their guns. Where was that said? I think you missed the whole point of Strider’s post
Ron, Look at the title of the post, “The Road to Revoival in Our Land.” Then, 4 things we must correct. He chose guns as one of those things. How else is one to read this? Now Strider can come on here and clear things up. But he made the case that guns are our idols and we must publicly lay them down. I don’t think we are missing the point.
And he said at the end of the guns point, “Revival will come when you lay it down.”
So there’s that.
I think you have a reading comprehension problem. One that makes you blind to any imperfections in your personal bias.
The author started by saying…”Here is a short list of things we must correct in order to align ourselves with what God is doing in the world.”
Implication: Revival will not happen until we complete these four steps.
The fourth point is: “Get rid of your guns”.
Implication: Revival will not happen until we get rid of (our) guns.
At the end of the fourth point the author actually says this very clearly…”Revival will come when you lay it down.” “It” being very clearly a reference to guns as this sentence was block formatted with the fourth point, a point which again says, “Get rid of your guns.”
So yes, the author of this piece is quite clearly and directly stating that revival in America will happen only AFTER we “Get rid of (our) guns”.
The author further supposes to know the intentions and motivations of gun owners when he says: ” I am attacking the trust issue. Are you afraid? Do you turn to God or your gun? I have been listening to many many conversations across the US and I can tell you the answer I hear consistently. We trust in our guns.”
I happen to trust in God, and am thankful He allows caused me to be born and live in a country where I have tools to defend myself, my friends and family. Perhaps the best statement is one reportedly said by Oliver Cromwell, “Trust in God, but mind to keep your powder dry.” Indeed, I trust that God will keep me healthy, but that does not mean I will not go to the doctor when I am severely sick. But there ARE people in this world (WOF crowd who ironically are apart of the 1st point that the author comments on in his original post), who believe that if you go to a doctor/hospital/ect than you lack faith in God. If you REALLY trusted God, you would not need doctors, you would be healthy all the time. Why is it okay to attack another person’s faith because of their actions in one case but not the other?
I also have yet to find out (I recognize he is away from computers for a while while on the field) what his views are on hunters. Are hunters to “get rid of their guns” too? You know, the hunters who use the meat of the animals to feed their family? I know a good number of families who never buy meat at the grocery store. Why? Because they hunt and fish, stocking their deep freeze with deer meat, fish, birds, even squirrel and rabbits. Would the author, and those supporting his views, have these families spend more money at the grocery store just so they can “get rid of their guns”? Are we to suggest that it is okay for a family to use a weapon to kill for food, but not to protect themselves if (Lord forbid) they were to be attacked?
No, I did not misread the author, nor did I miss his point. While I recognize there can be divergent theological points of view among IMB personal, it concerns me very much that one would actually hold and articulate a point like this. You do not feel the need to own firearms, that is your choice. But you have no right (biblically or secular) to tell me I should not have mine. Even more so, to equate lack of revival with gun ownership is beyond the pale. If this is what the IMB is allowing its missionaries to believe and advocate in and from the field, then maybe we need to clean house a lot more effectively.
SV,
I agree with you and Les here – there is no way to read what was said than the way it is clearly written – and he clearly wrote (and defended) that revival will not happen until we lay down our guns….I also agree that this idea he is projecting is coming from someplace in left field (if it is even the ball park)….
But to say that he should be swept up in an IMB house cleaning might be a little much, don’t you think? I disagree with him – but I’m not sure this rises to the level of a call to fire him and/or rebuke to the IMB for “allowing him” to post this.
I am not trying to “scold you” – but I think you might wanna consider if you might have gone too far in saying he went too far….
There is an IMB which has missionaries with divergent and varied theological beliefs (Calvinism/Traditionalism for example), and then there is an IMB that would allow missionaries to have radical beliefs. I am sure we would all agree an IMB missionary approving of homosexuality should be removed. Or one who advocates universalism. Or many other “extreme” views that missionaries could have. Suppose an IMB missionary said that Christians must give up their cars, because it is a hinderance to revival, what would we think?
When you remove suicides from the statistics (which average nearly 2/3rds of firearm related deaths), you are more likely to be killed by a car than a gun. And indeed, there are many car enthusiasts who spend more time working on their cars than with their families. Cars are used as a status symbol in many parts of the world.
So, using the author of this posts logic on guns, we should also lay down our cars too right? What if someone said that Christians owning cars is a hinderance to a revival from occurring? What if it were said that if you make fun of this example, if you don’t take it seriously, and that you focus only on this part of my post; then that simply proves how cars are an idol to you?
Let us be honest…If there was an IMB missionary going around arguing Christians need to give up their cars, because car ownership is hindering a revival from taking place, you would seriously question whether they should be an IMB missionary. You might even think they were a few fries short of a happy meal. So why does someone arguing that guns are hindering revival not get the same treatment? Why is even suggesting that they have lost sense of reality so wrong? Should not IMB have only the best out on the field?
svmuschany,
To use a common expression used frequently among liberal, anti-gun activists, I must say your comment regarding IMB missionaries might be just a little bit of an “Overkill.”
svmuschany,
Using a phrase employed by anti-gun advocates, it might be possible that your comment about IMB missionaries is just a little bit of an “Overkill.”
Come on, SV, you’re into nonsense here. Because he takes a position you reject, and on a matter not covered by any doctrinal statement, you call his employment into question?
Hooey, bro. You are too emotionally invested in your position.
So, you are saying it is ok for someone to argue that Americans owning firearms is preventing revival, a position which is not covered under any doctrinal statement I know of within the SBC; but I cannot call that person out? I cannot question whether someone with such a belief and attitude is the best option for IMB service? If a Calvinist or Traditionalist missionary in the field were to say that the other theological side is a “hinderance” to revivals, I would question if they should be serving too.
I mean, after all we will remove IMB personnel who have private prayer languages. We will remove IMB personnel who moderately partake in alcohol (regardless of the cultural environment they serve in). I am sure we all will agree we should remove those who advocate homosexuality, or polygamy, or child-brides.
We have here a serving IMB missionary who is arguing that the God is incapable of bringing revival to the United States because some Christians own guns, because some Christians believe in the right to self-defense using the most effectual means allowed. I am sorry, but I do believe that is a very dangerous theological position to have, especially for a missionary to have representing the SBC as a whole.
I understand that different cultures around the world have different views on many issues, including firearms. But to argue against self-defense in any situation, against ownership of firearms by Christians, and to accuse gun-owning Christians of preventing revival, this is every bit as serious as advocating homosexuality, or universalism, or whatever other reason we have removed IMB personnel for before.
It’s a debatable position. And one not spoken to in the BFM. And one that, quite clearly, has several passages of Scripture that could be run with in many directions.
Mr. Strider is certainly entitled and within the bounds of Baptisty cooperation then, and should not be expected to be quiet or bothered about his view. And we absolutely should not expect IMB to approve or disapprove, heck even give permission, to anyone’s blog posts. I don’t submit mine to my deacons before I post them. I’d write even less if I did.
And to the car point: we spend more on cars in many suburban American churches than we do on missions. And we use them to drive out of our neighbors to go to churches, stores, and jobs that insulate us from our neighbors.
I’d suggest that, whilst I intend to hold on to my car and my firearms (deer are tasty, after all, and the Redcoats could come back), one could posit that many of our social problems and their counterparts in our Christian life *are* actually related to our cars.
I may be a few fries short of a happy meal. I know that I have the six-pack, but lack the plastic thingy that holds it together, too.
But one could make the case rather easily that our addiction to personal transportation to go where we want, when we want, and with only the people we want is a hindrance to revival.
The sovereignty of God does not negate the responsibility of Christians to obey for God to work.
David, SV: And I may be a few fries short of a full pack, but I can’t understand why what Strider has said, which I agree with, should evoke such strong emotions that you would want to take this missionary who God is obviously using to bring souls to Christ in a community most would not want to go, and have him fired. That is ridiculous and just plain wrong SV. Very wrong.
Or did you miss reading this part SV?
“Strider is an IMB Missionary who has served 20 years in Middle Earth among Muslim peoples.”
I have had written contact with Strider for many years and frankly I am so glad he is serving in the IMB. He is a remarkable man with a remarkable wife. He not only has a passion for those he serves but his writing is remarkable and as you can see hits where it hurts sometimes, yet has stories that have one praising God for His works.
svmuschany,
William Thornton is right. You are too emotional about your position.
Now, I am going to say something that may be offensive to you, and please understand that most of the time, my comments to you are just larks as are many of my comments on this blog. However, from time-to-time, I do make a serious comment and this is one.
svmuschany, I have been reading your comments for years now here on Voices. It seems to me that you get seriously angry at times in these threads. I don’t know if you carry a concealed weapon or not. However, if you do, maybe you should consider not doing so until you get to a place in your life where you don’t get so angry so very quickly.
Taking a human life is a very serious issue and it will change your life forever. Take that to the bank. I have disagreed with Strider from the early years of Baptist blogging about many issues and consider him to be full of hot air and pride most of the time. Yet, he does make a point from time-to-time that is at least semi valid.
He made a statement about “thinking this through.” I admit that it is my opinion that he made the statement in a condescending manner and in a different context that I am about to do, but there is a truth there. Any person who decides to carry a lethal weapon, whether it is a handgun, edged weapon, or various other things that can be used to take the life of another person should give much thought to the matter and prayerfully should he or she do such thinking. I have also said to many people I have worked with that to mix a quick temper and a carry permit is a bad cocktail that can ruin a person’s life forever, not to mention end someone else’s
Those are my thoughts, svmuschany, and I realize my thoughts are not “carved in stone infallible” for all the world to heed, but I just wanted to share that with you.
Debbie, where would you then draw the line? Mr Thornton mentions “any doctrinal statement” and Mr Hibbard mentions the BFM. Great, so when missionaries with private prayer languages were removed from serving in the IMB, was that right or wrong? Did you Debbie condemn their removal?
Now, let us compare PPL and what Strider has said. Private Prayer Language is just that, private. To my knowledge and memory, there were not people advocating this standard across all IMB personnel, they were not making an issue out of it (that is until they were targeted for removal), they were honest about it when asked. Theologically/Missionally it had no role in presenting the gospel in any way, shape or form. How an individual communicates with God is their own business.
Now we have the author of this piece here. Publicly implying that gun owners are one of the major reasons (1 point out of 4 chosen) there is not revival taking place in America. Publicly implying that gun owners are idol-worshipers, that they are (collectively as a group) paranoid and self-centered. This argument has fairly significant theological/missionological implications. It makes God out to be impotent, unable to bring about revival in the United States because of those gun owning Christians. It labels an entire group of people, MILLIONS (as I have already demonstrated to you Debbie) of Christians, fall under the author’s brush with his accusation. Is it appropriate for a IMB missionary to target and belittle such a large group of people?
Again, what would be our reaction if a missionary publicly said “Traditionalists (or Calvinists if you like) teach a false gospel!” I would hope such a statement would indeed be grounds for removal. So again I ask, where does the line get drawn? Calvinism/Traditionalism, Private Prayer Language, even Alcohol are not covered in the BFM2000 (I recognize that Alcohol is touched on by dozens of motions and resolutions in SBC history). If the BFM is our standard than the IMB has kicked out too many people for bad reasons. So again I ask, were do we draw the line for standards of conduct for our missionaries?
“Great, so when missionaries with private prayer languages were removed from serving in the IMB, was that right or wrong? Did you Debbie condemn their removal?”
Yes, svmuschany, Debbie Kaufman did condemn their removal. She sure did.
Mr Scott,
I appreciate you being honest with me. I recognize the flaws of my online persona probably better than anyone. I also know (and know you have no way of knowing this) that my “real life” behavior is much different. In person, I would be the guy sitting alone afraid of talking to anyone due to social anxiety issues. In person I lead a fairly solitary, lonely and pathetic life.
I also however have a strong sense of situational awareness. I avoid placing myself in situations where I might have to use my weapon (yes I have a CCW). I hope to God I never have to use it at all, but I carry because I’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. In “real life” when confronted by a serious situation, I tend to back away, I back down. In real life, I actually am concerned that I would not have the strength to run into a situation where someone else life is in danger to protect them. In real life, it can be said I am not angry, I am a coward.
So yes, my online persona is in many ways an alter-ego. I speak out online because I cannot do so in person.
But may I also add, even online, you really have not seen me “angry”. I remember a few years back on the old Christianity Today forums, I got “really” angry by someone calling all Police Officers cowards, despicable human beings, and saying no Christian could ever be a Cop (or serve in the military). Yea…I lost it, and got banned (they did not BTW).
Let me also add Mr Scott, that I think I do a fairly good job at controlling my anger online sometimes. If I didn’t I would have been on certain other “baptist” blogs shouting down some people who make particular statements about those holding to particular theological views, as well as statements against current SBC entity personnel. While I admit to visiting those sites on occasion I do not respond no matter how infuriated their statements make me. I’d like to think that in some small way that is a good sign. After all, this being online, you only see me when I post, not when I do not.
SV: Ask CB or David W, Dave Miller if I condemned the removal of missionaries who were rejected due to private prayer language? Ask Dr. McKissic if I condemned the removal of missionaries because of PPL? Yes, yes and yes. Oh and yes.
Understood Debbie. I apologize if in asking my question, I insinuated that you did not. I still think what the author has done here is more serious and egregious than anything PPL folk were accused of, but I recognize that you are being consistent in your thoughts on IMB missionary removal, and I can at least respect you for that. Once again I apologize.
svmuschany,
You stated, “In person I lead a fairly solitary, lonely and pathetic life.”
First let me state that my blog personality is pretty much my public personality. Ask Dave Miller, David Worley, William Thornton and several others. They will tell you I can be a jerk sometimes and at other times I can be an almost decent guy, but I always keep my word.
So, with that said; Brother, you don’t have to live a lonely and pathetic life. You are the image bearer of God and according to your own testimony, you are a blood-bought, born-again follower of Christ. He does not intend for you to live such a life as you describe all the time. We all get down sometimes. We all suffer and we all are in the purifying fires of God to form us into the image of His Son. Yet, even in all of that, we can all live in victory. We who have actually died to ourselves and have taken up the cross for real are to live as citizens of heaven.
Brother, I would be more than glad, and I am sure so would many of these brothers who frequent this blog, be most willing to help you any way I can.
First, let me encourage you to get highly involved in your local church (if it’s a NT church, that is) and begin to serve Jesus and others as part of the church. Get out of the house and go somewhere. I know you have stated that you have some medical problems, but get out anyway.
Hey, if you want, get my email and phone number from Dave Miller, feel free to do so. I will be glad to talk to you anytime. But remember, sometimes I can be a jerk and at other times I can be an almost decent guy.
Hey Debbie Kaufman,
It is my learned opinion after these 10 years of exchange with you in the threads of many Baptist blogs, that you should not carry concealed weapons of any kind; not handguns, edged weapons, mace, garrotes, tomahawks or steel tipped ink pens or sharpened pencils. And please no hand-grenades at all! 😉 😉
🙂
It’s ok SV.
Ron West,
In Strider’s first reply in the comment stream, he specifically said:
“Laying down our politics, our economics, and our guns publicly is the only way I know to restore Jesus to the front of our hearts, lives, and conversations.”
I don’t know how he could be more clear than that. He sounds like he desires for Christians to publicly turn in their guns so that all of America would know that they no longer possess them. Furthermore, he is saying that this action of turning in the guns is a prerequisite to “restore Jesus to the front of our hearts, lives and conversations.”
In my earlier post, I stated that I am personally aware of two pastors who have armed police officers who are present during the services on Sunday morning and from my experience, almost all pastors who have more than 1,000 or 1,500 in attendance on a Sunday morning have some form of security at their churches. I asked Strider’s opinion and got no response. So, I’ll put it out here again: Are these pastors and their churches wrong for spending church funds for these armed police officers? Is this some form of making guns an idol?
My point in asking this is that just because one individual has a conviction against guns doesn’t mean that they need to universalize it as a Biblical truth which all need to conform to and furthermore state that it is a prerequisite for revival.
1. I don’t own a gun, and have personally witnessed the glee of Christians describing how they would shoot down any intruder to their home. I have heard John Pipers description of why he has no gun, being unwilling to send a likely unsaved attacker to he’ll in order to delay his and his wife’s trip to heaven. I believe it is a strong case.
2. However, I don’t think Striders position is entirely biblically required, or consistent. He said he believes in police and state military, but did not specify about Christians serving in such an armed force. It seems that the distinction is the protection of others. If a Christian police officer May use lethal force in defense of citizens, how is it immoral for another Christian to use lethal force in defense of fellow human beings. Perhaps especially if some of those in danger are known to be unbelievers? When it comes to a Christian Man and his Christian wife who have agreed on such an course, I can be very close to Pipers, and perhaps Striders approach, but in defense of others, I’m just not there. I don’t think scripture requires it.
3. Further, I don’t think it is a gun only issue. I don’t own a gun, but there are some large knives in my house, and if my kids were attacked and I thought stabbing the attacker would stop it, I would do it. I don’t think I would be disobeying scripture to do so. I would say the same about a gun, or a baseball bat, or driving my car into a gunman to stop a mass shooting.
I have been a “fan” of Pastor Piper’s for a long time, but I disagree with him on this issue. Contrary to popular opinion I can disagree with someone on an issue, and still agree with them on many other things. However, what sets apart what Pastor Piper wrote (I went back and re-read his post on gun ownership) and what the author of this thread; is Pastor Piper never insinuated anything about Christians who own guns. He didn’t say they were not saved. He did not imply they were the cause for lack of revival, he didn’t do anything of the sort. He simply stated his opinion that gun ownership was unwise. I disagree with this position but I can respect it. Despite my strong adherence to the 2nd Amendment and desire to be armed personally, I (and I think most others like me) would not force someone to be armed if they were not comfortable with it.
Piper, like Mr Scott here, said it correctly. Taking a life is not a trivial matter. I hope to God I never have to do so. I do certainly know that if I did, I would not be the same. Nor would I hope to be. If it did not change me, then there indeed would be something wrong with me.
But again, the issue I have with this thread is not someone saying, “I do not own a gun, and have reservations about the extent of using violence for self-defense.” Instead we have someone who brings out 4 steps to bring about revival to the United States, and includes “laying down guns” as one of those 4. Implication being that Christian gun ownership is preventing revival. Implication being that God is powerless to bring about revival because of those darn Christian gun owners. I’d give it to the author, he stops short of arguing or implying gun owners cannot be Christians; but the overall tone and implications of his 4th point, is beyond what you have expressed or what Pastor Piper expressed in his post.
To play devils advicate here, would you say the same thing if a person said revival will not come unless we all pray? Would that he limiting God in your opinion? If not, it seems that another argument against striders position would be better.
Revival happens at the time and place of God’s choosing. If God wills it, revival will happen whether people pray or not. If God wills it, at a particular time and place revival will not break out, whether people pray or do not. We are called to pray, we are called to long for revival, but it’s arrival is not predicated upon our prayer.
I view this a lot like I view salvation. As a Calvinist, I know God knows exactly who will be saved. He knows the time, and place. No matter what we as Christians do, that person will be saved. If God has to give that person an experience like he gave Saul/Paul he will. Human action, or inaction, is not the determining factor. Now we as Christians are called to go and make disciples of all nations. You see WE do not know who is saved. As Christians we MUST share the gospel because it is commanded. But make no mistake, whether or not we are faithful to that calling plays no role on the salvation of the lost.
Again, God is not a magic genie. He is not a being that if we rub his lamp, He grants us wishes; or if we do not rub his lamp, we get nothing. If we are to say our lack of prayer hinders revival, if we are to say our ownership of guns hinders revival; we make God impotent, and dependent on our actions. I do not worship a God who has His hands tied because of my actions. He is the sovereign one in this universe. We humans do not have the power to prohibit His will.
Andy you must understand that I spent several years immersed in WoF theology. I attended their churches, I believed their teachings. Goodness sake I actually was in the same church service as “Rev” John Kilpatrick of the Toronto and Pensacola revivals. I was at churches that “prayed” for revival, and when it did not come as they were expecting, they said they just did not have enough faith or it was because of “sin” among the believers. They (leaders/pastors) used emotional manipulation to whip the people into a frenzy. They made God something that was limited because of the inaction of those people. And by golly, if they did not pray enough, if they did not give enough, maybe they were not even saved.
That is what I have come out of. That is what this author’s 4th point reminds me of. And that is what I am reacting against. Indeed, during the Lakewood “revivals” and Todd Bentley, I was very vocal in opposition to what was going on. I was likely even “angrier” than I seem to be here on this topic. For me this is every bit as much bad theology as it is gun ownership rights, if not more so.
I don’t speak for Strider so maybe I’m wrong, but I think he is talking about the idolatry people make of guns, and I agree many people do. I think he’s also talking about fear. As I’ve said, I’m not anti-gun, but I know a lot of people walk around with a weapon that is loaded, chambered, and either with the safety off or with no safety. I think (unless you are military or police) that if you think you need to be able to kill in a split second, then perhaps (I said perhaps) idolatry or fear is in play. And call me a cynic, but I very much doubt the average gun owner’s ability to assess a situation accurately, draw and fire a weapon safely and accurately in less time than it takes to chamber a round and/or flip the safety off.
“And call me a cynic, but I very much doubt the average gun owner’s ability to assess a situation accurately, draw and fire a weapon safely and accurately in less time than it takes to chamber a round and/or flip the safety off.”
Agreed. It concerns me that some people “think” they’re trained enough to do that. Don’t have so much issue with round chambered – but safety off is stupid, IMO.
Problem what your defense of the authors possible intent – that’s not what he said.
If Idolatry were number four in his peice and an *example* of guns idolization were used to buttress that – I don’t think there would be as much disagreement in the comment thread.
Some might argue it was a bad example – but I think the disagreement is stronger because he actually made the literal “laying down of our guns” a pre-requisite for revival.
“Don’t have so much issue with round chambered – but safety off is stupid, IMO.”
Not all handguns have a “safety” as we normally think of it. Some of my handguns do others don’t. But this about a popular firearm:
“The Glock pistol was designed without an external safety to make drawing and firing the pistol quicker and easier. It does have 3 internal safeties that prevent the gun from firing accidentally. In short, the Glock pistol simply will not fire unless the trigger is fully depressed.”
Les Prouty is right about the safety issue. As a matter of fact, revolvers have no safety on them. For that reason older SA revolvers were usually carried with only 5 rounds and the hammer over an empty chamber. Modern revolvers are usually carried with a full load, but without a safety.
BTW, Glock is one of the “safest” handguns made even without the external safety.
“but I know a lot of people walk around with a weapon that is loaded, chambered, and either with the safety off or with no safety.”
See my other reply to Tarheel about the safety issue.
Also, chambered…many modern handguns are designed to allow you to have a round chambered and the hammer partially pulled back so as to have quicker ability to fire. But they cannot be fired unless the trigger is pulled. It is designed not to just go off while holstered. For example, one of my “carry” pistols is the Sig Sauer P230. It has the below same feature.
“The standard SIG P226 incorporates a decocking lever on the left side of the frame above the magazine release button, which first appeared on the Sauer 38H prior to World War II, which allows the hammer to be dropped safely. In chambering or firing a round, the actuation of the slide automatically cocks the hammer. By using the decocking lever, the hammer can be de-cocked without actuating the firing pin block, making it impossible to accidentally fire the weapon by using the decocking lever. Furthermore, using the decocking lever makes the weapon “drop safe”, which means the firing pin will be blocked from striking a loaded round unless the trigger is pulled.”
FYI
This is good info guys, and I’m all for preventing guns from going off accidentally, but it is the mindset that I have to be able to kill nearly instantly that I have a problem with.
Bill, I carry all my guns with a round in the chamber. Of the 3 guns I rotate through depending on what clothes I am wearing (yes I match my gun to clothes like women match shoes to dress…so…) 2 are striker fired (basically how Glock is set up, no external safety), and the other is a 1911 which I carry in condition 1 (round in chamber, hammer back, safety on). I do not carry with a round in the chamber because I want to “kill” instantly. I carry this way because when the situation arises where I have to draw and fire my weapon, seconds count. Not because I want to kill, but because the situation requires it.
SV: “Not because I want to kill, but because the situation requires it.”
I understand that you think that. I’m not convinced it’s true. I can’t find statistics, but I think the need and opportunity for a civilian to draw and fire in less time than in takes to chamber a round has got to be microscopic. I doubt very much that even police often need to draw and fire in less time than it takes to chamber a round.
Again, this is my intuition, I don’t have data. But I’m willing to bet there are a lot of people who have killed other people with a handgun who wish they had taken 5 more seconds to think about what they were doing. I’m also willing to bet the number of civilians killed or injured because they had a gun but weren’t able to fire instantly is practically negligible.
Bill, trying to quickly chamber a round by operating a firearms slide while your body is shaking due to a surge of adrenalin would be hard, especially quickly. Let us also add to the conversation that operating that slide requires two hands, if ever (however unlikely) a person ever does not have operation of one of their hands, what are they to do? I actually train shooting with each hand because if there was ever a situation where my main hand was injured or pinned or in some way rendered unable to function I can switch to my off hand. This is not about what is “most likely” ever going to happen, it is about being prepared for that one-in-a-million situation.
As far as accidents,simply put, firearms today, even when chambered, do not accidentally go off unless the human operating it does something very very stupid. It is literally impossible for my striker fired pistols (which I carry with a round chambered) to go off unless the trigger is pulled. Drop them from a building and the gun may get destroyed but the round won’t fire. I also own a 1911. A 1911’s manual safety can ONLY be activated if the hammer is back. Indeed, because I carry a round in the chambers of my guns, I do not shoulder carry my 1911 because I have yet to find a holster that allows for condition 1 carry. Most only work if you have the hammer down, meaning safety off. Which if you carry with a round in the chamber, is a very very bad idea.
But I would like to confront one major assumption you have Bill that is causing you to think “round in the chamber” is a bad idea. You assume the “timer” for thinking about a situation begins when a person starts to draw their weapon. That is a very big and very poor assumption. There is something called, situational awareness, that we CCW folk take very seriously. You too do it all the time FYI, you know the situations where you know should turn around and walk the other way? We CCW folk take it even further. When I eat at a restaurant, I always sit so i can see as many of the main enterences/exits as possible, and I sit with as few people behind me as possible. When I am walking down the street my head is on a swivel looking around as much as possible. If I see a questionable situation, I try to avoid it. I live my life with a constant eye on trying to avoid drawing my weapon.
Because you see I make the decision to fire BEFORE I draw my weapon. Drawing a gun, as a civilian, to “scare” the bad guy is a stupid Hollywood styled fantasy. Drawing a gun to “scare” people is what leads to stupid accidents. Police are trained differently than most civilians training in self-defense. Indeed, it could be argued that the Police training and operational practice of drawing a weapon and holding it on someone has been a cause in many questionable shooting incidences. Drawing a weapon, and pointing it at someone without pulling the trigger, only will lead to jittery nerves. So given this, yes, I carry my weapon with a round chambered because in the situation where I draw my weapon, I have already made the decision to fire, and at that time seconds do matter.
One might argue that trying to shoot someone under these same circumstances is fraught with peril. Let us hope there are no innocents around other than the one with the gun.
Thanks SV for the Todd Bently reference as that greatly helps me understand where you are coming from. Yes, our sacrifice does not manipulate God- you and I agree on that. I am talking about obedience, aligning ourselves with Jesus instead of the world. I am NOT talking about public policy. Guns in American society and their pros and cons are irrelevant to me. The Church draws closer to Jesus and experiences His blessing when we proclaim the Gospel. My four points are all places where I see us drowning out the Gospel with our words and actions. I still believe this.
I would ask you to consider that different cultural and societal situations require different approaches. You live/work in an area where firearms are not important, so they are not important to you. But here in the states there is a different social dynamic. I have a friend that attends a church that is on the border of the suburban/rural boundary. This church has regular events that are geared towards the culture that mostly attend, and that they are trying to reach. People like the “redneck” who was baptized as a kid, but does not attend church and many not even believe in God. They have “Game night” where people bring in dishes with deer meat and duck and pheasant and even squirrel and rabbit. They have a raffle where a new shotgun or rifle is given away with proceeds going towards the churches missions fund. Members have “tickets” that they give to their friends and family, neighbors and co-workers. They HAVE had salvation experiences because of these events.
I’ll even tell you a secret. This church allows people with CCW licenses to carry during service! This church is friendly towards guns, it reaches lost people in the community who are gun owners and who hold tightly to their guns. This is what works for them. Clearly what works for them, and works well for you, are different. And knowing the type of people who are likely to be willing to attend this church, if they saw words like what you have spoken, implying that all Christians need to lay down their weapons to focus on God, they would never darken the step of a church again.
Contextualization in missions is something that I believe is fairly important. What works well in one situation does not work well in another. And to use broad strokes on an issue that is not theologically relevant to the gospel, to made determinations for all Christianity, that is wrong.
Look I agree with the dangers of the WoF/Health-n’-Wealth crowd. I know of the problems that theology has caused in the missions field. It is a theology that borders on, and in some cases crosses the heretical “non-Christian” theological boundaries. I agree with the need to love our neighbors better, so long as it is understood that sometimes because of that love we must tell them things they are not going to want to hear (for example, homosexuality is a sin).
But when you make blanket statements like you did in your 4th point (and a lesser extent your 2nd), that is where we are going to run into problems.
A recent wild game and hunting banquet at SWBTS saw 191 professions of faith.
http://swbts.edu/news/releases/men-s-game-banquet-sees-191-professions-faith/
My church had a Concealed Carry Gun class a couple of years ago.
Guns can be, and are, a positive part of our culture.
I’ve attended a Wild Game Banquet led by Paige Patterson. It was very well attended, well done, and had a great influence especially on dads and their boys.
David R. Brumbelow
191 persons saved!
Wow! I bet the local churches are swamped with baptismal candidates and new members.
I’m sure some mocked on the Day of Pentecost when 3,000 were saved.
David R. Brumbelow
Did you think that was mocking?
I am actually excited about the new Christ followers that local churches and their pastors will be able to baptize and disciple.
I know you guys who are celebrating Concealed Carry classes and Wild Game nights at churches and seminaries are refuting Strider’s point, but I rather think it is making his point.
No Bill Mac. Concealed carry classes and wild game suppers to reach men via means that men are interested in with the gospel (191 saved) could be replaced with basketball clinics and and ball sport banquets. It’s not idolatry as Strider suggests. No offense to him, but Strider doesn’t have the point he was trying to make.
Andy,
“(Gospel issue, anybody? ?)”
PLEASE do not give the gospel issuers any ideas! 😉
So, you contended that his point was idolatry and not specifically guns – and then you turn around and say that we are making his point for him.
I assume by that you mean that by supporting the aforementioned events we are demonstrating our idolatry relating to guns – is that a correct assumption as to your comment?
Further, are you suggesting that people should not be sharing the gospel through various culturally relevant means that do not violate scripture – such as wild game breakfast or dinner’s? Are you suggesting that such is demonstrative of Idolatry?
Tarheel: I’m trying to be careful here. Any number of biblically neutral items can become idols, so biblical neutrality is not the answer to this debate. Cultural relevance is a fine line to walk. I suspect many here who are all in favor of churches sponsoring a deadly weapon night would be horrified at a church having a hip-hop night. I am not suggesting the success of a concealed carry night is absolute demonstration of gun idolatry but I think it leans more towards a point in Strider’s favor than yours. Think about it, if X (whatever X is) is something Americans idolize, then an X night at a local church is likely to have a sizable turnout. Is it conclusive proof? No, of course not. Idolatry = Turnout but Turnout does not necessarily = Idolatry. But it’s something to think about.
We live in a time where we fear the erosion of our constitutional rights. The 1st amendment gives us the right to freely practice our faith. If the time comes when that right is taken away, I think many of us would willingly risk imprisonment to continue practicing our faith. But I doubt most of us would kill people over it. But I have heard (and read) many a person who say they would be willing to kill anyone who came to take their guns. To me, that indicates idolatry. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I think.
“The 1st amendment gives us the right to freely practice our faith. If the time comes when that right is taken away, I think many of us would willingly risk imprisonment to continue practicing our faith. But I doubt most of us would kill people over it. But I have heard (and read) many a person who say they would be willing to kill anyone who came to take their guns. To me, that indicates idolatry.”
Bingo! If this is they case, I would say it is clear idolatry and misplaced values. I don’t think saying such things is consistent with the Gospel (Gospel issue, anybody? 🙂
HOWEVER, I don’t think everyone who owns a gun for protection falls in this category. I hope and suspect that, if required, many gun-owning Christians would turn over their guns to government officials without shooting them.
I have never been one to say “they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands” or that “I would kill the govt. representative who came to take my guns.” I think such language is inflammatory and too far for me to go. I have made statements about being willing to go to jail if certain rights were taken away – but as best I can remember those statements have been reserved to issues of religious liberty.
I agree that idols can be made of a great many things/passions/whathaveya – we humans certainly love our idols and I happen to believe that idolatry ( I think Sproul calls is “cosmic treason”) is a highly common sin among us all – and it arises out of selfism.
However, I do not think that my owning a gun or seeking to defend my right to own one, or resisting its seizure is *necessarily* indicative of it being an idol. That is my problem with the article and with some of the defenses of it here – Strider invokes gun ownership as an idol and then says American Christians are holding back revival in our land until we lay them down. I think that is not only an overly broad and unnecessarily sweeping generalization – but patently unbiblical as no where does God link a desire to own a gun (for recreational shooting and/or self defense) is, again necessarily, an idol to be abandoned. Are there “gun nuts” out there – SURE – are all Christians who own and use idolaters and gun nuts who are just waiting for an opportunity to send someone into eternity – absolutely not.
I have no issue with gun safety classes or wild game dinners to reach out with the gospel to a community where those things are part of the culture. I further, for the record, have no issue with an gospel proclaiming or discipleship natured hip hop night where in a location where it is culturally relevant either – in fact I have attended a couple. (The key is gospel proclaiming/discipleship natured though – if the “gun” events – are not gospel proclaiming or discipleship oriented I would oppose them too as it relates to church events.)
The intensity of passion in the whole thread serves to underline his point, in my opinion.
Actually not at all. Here’s a few examples why:
-American Christians need to give up their idolatry of Washing machines if they want to see revival.
-American Christians need to give up their idolatry of owning a car if they want to see revival.
-American Christians need to give up their idolatry of wearing shoes if they want to see revival.
Any of these might ilicit strong debate and rebuttels…it doesn’t make any of them necessarily true.
Actually, if someone is committing idolatry over a washing machine or anything else, they should give it up regardless.
Think of it this way: people can commit idolatry regarding the ministry of the Gospel. If that’s the case, then anything is game for idolatry.
The question then becomes: Is there a link between idolatry and the effectiveness of any attempts at revival? Maybe and maybe not. That’s a worthy challenge here, but no one guilty of idolatry is going to make it because it means owning up to their idolatry.
What I’m reading here from challengers to Strider’s position is two things:
1) Some of you all are misconstruing Strider’s position to the extreme. I think he’s taken a fairly balanced position. It could probably be refined, but I see what he’s getting at, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. “What?!? Give him the benefit of the doubt?!? Never!! He’s two yards off center so he might as well be in the end zone!!” That’s what I’m seeing. We have a bad habit of arguing this way over many issues and it frankly needs to stop. It’s childish.
2) Some seem to be saying that the current debate over the Second Amendment isn’t idolatrous, (or at least not inherently idolatrous. After all, we can’t know other people’s hearts in the matter). I’ll observe, however, that just because something is not inherently idolatrous doesn’t mean that many people aren’t committing idolatry over the matter. What I see is that this argument is being made instead of the argument of the link between revival and idolatry in general, and idolatry of the Second Amendment in particular. That is an indication that people may be arguing to justify their idolatry, whether or not they are aware that they are even committing idolatry. Given that this is the one issue that is receiving the wealth of attention here instead of the need for revival, it’s fair to say that Strider is probably on target here, as myself and others have already pointed out. We need to weigh our own hearts on the matter and repent of idolatry. We shouldn’t be trying to bring revival to America so that America can become great again. We should want revival so that people are saved from hell and God is glorified.
“We shouldn’t be trying to bring revival to America so that America can become great again. We should want revival so that people are saved from hell and God is glorified.”
Very wise words. That might make it my sermon Sunday. But no one will believe I read it in blog comments.
Andy,
I doubt very much that a washing machine, car, or shoe night would bring in many people.
I doubt that a thread about washing machines would garner this much intensity or defense of washing machines.
Yes, I know I used silly examples…the point is, there are TWO different scenarios in which an article would elicit strong responses:
1. An author correctly and courageously calls out something sinful, calling people to give it up. (People don’t want to consider that something they care about might be wrong, and so they resist).
2. An author incorrectly calls something sinful that is not a sin, usurping the sufficiency of scripture and adding requirements upon Christians that the bible does not require. (in this case, Some Christians will strongly oppose this, out of a godly desire to not add to scripture, or see other people led astray, or unfairly accused of sinning).
I happen to think there may be a bit of both responses here, and I think they author has something of a point, but has taken it a bit too far…
…but the strength of the response itself doesn’t tell you which one it is.
-andy
Actually, Strider has already said he has no problem with hunting animals with guns. His argument is not against hunters.
Strider, If it’s not too late,
What is your view of Christians serving as Police officers and/or military, in which case they are called upon to use deadly force in defense of others?
It probably is late as there are several good new articles to read now and the conversation should move on. I grew up on base. My father was an air force pilot who served in Viet Nam twice. I am proud of that even though the war was a terrible mistake. If a man or woman feels that God wants them to serve as a police officer or in the military then weapons are a tool for them to use in the mission they have. Much of this thread has been sidetracked by debating the benefits of guns in our society. I never intended to argue about that. I have been a part of MANY conversations in many churches that demonstrated to me that people are trusting in their guns too much, that the reputation of the evangelical community is notoriously pro-gun to the point that unsaved liberal America- and indeed many of our international friends – can not hear the Gospel from us. This, not hunters or police officers, or even sports shooters is what I have been talking about.
So, is the gun your idol? Are you trusting in it to ‘save’ you? I can not claim to know that. I simply encourage you that as you talk about this issue with your friends and family watch your words and ask, ‘Do the people that are listening to me understand that I trust in Jesus alone?’
I have bought this up several times and have not gotten an answer. Given how this thread has expanded quickly, and given your work outside this thread it is understandable that you have not seen it or been able to answer. But given your last sentence, I want to ask it again.
There are a surprisingly large number of Christians who believe going to a doctor/hospital/ect is wrong. They argue that it shows you are trusting in man to make you healthy and that you are not trusting in Jesus alone. They argue that it shows the world that you do not trust in Jesus to keep you healthy and so it impedes sharing the gospel. They say going to a doctor/hospital will prevent God from working miracles in your life, miracles showing the world what God is doing in you.
I ask you, how is this any different from your stance on guns and “trust in God”? I ask you, can you not see how your words here sound exactly like a group (WoF) whom you even mention in your original post?
Based on Striders Reply here and his original article and other replies, I’m going to try to summarize his stated views, which I believe have some merit.
1. Strider sees a very strong correlation between Jesus’ example and Jesus’ instructions to lay down our lives and the Christian response to violent attackers. As he says, “I will not take up a weapon to defend my things or myself.”
2. Further, beyond just his own conscience, he believes that for OTHER Christians to kill someone to protect their things or themselves is contrary to the example and teaching of Jesus. He believes that the VERY COMMON (and he is right that it is common) attitude among conservative Americans regarding their “right” to kill intruders is one that is idolatrous, trusting their guns to protect them. He believes that this attitude is not only contrary to Jesus’ teaching, but also a hindrance to our witness to those around us. (I believe he has a strong point here that needs to be considered by SOME gun-loving Christians: Do I love my guns because they give me power, make me feel good about myself, keep me from having to face giving up my life….or because I can be useful in the defense of others?)
3. He has, in follow-up comments, EXCLUDED the following from what he is talking about: (a) hunting and sport shooting), (b) Christians serving in police or military roles in defense of the helpless. These seem to be good and necessary exclusions in my opinion. My only issue would be this:
4. (Andy’s opinions now) If a Christian may protect OTHER PEOPLE (not himself) as a police officer, how is it LESS Christian to protect other people as a non-police officer? It is my opinion that it is entirely possible for a Christian to desire the safety of others to the extent that they carry a concealed weapon for the sake of their friends an co-workers, or keep one in their home for the sake of their wife & children, in a way that is NOT sinful, or abrasive, or a hindrance to christian witness. It will require a humble, self-sacrificing person to do so, but I believe such exist. Further, such people must be aware, and probably are, that in one of those worst situations, if they fire a weapon at an attacker who is attacking others, they are very likely putting the cross-hairs on themselves if the attacker is not taken down with the first shot, or if there are more than one attacker. So they are in reality putting themselves at more risk than simply being one of the crowd. Sounds like a self-sacrificing thing to do to me.
Thanks Andrew, I think you understand me correctly. I disagree with your number four because I still will not take a life. If there are those who believe that they should be prepared to protect others with firearms then I will not judge their hearts but I do believe that we are setting up a society based on vigilantism that I reject.
SV, the answer about health is two fold: one, I am not taking another person’s life when I get medical care. and Two, the society we are trying to reach is not distracted from the Gospel when I go to the doctor’s office. What I have tried and failed to get across in this discussion is that lost society in America today is distracted by the gun issue. That is why we should set it aside.
There are just as many “lost” people who are redneck, gun toting, alcohol drinking, NASCAR watching, Kid Rock listening, good-ole boys. Their “culture” is different than the urbanite who has never seen a gun let alone shot one recreationally. While the gospel is the same, the methodology of our missions in reaching each is different. And making wholesale blanket decrees about how Christians should act because some of our evangelism/misisons targets are opposed guns, is nonsense. That is not how you do missions. I would hope you would agree that how a missionary like you reaches those in your countries would be different than say a missionary in South America. Completely different cultures, completely different ethnic religions, completely different lifestyles. Of course you would approach them differently. Of course you would adapt your lifestyle as a missionary differently. Just as someone trying to reach the greatest generation and or the older baby boomers might not rely on social media, someone trying to reach the millennials who doesn’t use social media will never get anywhere. Different cultures, different socio-economic groups, different ethnic groups ALL require different missional methodologies to better share the one and same Gospel. Just because one group is not a fan of guns, does not mean Christians as a whole should give up their guns just so the few who are called to reach those can cross that “divide”.
When writing this piece I thought about comparing this issue with our reaching Muslims with C-5 methodologies. Can I call myself a ‘Muslim’ in order to reach the Muslims. The word means ‘one submitted to God’ so why not? The answer is that the word communicates acceptance of what is completely false (Mohamed is God’s prophet) as well as what is true (I do in fact, submit to God). In American society today the gun culture has radically changed over the last 20 years from, ‘I own a gun and keep it locked up and secure so I can use it recreationaly’ has become ‘I live in fear of a violent world and trust in a gun to defend me and mine’. I do not believe you can separate the true message from the idolatrous false message which is why I continue to challenge you all to lay down your guns in order to present the Gospel.
While I believe that too many are talking about guns in an idolatrous manner that is not my real point. My point is that in our society the message of having a gun is heard by rednecks and liberals alike as an idolatrous message. The Gospel is more important than our right to bear arms.
“My point is that in our society the message of having a gun is heard by rednecks and liberals alike as an idolatrous message.”
This statement is simply not true. This is your belief and that’s fine for you, but you cannot superimpose this upon other people, not even rednecks and liberals. Not all people who own firearms are rednecks and not all liberals are against owning firearms.
” The Gospel is more important than our right to bear arms”
This statement is an absolute. . . . and many Christ followers who do own firearms know that is an absolute.
In addition, if you actually will not defend yourself with a firearm or another weapon, why do you hide behind the alias “Strider”?
Your last question reveals either a desire to deride strider, or ignorance of Missions work in Muslim areas.
I don’t know where he is, but the most likely scenario, were “Strider” to be discovered as an American Christian Missionary, is not that his life would be in danger…more likely is that he would be expelled from the country, ending his missionary work…AND possibly that the lives, or at least livlihoods of the NATIVES he has been working with would be in danger. Concealing his identity protects THEM. (Which is, in my mind, is very related to why I disagree with Strider’s view that a Christian cannot use deadly force to defend others who cannot defend themselves)
No Andy, my comment does not do either. My comment is directed his position as he has revealed it here. It seems to me that he believes he should not defend himself from any threat at his personal safety.
His use of an alias is a defense against a personal threat to his safety. My contention is that if he is never going to use any defense to threats against his life, then he should use his name, never lock doors, and never take any caution for his safety in public or private.
Andy, I do not believe Strider’s position will hod to biblical scrutiny, and my comment was to illustrate that point.
BTW, I was with Muslims before either of you were born, so for you to make this judgment of me as ignorant of working with Muslims is a wrong assumption on your part. I have worked in “Muslim areas” pre-Jesus and post-Jesus in my life.
CB, I apologize for the harsh words. I could have stated that with less animosity. I do not know your experience with muslims,
Still, I maintain that you are unfairly critiquing Striders position and actions. As he has stated, his issue is in taking the life of another person. He has not said he is against guarding safety…but only against the taking of human life to do so. To equate his statements with not locking doors, or taking other precautions is not conveying his view accurately.
I also believe his position has inconsistencies, but not in this area.
Andy, I believe that if you read all of his comments again, you will see the reason for my statements. I think he did convey that his would not defend his life. If he did not, then I will apologize.
However, It is still my strong contention that his position (his post here) will not stand biblical scrutiny.
I simply think there is a difference between “I will not use force to defend my life” and “I will not make any effort to preserve the safely of my ministry and those I work with.” I think his position, in this point, can be defended scripturally and historically. Jesus did not defend himself when beaten, but also on a few occasions escaped from those who sought him harm. Early Christian martyrs were willing to die, and did not defend themselves, but also hid in caves. I haven’t seen any comments from him that would contradict this trend.
Thank you for replying kindly to me.
-Andy
Andy, The work of Christ in His passion was determined before the foundation of the earth and had specific purpose as you know.
With that being stated, I know we could be called upon to die for the faith. That’s biblical. However, I still contend that Strider’s post, as a whole, will not hold up to biblical scrutiny. I added “as a whole” in hope to clarify my position since I responded to your comment about the Christ.
STRIDER: “If there are those who believe that they should be prepared to protect others with firearms then I will not judge their hearts but I do believe that we are setting up a society based on vigilantism that I reject.”
Thanks for the reply. As I said, I do believe that your primary point about gun idolatry has merit for many in America… I simply think you are taking all of this a half-step too far, overstating the problem that Lost society has, AND overstating the proposed solution (no guns).
1. Vigilantism is based on revenge. Protecting innocents from a hostile massacre is not vigilantism. If a Police officer shoots a person who is mowing down civilians with assault weapons, we don’t call it vigilantism…FURTHER, If a citizen with a CC permit shot such an attacker, I don’t believe even lost secular Americans would call him a vigilante. Many would likely call him a hero. And if, when interviewed, he was able to humbly and clearly state that while he takes no pleasure in taking a life, and would rather take a bullet than shoot one, he feels he should be protect those who cannot protect themselves…I don’t believe such would be a hindrance to the Gospel message. Quite the opposite.
2. Regarding the solution. I don’t think our knee-jerk reaction needs to be to give up everything that Lost society begins to have problems with. I would say it is a case by case, person by person issue, much like those Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians and Romans. Christians can and will differ, and should so without condemning one another. I believe this issue fits here. Paul Said, “I become all things to all people,” and “I give up my rights”, etc…but he also did not demand that every other Christian respond in exactly the same way….He did not demand that Gentiles become Jewish to reach the Jews…nor did he demand that Jews cease being Jewish to reach gentiles. He gave up his right to being a salaried minister, making tents instead, while at the same time encourating the support of other ministers… Ie, Paul demanded more from himself than he did from others.
****I think a better response would be for American Christians to TOTALLY give up their idea that owning a gun is their God-given right (in this we agree… is a Government given right), and to TOTALLY re-examine what it means to lay down our rights, and our privileges, and even our lives, in service to the Gospel…BUT I don’t think this means every Christian needs to give up gun ownership, even for protection, but especially for the protection of others. We need a BETTER explanation of why a Christian might have a gun, other than, “It’s my right, don’t try to take it away, anybody that comes in my home better watch out!”. We need a self-sacrificing, protective rationale.
3. FYI, I do no own a gun. But an unwilling to say those who do, even for protection, are sinning. I don’t think scripture allows me to go that far.
-andy
Andy, Thanks for working to understand my points. I think you are understanding me correctly. I am not saying that those who own guns are ‘sinning’. If they are trusting in their guns then they need to deal with their fear and idolatry but my point is to say that in American culture today the Gospel is not being heard. It is interesting to me that the logic used to justify total abstinence of alcohol is very similar to what I am saying about guns. I often say in the alcohol debate that drinking in moderation is biblically permissible but since Americans can do nothing in moderation it is best for us not to drink at all. That usually ends the debate! I am in this thread hearing that Christians can have guns and not diminish their Gospel witness. I have many liberal friends who say otherwise. They laugh at us and say that we claim to be pro-life and yet can’t wait to shoot someone. Of course the criticism is not fair but just as I will not drink alcohol because I don’t want to talk about alcohol I will not own a gun because I only want to focus on Jesus.
CB- I regret that I offended you years ago. It seems that you have been unable to hear what I say ever since. I will say however that in terms of my post being biblical in its understanding on guns and self-defense I think that I have the weight of scripture on this issue. You said that Jesus example was extraordinary but It is also the example of every godly man and woman in the New Testament. We are to turn the other cheek, lay down our lives, pray for those who persecute us, give to all who ask, and recognize that the weapons of this world are not the weapons of OUR warfare. My point remains though that I do not demand anything of you. I am not your mother. I simply state that for the world to hear the glorious Gospel message we must lay down the weapons of this world. If you don’t want to do that then fine but consider, why are you so annoyed about the words of a guy living half way around the world whom you don’t even respect?
Strider, this:
:They laugh at us and say that we claim to be pro-life and yet can’t wait to shoot someone.”
Brother, this is where you really must be ignorant about licensed gun owners (concealed carry licenses). I know MANY CCL holders who carry most of the time. Every one of them to a person will tell you that the very last thing they want to do, including me, is to have to pull that gun and use it. You are just badly misinformed or really careless in your writing.
I specifically said the criticism was unfair.
You did indeed. So we correct their ignoranc, not capitulate to them.
And by the way, I am as pro life/anti abortion as anyone you will ever meet. But I will not hesitate to use lethal force of any method to stop an attack on my family.
Neh. 4:17-18
“Who were building on the wall. Those who carried burdens were loaded in such a way that each labored on the work with one hand and held his weapon with the other. And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built. The man who sounded the trumpet was beside me.”
“I regret that I offended you years ago. It seems that you have been unable to hear what I say ever since.”
Strider, Don’t try to play that game. You are some righteous martyr here. Was I ever offended by your comments in the past? Yes, of course. You state things that are not right and then declare yourself as speaking from the authority of Scripture.
I was challenging your condescending manner on this post alone. That is ample for the present.
However, I will state it is my opinion that much of what you write is from a self-righteous attitude. You actually think that you are on some spiritual high-ground and that your opinions are unquestionably right. Yet, when someone does challenge you, you begin to whine and say things like “You don’t hear me.” “You don’t understand.” “You have not thought this through.”
The truth is Strider, you are pretty easy to understand. No great mental leap to understand what you write. You just don’t like it when you are challenged. You make broad sweeping statements about issues that, frankly, you really don’t know much about that of which you speak.
I consider this post just to be another example of your self-righteous, pompous hypocrisy. You come here, anonymously, pontificating your opinions as absolutes from a hill of condescension built upon nothing more than your narcissistic ego.
The weight of Scripture is not decisively on your side and if it is, then your using of an alias is true hypocrisy.
Les is right. Making such statements as: “They laugh at us and say that we claim to be pro-life and yet can’t wait to shoot someone” betrays an ignorance about this whole subject and I will state farther, it betrays an ignorance of what the Scripture teaches about God’s bringing revival.
Your post will not stand the scrutiny of Scripture or church history.
I think CB’s last comment should be the last word. I pray that we will all live everyday to glorify Jesus.