Should Christians own guns?

While gun violence is actually down in the US, and gun ownership seems to be on the rise, it's hard to believe that the overall trends in society's take on guns are positive. Essentially what we have to assume is that Americans feel less safe with their neighbors, less trusting in their government, and more willing to contemplate violence in order to protect their families.

Anyone can agree that society devolving into a more fearful place is not a promising development for Western civilization.

The issue of whether the people of God should use violence is a tricky question. On the one hand, you have the Lord not only condoning but even calling for the Israelites to pick up the sword to seize or defend the promised land. The Bible is also replete with examples in which God withdraws protection and allows violence to occur to discipline his people or further his purposes on the earth. Then Jesus complicated issues with some of his teachings like:

"But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -Matthew 5:39

So what does that mean, exactly? If someone breaks into my home and assaults my wife...what are my options here?

Some Christians interpret that as a call to avoid violence even in self-defense, but then embrace strategies like owning a big dog or simply calling the cops.

Owning a guard dog or calling the cops is not turning the other cheek, you are simply outsourcing the needed violence to someone or something else. Are you going to stop your dog from biting the intruder if they don't run away from the bark? Will you request that the police don't actually use their weapons when you call 9-1-1?

Circumstances regularly arise where if people want to protect themselves or their family they must invoke violent reactions of some kind. Otherwise we wouldn't have police or government.

Some Christians work around this by saying "that's the role of government, not of the Church" but then this would imply that Christians aren't to hold office or serve the community as policemen. Is "the Church" only something that happens on Sunday mornings?

You begin to approach something that appears to be a parody or self-creating reductio ad absurdum. Christians shouldn't serve or protect their neighbors as a part of institutions? We should live as beneficiaries of government's legal and physical protections without contributing anything ourselves? That's the way to love our neighbors? What do we do with our taxes that go towards these things? How do we respond in elections? We just detach ourselves? Surely not.

Many Christian pacifists also propose risky non-violent strategies in extreme situations. Such as something like this; if someone attacks you, crush them with love, give them a word of encouragement or correction and trust that it will stop them. No doubt that may be worth attempting at times and there are stories of violent attackers being laid low by a loving word from the victim. However, it's impossible to believe that violent people will always be stopped in this manner.

What's more, it's actually a measure beyond what we see God himself do in scripture. If God often has to resort to violence to accomplish his purposes, why are the standards higher for us?

So then the question becomes: What was Jesus' point in his sermon on the mount? It's all fine and well to pick apart the ultra-pacifist interpretation, but without a substitute interpretation that is intellectually honest we run the risk of disobeying the Lord Jesus, which should be untenable.

The best explanation has to take into account Jesus' mission and overall purpose on the earth. This was, to fulfill Israel's commission to be the "salt of the earth" and produce the "faithful servant" who would win a victory for God on the earth and inaugurate the Kindgom of Heaven.

Jesus' mission then had to strike a delicate balance between overthrowing evil's grip on the earth while also winning over powers and structures over the earth such as the Roman empire. He essentially created the non-violence resistance movement as a means to advance the Kingdom of God across the Roman empire.

Seen in this light and historical context, this passage comes across more as a means of offering non-violent resistance to Roman control, consider the passage with more surrounding context:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 

-Matthew 5:38-43

As with the other passages in this section, Jesus is providing commentary on Torah and how to fulfill it in keeping with the will of God. The relevant law is the lex talionis, in which recompense is made for wrong doing but limited to what is actually fair. Only an eye for an eye, nothing more.

Further context reveals other crucial details. Being slapped on the cheek does not mean "when you are assaulted" but if you should be demeaned, that you should turn the other cheek as if to say "you've insulted me, do you intend to beat me as well?"

The example of the tunic and going a mile with an occupying Roman soldier carry the same meaning and context. Roman soldiers were allowed to force a Jew to carry their equipment, but only for a mile. Jesus is instructing the powerless to confronting the powerful person with a rebuke as though to say, "are you really going to abuse me in this way? Are you going to take the shirt off my back? Are you really going to use your power to make me carry your equipment?"

Jesus was clearly not speaking to an instance in which you are being assaulted and have the option to defend yourself. Nor to an instance in which your family or neighbors are being assaulted, and you have the option to defend them. He's speaking to how Israel could interact with governing powers and hold them to account to fulfill their duty to provide justice and order for mankind as Paul describes in Romans 13.

When understood properly, the sermon on the mount does not clash wildly with the rest of scripture in which God provides clear expectations for his people to use force, when necessary, to defend the weak and vulnerable. The advance of the Kingdom of God is primarily through non-violent means and in cooperation or dialogue with power structures, but that doesn't mean that our lives will never require us to resort to violence.

So now we come to Christians and gun ownership, service as policemen, or service in the military. There may be other valid reasons for not wanting to own a gun, work as a cop, or find yourself in the military, but avoiding violence on behalf of the vulnerable should not be included.

I propose that loose gun laws are actually in keeping with Christian ethics and that Christians in the US should use their influence to push for loose gun control for a few key reasons:

1) Otherwise we defer responsibility for protecting our families

As a father and husband, if you refuse to account for the protection of your family you leave them at the mercy of your neighbors and government. Many people see a society that's growing more dangerous and demand that the government more strictly control who has guns but this is essentially relying on the government to fulfill the role that primarily belongs to the man of a household.

2) Otherwise we defer the responsibility for protecting our communities

Given the strong positioning of the US in a geo-political sense, we don't often think of the need to protect our towns or villages from attackers. In the event that we did, as people in the southwest might have to if Mexican cartels push farther north, we may see the value in militia groups or volunteer "armies" or companies of men who gather to protect their communities.

In the event that this became necessary, I imagine that we would rather that we have easy access to firearms.

3) Otherwise we leave ourselves at the mercy of the government

You commonly hear expressions like "who needs an assault rifle!?" bandied about by opponents of free gun access for American citizens.

The obvious answer is "the person who needs to shoot someone." After all, why does the government need assault rifles? Why does the government provide assault rifles and even more explosive weapons to militia groups in other countries? In case they need to use them to defend themselves. Well the same reasoning applies to US citizens. We just may need to shoot people and we'd rather have the best available firearms with which to do so.

If we deny citizens the right to weapons we leave them at the mercy of their rulers and are forced to hope that there are never people in power who wish us ill. A cursory glance at the history of human societies and governments suggest that this is not a good bet. Human societies are much more likely to enjoy a larger degree of freedom if their government lacks total control and leverage over their lives.

4) Otherwise we fail to see Heaven come to earth

Is it possible to help bring God's shalom to earth if we refuse to get our own hands dirty in bringing order and justice to a broken world. If we are God's solution doesn't that mean we have to attempt to work in broken situations? Too often Christians say, "this situation is broken" and use that as an excuse to avoid sacrificing themselves to be a part of an inevitably flawed solution.

All our attempts to see peace and justice reign on earth will be flawed. That doesn't mean we don't give it our best go and allow the perfect God to work all things for his good purposes.

Christians should never seek out violence and I wouldn't suggest that every individual should own a gun, but to rule out the possibility cedes the responsibilities of men and is a dangerous practice that I think is best avoided.

We don't want to punt on what might be our ethical responsibility to act with force to serve and protect our neighbors. That is not what Jesus had in mind.