Does Jesus Want You To Buy A Gun?

Saturday, September 12, 2015



















Labels: , , ,


At 1:42 PM, Blogger David Norling said...

Excellent nuance, as always.

Immerse rather than emerge in last paragraph?

At 2:54 PM, Blogger Tony Corsaro said...

Yup... As I read the title, thoughts going through my mind were things like... he'll probably approach this from a position of learn to think forward rather than be stuck on what Jesus might tell you not to do... lol Idk. Was just reminded of a famous speech by the late John F Kennedy where he said in effect... Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. It was a very others focused idea. Does that play here? I think so. Ask not what Jesus forbid but how he thought. Did he really tell people 'don't do this or that' or did he encourage people to think outside the rigid box they had been raised in?

And yes.. I think you meant immerse rather than emerge in that last paragraph... :)

Good as usual, Derek. Thanks!

At 3:42 PM, Anonymous Derek said...

Yup, it was a typo. I meant immerse. I changed it :)

At 7:19 PM, Blogger Joel Frederick said...

I grew up on a farm, around guns. Learned to hunt and trap as a elementary and junior high student.

While I am no longer interested in hunting, I still enjoy going out for a day target shooting or a series of clays.

I refuse to pursue a carry permit, however, as I believe it does cross the line to self defense and I do believe Jesus would not approve.

I realize, with all the publicity on shootings and gun control over the last several years, it's hard to separate this but the gun is a tool. One that can be used in both healthy and unhealthy ways. The same can be said for the sword's that were mentioned in Jesus' narrative. Jesus used them to fulfill prophesy while his disciples used them for self defense.


This comment has been removed by the author.

At 3:46 PM, Blogger Dale said...

My take from your article is that, while the disciples and church didn't understand Jesus' words this way, you are not opposed to self-defense as long as peace is being pursued. We should not look for justification for our actions in particular sayings of Jesus. Our actions stand on their own merit.

I can agree with that. The question of why Jesus would say these words was a puzzle and needed to be answered exegetically in context. That the disciples misunderstand Jesus on this point is clear from his response to them, so they are no help. That the church idealized martyrdom and submitted itself as sheep to the slaughter when persecuted instead of resisting is a topic which may deserve its own book. I think this was largely based on a desire to follow the model of Jesus. But I think it is legitimately questionable whether Jesus would want us to follow him in this.

I do not think that defending ourselves and our loved ones goes against the spirit of Christ. There is a world of difference between having a vengeful spirit and protecting yourself. And, as you frequently say, we should be suspicious of any rules that lead to harm, and any rejection of self-defense certainly leads to one’s own harm and must be rejected.

At 9:03 PM, Anonymous Derek said...


We should distinguish between "keeping yourself safe," and "defending yourself." "defending yourself" implies harming another person in order to yourself safe and so the question then becomes, "is it possible to keep yourself safe without harming the other person" or even "what are ways I can keep myself safe and do as little harm as possible to the other person."

I think that's the direction we need to be thinking in. Thinking of ways to reduce violence while keeping people safe.

At 9:08 PM, Anonymous Derek said...


It is a tool. So is a car. We have laws about who can drive, how fast, under what conditions, and so on. We need similar laws to regulate the safe use of guns too. Currently the US is alone among developed nations with its lax gun laws. That's like being the only country that does not require cars to comes with seat belts.

Tools are good. We just need to regulate the dangerous ones so they can be used as safely as possible.

At 5:46 AM, Anonymous Bernie Kopfer said...

What seems strange to me is that the gospels were "written" years after the fact. Surely the early Christians had thought about this passage and its context and its implications. And yet years later the writer/compiler chose to include this passage. If I were to believe in direct inspiration this would be hard enough but if Luke could pick and choose what he wrote down why did this get included?

At 7:33 PM, Anonymous Derek said...


I think that's because the writers of the Gospels were not collecting stories that they liked, or felt were good moral tales, rather they were trying to faithfully convey the oral traditions they had heard of Jesus. It's a early form of a historian, but in many ways similar.

Personally I think Jesus was just making the point that stuff was going to get dangerous in the future, and so was warning the disciples about that. He described that metaphorically by speaking of "needing swords" but when they took him literally, he corrected them.

At 4:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Dale. I do agree the church idolized martyrdom when it shouldn't have. What we have to ask ourselves is what does the kingdom of heaven that Jesus so often talked about look like. In context it was never a far off thing but here and now. In the Kingdom of heaven here on earth would we rather kill someone else to preserve our life and continue the cycle of killing (even for self defense) or stop it here and now with enemy love.

At 5:12 AM, Blogger Dale said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 5:19 AM, Blogger Dale said...

I agree with Derek that the first step in protecting oneself and one's family should involve fleeing the danger rather than attempting to fight. And even if one is forced to fight, most violent situations wouldn't have to end up with someone's death. If you had a gun, shooting in the arm or leg would usually be preferable, unless you were dealing with a monster who couldn't be stopped at anything less than death. I imagine that would be quite rare.

Restorative justice and enemy love are beautiful models that should be followed whenever possible. I can't imagine ever wanting to buy a weapon myself. But I don't have a family either. If a man could stand by and watch his wife and children being molested and tortured (just imagining the worst case), I couldn't have any respect for such a person. I think he must do whatever he can to protect his family. Killing should always be the very last resort.

I think everyone would agree that enemy love should never stop us from loving our family. It does not involve placing our enemy's needs above those of our family. Our love for family and friends has to outweigh the love we show to enemies.

At 11:29 PM, Blogger Joel Kessler said...

Comparing non-violence to no sex before marriage is well done, but there really is no argument for having sex outside of marriage in the Bible...I still appreciate the realism of the argument.


Post a Comment

<< Home
