Responding to new article conflating God and guns...

::::::::

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12: 21 (ESV)

The key verse is found in the subsection with the title - "Marks of a True Christian." I understand this will make many gun defending Christians uneasy but the Word of God makes things very plain for us if we are willing to be teachable even when it teaches us that what we might hold dear could be wrong. Let me be clear up front. I am not saying guns are wrong. I am not saying owning guns are wrong. I am saying these are carnal discussions, not Christian ones. To use God and His Word to try and defend the carnal is what is wrong. I do not want to live in a country where the government are the only ones with the guns because history teaches us what happens in those instances. But that is not a Christian argument. I think many of the gun control advocates cannot see the forest for the trees they are so focused on. I think the gun supporters are so worried about slippery slopes that they would advocate arming bears instead of bearing arms. Both sides have valid points and the truth is somewhere in the middle but those are again, carnal truths. Not biblical ones. The purpose here is to delve into yet another attempt to use God to defend guns, this time offered up by Pastor Shane Idleman, which can be found here:

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/48633-guns-what-does-the-bible-really-say

Let me say up front that I think Pastor Idleman makes a valiant attempt to strike a more reserved chord than most who try to undertake this quest. He goes out of his way to try and say he is not defending guns per se but then he goes ahead and tries anyway. The problem as always is that the Bible does not support these arguments and never has. Just the simple question, "who would Jesus shoot"; should dispel such nonsense. Just reading the Beatitudes should dispel such thinking. Just the fact that He laid His own life down should dispel these opinions. Since they do not however, it is important to try and sift through the biblical arguments offered up to see what God is actually teaching us. The opening gambit from Pastor Idleman is this:

"What we're seeing today is not a gun problem; it's a moral problem called sin. We are witnessing the rapid deterioration of a nation. We have lost our moral compass ... we have lost the fear of the Lord."

Amen. This is a completely correct statement. The problem is that he is using this truth to support the notion that it really is not the guns that are the problem but rather the sinful state of man. While this is true it only reinforces why we should be unbelievably cautious about the proliferation of guns, no? Take for example the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. There is no question that the problem was the deranged sinful state of Adam Lanza. But how much less damage could he have done had he not possessed the weapons? The mere fact that we are so depraved and have so lost the fear of the Lord alone demands stricter gun control, not lessened. Howe easy was it for the kids at Columbine to get their guns? Do we see the point? Idleman offers up a Scripture from the Gospel of Matthew next:

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. - Matthew 26: 52 (ESV)

Idleman makes a nuanced argument that says because Jesus told him to put the sword "back in its place" that this means weapons have a place. Three points here. One is the missed theological opportunity. Idleman is trying so hard to use the verse to support his presupposed position that he missed the point. The disciple here had a first reaction of violence that was supportive of how the world thinks and Jesus rebuked him for it. He rebuked him because He correctly points out that He could call down legions of angels if He wanted to. Secondly, Jesus was only telling him to sheath his sword. He was not making a theological statement or a deep political-philosophical stand for weaponry in an organized society. Let's be fair. The last point here is really one that is often overlooked. Comparing swords and automatic weapons is like comparing oranges and orangutans. Even if you could find some biblical mandate that was pro-sword that does not blindly mean that every weapon created from that point on shares the same approval. I think there is a demonstrable difference between advocating for swords and advocating for a gun that could fire off thirty rounds of ammo in 15 seconds and armor piercing bullets that can take down an elephant. Idleman starts to compound his logical problems however:

"Later Jesus adds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?" If He was a thief and a robber, the clubs and swords would have been justified. In my opinion, these Scriptures imply that weapons do have a place in society. Albeit we must be careful."

Yes, Jesus is stating that they approached Him as they would a robber, with swords and clubs. He is acknowledging that these are used in society at that time and for those purposes. Acknowledging however is not approving. It is the same stretched logic that claims because Ecclesiastes says there is a time for war that God approves of war. Nonsense! God is stating that because of the depravity of man, He acknowledges there will be time for war. In the same Scriptures it says there is a time for hate. By the pro war logic, God approves of hate. Sorry, that does not fly logically or Scripturally. Idleman continues:

"Additionally, In Luke 22:36 Jesus says, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." What is one to do with this Scripture?"

What Idleman does with it is to use it say Jesus was advocating the need for personal self defense. That is not surprising since he searched for Scriptures to prop up his presupposed opinions. When I might not be sure I turn to some commentaries to possibly shed some light on a murky area. Here is an excerpt from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible regarding this verse:

These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn, destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and distress begin in himself. In "seven" ancient copies of Beza's, it is read in the future tense, "he shall take, he shall sell, he shall buy".

That seems to make a lot more sense to me. That lines up consistently with the teachings of the Prince of Peace. Jesus was preparing them for the upcoming persecution not literally saying go buy swords. Idleman now foresees the pushback he might get:

"Paul tells Timothy that if "anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8). But those who" seek "to protect "their" family, which is often a greater responsibility (if not equal), "are often "labeled war-monger"s" and accused of mis-applying the Scriptures".""

Beloved. I find the arguments from Pastor Idleman to be in good spirit but Scripturally inaccurate. I do not think he is a war monger based on this article. I think he tried to strike some common ground, primarily surrounding the notion of self defense. That does not change however that he is misapplying Scriptures - such as 1Timothy 5:8. C'mon Pastor Idleman, you know full well this Scripture is not dealing with shooting someone who breaks into your home. It is about materially and spiritually taking care of your family. It is the American carnality that has seeped into our thinking as Christians. If God wanted us to pack guns and shoot first and ask questions later He would have made it plainly obvious in His Word. You would not have to stretch Scripture beyond what they were intended for. Idleman continues:

"The Scriptures must be read in their totality. For example, when Jesus was slapped He didn't turn the other cheek. He said, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?" (John 18:23). Although we are to err on the side of grace and peace, there is a time and a place for confrontation and protection."

OK, let us first understand that when Jesus taught to turn the other cheek He was teaching to not retaliate or resist an evil person. In John 18 we are seeing a legal proceeding against Jesus and He asks a question. That question does not nullify His earlier teaching in the slightest. You can ask a question and still not retaliate or resist. After this question Jesus most certainly did turn the other cheek as He laid His life down, remember? As for Idleman's conclusion; yes there is a time for confrontation and according to the Gospel's that is when we see false teaching. Nowhere does the Bible teach that we should be confrontational with the world - in fact it teaches the opposite:

Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. - Colossians 4: 5-6 (ESV)

How can you make the argument with a straight face that you err on the side of grace and peace but if you step into my home I have an AR-15 waiting for you! We saw a story last year of a pastor who saw two criminals stealing copper wiring from his church so he went and got his semi automatic pistol and chased them through the streets, eventually shooting and killing one of them. Permanently assigning that person to everlasting punishment. As a pastor, what was his responsibility? To ensure he went to hell or to give him the opportunity to hear the Gospel and like the thief on the cross go to heaven? Don't hand me the self righteous nonsense about how the criminal here was in the wrong! That is a carnal argument! We were all in the wrong before we heard the Gospel and came to the cross! We were all stealing copper wiring. We were all breaking into someone's home. Thank God Jesus didn't have a concealed carry permit when I came to Him for forgiveness. Idleman begins to wrap up:

"Clearly understand that I'm not advocating violence or aggression; I'm advocating scriptural consistency and continuity. Context is the key factor here. Forgiving is not being passive, and granting grace is not being gullible."

I am sorry Pastor Idleman but you are advocating for violence and aggression. You have set up boundaries for that and I give you credit for doing so. Your boundaries appear to be related to protection and home invasion but let's be fair. If someone is pounding on your door at 3 AM, there is a good chance you will be violent and aggressive with them and they may end up dead. Maybe they deserved it from a carnal perspective but you are supposed to be a man of God - not of this world. There was a case last year where a home owner with a gun killed someone who was banging on his door at 3AM. Turned out she was drunk and had been in a car accident but hey, the gun has its place right? Wrong. Now that woman is dead and if unsaved is spending eternity in hell. Oh and the homeowner is going to jail. Things are not always as black and white as we think them out in our mind. Forgiving is not passive? What does that even mean? You forgive someone but all bets are off if they seem to pose a threat to you and yours? What life are you valuing there in that scenario? This one or the eternal? Granting grace is not being gullible? Do you think that is a biblical teaching? No one is asking you to be gullible just to be Christ-like. If you think Jesus would have a gun in His house and heaven forbid the thief who happened upon His house looking for trouble then I am afraid you have missed the point of the Gospels altogether.

To be fair, Idleman ends strong in this article. He makes solid points about how far the pro gun Christians have taken this debate. He correctly states our help should come from the Lord. He correctly states that our gun cabinets are full but our prayer closets empty. He correctly denounces Fox News and says we should spend more time in Scripture. It is almost a schizophrenic article in this sense because the conclusion fails to realize that the rest of the article was making the opposite argument. Perhaps deep down pastor Idleman felt the conflict within his own Spirit. I pray so because that would be a good sign. Beloved it is hard to navigate this world we live in with the beliefs and convictions we hold as Christians. They are at odds. The way God thinks is higher than how we think. I understand the pro gun arguments. I think they take a lot of it too far but I understand them and as I said, I do not think we want a nation where the government are the only ones with the weapons. I just refuse to use God and The Bible to prop up my carnal, worldly beliefs. I am not minimizing this either. These are the hardest things to learn as Christians but when God says He requires us to love mercy - this might be one of those things He was referring to. It is one thing to say you believe in mercy. It is one thing to be merciful. It is quite another to love mercy. To look upon the man threatening you and your family and realize how far apart he is from God and how desperately he needs the Gospel. To realize that Jesus died for Him too.

Don't get me wrong. You could shoot him. The world will tell you that you are justified. You could take his life and in all likelihood consign him to everlasting torment. Just do not pretend that is loving mercy. Do not pretend that is what Jesus would do. Do not pretend that is what the Bible instructs us to do. Remember the criminal on the cross deserved to be there yet Jesus still saved him. Let us also never forget that you, me, and Shane Idleman deserved to be there too; yet Jesus still saved us. He had to power to consign us to everlasting torment but He loved mercy. Let us strive to do no less. As the key verse says, we do not overcome evil with evil. Rather, we overcome it with good.

Reverend Anthony Wade - March 7, 2015

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.