I received a forward today that I have read several times before in some shape or fashion. I believe every time I have received, it came from someone I respect and appreciate. This sender is no different. Some of the content of the forward brings up some things that I have been questioning for a long time, but only lately have I been a bit more vocal with my questions.
I will throw out some of my thoughts after the bottom of the forward. Here it is:
Strong true words!
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do
not.'
~ Thomas Jefferson
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution(c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the
others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control
them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS 'REFRESHER ' ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS.
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a
drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist
James here:
I have always used Romans 13 to defend the use of our military going after terrorists, and potentially any nation that would threaten to invade our country. I have had the mentality that if "they" dare hurt us and threaten our safety, then we have 'the right' to defend ourselves by going after them. I have not only believed and taught that, but many people I know, love, and respect believe it, too. For a long time, I have believed that no matter how many men, women, and children are killed in foreign countries in a war to defend OUR freedoms, then those deaths are acceptable. After all, our safety was threatened. I have felt a tad uncomfortable believing it, so I comforted myself in Romans 13:1-4. What I have wondered for awhile now is when did it become 'okay' for Christians to support that government response beyond taxation? Is that how Romanbs 13 should be interpreted?
Here is why I ask that: In the first century, the church possessed supernatural, miraculous powers. Their abilities to raise the dead, cast out demons, and heal the sick were incredible marvels to behold. The One that enabled them to do those things was none other than God. Yet, with all of their power, we never read of them striking Saul (who later became Paul) dead to protect themselves. Saul was relentless against the church, and he was known for his persecution of the kingdom of God. Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, did not defend himself with force against his enemies (Acts 7). As we go throughout the New Testament, I never read of Christians being called to individually support, defend, or advocate force for protection.
In Acts 5, Ananias and Saphira were killed by the Holy Spirit for lying, and Herod was killed in Acts 12 for not giving glory to God. In each example, it is clear that God decided it was right for them to die at the time, and not man. God knew it was the right time to kill them. James was not allowed to use 'any means at his disposal' to escape death (Acts 12), but GOd provided a way of escape for Peter without killing any of the guards. When Peter sought to defend Jesus with his sword, Jesus told him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword (Matt. 26:52, ESV)." There are also direct commands in Romans 12:9-21 of how the Kingdom is to treat their enemies, those that would harm the church. Not one of these commands mentions what was listed in the forward, and what I have said so many times in lessons and sermons.
So, between commands and examples, I have struggled finding Biblical evidence in the New Testament to support the spirit of the forwarded email. Now, what about inferences regarding Romans 13:1-4?
God uses the governments of men as He wills. JUST because God uses the governments of men DOES NOT mean that God wants Christians to wholeheartedly support a government's policies. God used Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, the Medo-Persian empire, Greece, and Rome for our good (Rom. 13:4; Dan. 2, etc.). Yet, God did not agree with their policies of abortion, rape, murder, etc -- even in the name of war. He turned things around and brought judgment on their wickedness as well (read Habakkuk; Nahum; Isa. 14; Psa. 137, etc.). Just because God used them in orchestrating His bringing the Messiah to the world did not mean He sanctioned their wickedness. God used it against them as well. It was their hearts that imagined their horrible deeds. God used them to punish, or develop, His people.
I understand the Roman empire was already in place when the Kingdom was established. But, when has it become acceptable for the Kingdom of God to desire and sanction force against our enemies? When is it okay to sanction hunting enemies down? Is it okay to do it until the nation in whcih we live is taken over? Is it then that we give up, and live peacefully? How do we know when death in war is 'just'? I cannot help but get the example of Saul out of my head. If there was anyone in the first century that would have deserved a 'just' death, it was him. But, the church did not kill him when he came into their homes to hurt them. Also, I do not read of assasination attempts on the life of Saul for 'the greater good' as was attempted against Hitler by Bonhoeffer and his friends.
I wrestle with this. I love safety. I love the idea of being able to defend my family. I just wonder if I have gone too far in how much I have taught Romans 13 supports. When did it become acceptable for the kingdom to encourage "living by the sword" for national interests? When did it become okay for the Kingdom to condone and support retaliation to defend the great religious freedoms we enjoy today when they were not even allowed to do it in the first century? When did it become okay for the Kingdom to overlook the deaths of many in other nations in war to protect our innocents? Does the label war make all the difference in the world? If so, when?
You need to be a member of Missional Outreach Network for the Missional Church to add comments!
Join Missional Outreach Network for the Missional Church