And God said, ‘Let there be Guns’

Let There Be Guns

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live – Deuteronomy 30:19-20

We forget – or deny – that God alone has authority over life and death (1 Samuel 2:6-8). But we do our best to usurp those powers.

One of the many ironies of our convulsive and conflicted conversation about guns is the near-religious fixation on guns and what they mean – and do – to us.

To say that our love of guns is irrational would be an understatement beyond human, international and historic comprehension.

Consider how we talk about it; “Do you believe in gun control? Well, do you?”

That’s what one of my students said, quite harshly I might add, to another student. It was one of those ‘introduction to college’ type classes required for beginning college students.

But we weren’t talking about guns, or even laws. We were talking about being responsible, not only for our actions, but also for the consequences of our actions.

But this student who took offense at even the imagined ‘control’ of guns (and dropped the class about a week later) made me realize that the issue quite possibly was never guns or their ‘control’ but a deliberate, almost distraught confusion bordering on delirium.

I grew up around guns. I went hunting with my dad many times. I never heard him speak of gun ‘rights’ – but he spoke often of the responsibility of gun use and ownership.

Related: Bulls**t National Grieving by Kent Annan

I am not afraid of guns and I don’t worship them. (I also love the Constitution – but with the full acknowledgment that the composition, interpretation and application is, as always, human and not divine).

There was a time when I could easily have joined and supported the NRA – but that was back when NRA stood for the National RIFLE Association, a hunting advocacy group, not an advocacy group for assault weapons, bazookas and rocket launchers, or even pistols.

There is one major area of agreement I have with many pro-gun apologists; guns are not so different from other dangerous or potentially dangerous objects we all use almost every day.

I hear otherwise rational people slip into a gun-fueled daze as they spout preposterous justifications for having essentially no rules regarding lethal weapons.

All of us, for example, recognize that cars can be dangerous, but have you ever heard anyone say “cars don’t kill people, people kill people”.

Of course not. It is a ridiculous statement that no one would mean seriously.

But make guns the subject of that sentence and then we hear, and find it almost reasonable, all the time.

Related: What Would Jesus Say to the NRA? by Shane Claiborne

The self-cancelling logic is the same; just the subject is different.

But if we were talking about cars, no one would exclaim about ‘car control’ – not because it would be so cumbersome and oppressive; but because it is so obvious.

Doesn’t everyone, to some degree, want a ‘safe’ car?

Isn’t it obvious that a vehicle that is in such a state of disrepair that it is a threat to the driver, passengers, pedestrians and those in other vehicles should be kept off the roads?

Doesn’t every state (and nation) have fairly strict laws which govern the condition and operation of vehicles on public roads?

Doesn’t every state have age and competency requirements, testing, and training to acquire a driver’s license?

To make driving safe, we require both the vehicle and driver to be prepared, capable and reliable.

And don’t we all agree that they should?

Cars have crumple zones, air bags, seatbelts and many other features to make them safer. And the typical car of today is vastly safer than the typical car of a generation ago. And car manufacturers fought virtually every advance in the development of these safety features.

Also by Morf: The Rage of Moloch – An Old Testament god thriving on our Children

Cars, and drivers, are far safer now, not because the government passed laws or manufacturers wanted to change, but because enough people insisted that changes be made.

The gun companies (like the car companies) don’t care about our safety or security – in fact they know that the more insecure we are, the more guns we will buy.

I believe in ‘gun control’ the same way I believe in ‘car control’; I don’t always like speed limits, (and I, and many others don’t always follow them) but I’d feel far less safe without them.

I don’t always like safety regulations, inspections, insurance or renewing my driver’s license, but if it keeps me, my children or anyone’s children safe, I’m glad to do it.

But the NRA proposal to keep our children safe is ludicrous beyond words. Does anyone really imagine that parents – or children – would feel ‘safer’ with armed guards in every school hallway? The NRA would gleefully hold every child in America hostage to their ideology.

We could call this crazy, but it’s even worse; it’s crazy with a purpose. And it’s particularly ironic that the NRA used to have a very clear purpose.

The NRA used to be a hunting advocacy group – their focus was on rifles. They knew that no one would use a hand gun for hunting – just as no one now would use an automatic weapon for hunting.

The NRA has lost its focus, its purpose and its identity. If they returned to their original purpose of the responsible use of weapons for hunting or sharp-shooting, many of us who don’t use weapons could still support the work of the NRA.

And we would all feel safer.


Morf Morford considers himself a free-range Christian who is convinced that God expects far more of us than we can ever imagine, but somehow thinks God knows more than we do. To pay his bills, he’s been a teacher for adults (including those in his local county jail) in a variety of setting including Tribal colleges, vocational schools and at the university level in the People’s Republic of China. Within an academic context, he also writes an irreverent ESL blog and for the Burnside Writers Collective. As he’s getting older, he finds himself less tolerant of pettiness and dairy products.

Print Friendly

About the Author

Morf Morford

Morf MorfordMorf Morford considers himself a free-range Christian who is convinced that God expects far more of us than we can ever imagine, but somehow thinks God knows more than we do. To pay his bills, he’s been a teacher for adults (including those in his local county jail) in a variety of setting including Tribal colleges, vocational schools and at the university level in the People’s Republic of China. Within an academic context, he also writes an irreverent ESL blog and for the Burnside Writers Collective. As he’s getting older, he finds himself less tolerant of pettiness and dairy products.View all posts by Morf Morford →

  • Jonathan Starkey

    Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I will have a more balanced view.

  • audie

    Last I checked, the right to have and drive a car is not in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms, though, is.
    And the only person suffering from delirium is the one who thinks that comparing cars to guns makes any sense.
    The NRA’s proposal to have guards posted at schools is not ludicrous. What really is “ludicrous beyond words” is thinking that taking guns from law-abiding citizens will make anyone safer.
    Any freedom can be misused. The right of free speech means we have to deal with snake-oil salesmen and irrational nonsense like this article. The freedom of the press means the Chris Matthews can pass himself off as a some kind of news guy. And the right to keep and bear arms has it’s share of abusers, too.
    But, then, taking those rights away also has consequences. Remember Tianenmen Square. Remember the death camps of the Nazi and Soviets, or any other mass killing in the last century.
    It’s always interesting that it’s the tyrants, the ones who want to control more than they should, who want to take away our liberties and freedoms, like the ones to keep and bear arms. Whose side are you on, Mr. Morford? To me, it looks like you’re on the side of tyrants.

    • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

      Why is it always the gut reaction to assume from one stance on one issue that the advocate for that stance must be a Nazi? The Nazi party took away guns (although not nearly in the same way as the Democratic party in the US would), so anyone who wants to do anything to guns must be a Nazi. But by that same logic, what about this? The Nazis were strong advocates for good roads (the autobahn, after all, was what made blitzkrieg possible). Should I assume that the libertarians in the US who want the government to limit its focus to police and roads are also Nazis?

      Or how about another tactic? How about, since this is a Christian website, we stop trying to demonize the people who disagree with us, and instead work together to ask the question “what would Jesus do?” Because, to be frank, I see nothing of Christ in your fear-mongering post, audie. I see nothing to set it apart from any secular discourse on the issue. Not even Christian love, the mark that should define us. So can we start again?

  • Jonathan Starkey

    Been coming to realize the things we worship in this world that make us feel “10 feet tall” probably have pagan roots.

    Having bigger guns and being able to conquer our enemies with force, bigger artillery and better protection plans. You may come after us, but… we have “Smith and Wesson.” Is pretty pagan, makes us feel tough and tall.

    • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

      Indeed. We seem to be putting our trust in the things that we have made by our own hands, rather than in the One who made us. Perhaps, in addition to being Red Letter Christians, we also need to spend a bit more time meditating on the lesson that God taught to Gideon? And the lesson that we teach to our children, of David and Goliath?

      • Jonathan Starkey

        I was reading a book the other night, and it was talking about the disciples misunderstanding of Jesus. That they probably thought they were a part something like Gideon or Judas Maccabbees, a new uprising/ of a small band of people who were going to over through the giant.

        • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

          Yeah, that’s what most everyone I’ve ever heard/read says was the dominant assumption about the Messiah. He was going to lead them to military victory against the oppressive conquerors. Jesus overturned a whole lot more than just the tables in the Temple…

  • Brian

    This is an odd choice of scriptures, given that this is a “red-letter” site. Hum… Deuteronomy? Calling for us to give guns to Uncle Sam to save children?

    Jesus says in Luke 22:36 “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

    So, yes, it is a religious command to be prepared. Even to prepare by buying lethal weapons…

    • Jonathan Starkey

      It’s nice to have 8 words of scripture to build a case upon.

      • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

        It’s just nice to have SCRIPTURE speaking about an issue to be able to know the Mind of God

        • Jonathan Starkey

          You’ve read the your bias into scripture and call it the mind of God.

          • Jonathan Starkey

            And are building a case for being prepared for retaliatory violence on one verse of scripture.

          • Jonathan Starkey

            Here is an a perspective of the passage the leaves room for thought:
            Question: If Jesus is opposed to violence, why did he tell his disciples to buy swords (Lk 22:36-37).

            Answer: Given how Jesus responds to Peter’s use of the sword (he rebukes him),
            and given everything Jesus says about loving enemies, doing good to
            them, turning the other cheek, and so on, it’s clear that, whatever
            Jesus was up to in telling his followers to buy swords, he clearly
            didn’t intend for them to use them.

            I think a close look at the passage reveals Jesus’ purpose.
            Immediately after telling them to buy a sword (Lk 22:36) Jesus says, “It
            is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell
            you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is
            reaching its fulfillment.”(vs. 37). To fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to be
            viewed as a transgressor. He had to at least appear to be a
            political revolutionary to the Jewish authorities for them to feel
            justified in arresting him. His cleansing of the temple a few days
            earlier was probably calculated for the same effect. So, to fulfill the
            prophecy and to provoke the Jewish authorities, he had to have enough
            weaponry to justify being viewed as a law breaking revolutionary.

            This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two
            swords, Jesus says “That is enough.” (vs. 38). Obviously, if Jesus ever
            intended for the disciples to use the swords, that wouldn’t be nearly enough. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus look like a transgressor.

            When Peter used the sword to cut off the guard’s ear, Jesus rebuked
            him and then demonstrated the kind of power the Kingdom of God uses to
            advance its cause by healing the guards ear.

            When Jesus later appeared before Pilate and was asked if he was the
            King of the Jews, Jesus responded that his kingdom is not of this world,
            and he points to the fact that his followers are not fighting as proof of this fact
            (Jn. 18:36). So, a distinguishing characteristic that a person belongs
            to Jesus’ Kingdom is that they refuse to fight their enemies. They
            rather prayer for their healing and seek to serve them any way they can —
            including dying for them, as Jesus did, if necessary.

          • http://www.facebook.com/peter.fodera.1 Peter Fodera

            So why didn’t Jesus tell his disciples AFTER the resurrection to toss away their swords and NOT carry them with them as they went on itinerant mission trips to Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth?

            No evidence that Jesus told His disciples that their swords were just props for the Garden of Gethsemane; like the children who Obama used as props when He issued his 23 Executive Orders seeking to limit people’s 2nd amendment freedoms.

            We know those kids were props but we have NO evidence the disciples’ swords were props.

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            Actually, we have plenty of evidence that those swords were never used – for example, the fact that out of all the people ever named apostle, all but two were martyred; one of those two was Judas Iscariot, who hanged himself. The other was the apostle John, who was imprisoned and then exiled.

            You know what we don’t have evidence of? The disciples ever using their swords after the night on which Jesus was betrayed. After that night when a disciples cut off a man’s ear, there is never again any mention of any disciple defending themselves with any weapons at all – even when it was a matter of life and death.

          • Brian

            Thank you so much for actually providing a logical alternative. It annoys me to no end when people reply with simply “you only quoted one sentence therefore you’re wrong” without providing an alternative interpretation themselves.

            I am open to creative interpretations, like Jesus wanted his disciples to have swords so that he would look like a badguy and get arrested (?). But somehow, this just seems unfeasible to me.

            First, look at the prophesy he references:
            Isaiah 53:12
            “Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
            Which seems to be definitely talking about his death, not about why he was arrested. Also, this prophesy doesn’t seem to be fulfilled by just “making Jesus look like a transgressor” as you said. The passage requires him to be poured out unto death and bear the sins of many.

            Another hole I see in the theory is equating having a sword with “being numbered among transgressors.” It was a pretty common thing to do then… certainly you weren’t considered a sinner or a criminal just because you had a sword. In fact, in verse 52, Jesus sarcastically asks the chief priest if he’s leading a rebellion. (which doesn’t make sense if he’s trying to look like he is by carrying swords) So, yeah, I don’t find your theory compelling, but thanks for the perspective.

            My interpretation? Jesus is saying something like “my death is near (where I will be numbered among transgressors – b/c he carried our sin) so prepare yourselves (you won’t have the faith you had before, so get a sword to feel safe).”

            A much simpler interpretation for Jesus’ response in verse 51 is that he didn’t want his disciples initiating violence. This statement certainly doesn’t nullify the idea that Jesus believed in self-defense sometimes (or at least in preparing yourself just in case).

        • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

          It is indeed nice to have Scripture weighing in on an issue – it’s just a shame that God’s voice is clipped and cut into a soundbite taken out of context, so that God seems to be saying something that God never said.

          • Jonathan Starkey

            I don’t believe there are any other verses in the new testament like it. It doesn’t appear in the other 3 Gospels. At least to my knowledge. It is an unique verse, in light of all the other things Jesus said.

            So it should come with a disclaimer. Careful reading needed, or interpret with care.

          • Jonathan Starkey

            It certainly shouldn’t be read in a vacuum/isolation or as a soundbite. I’m not always a firm context person, but in this instance you have to ask what is really being said.

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            Yeah, I’m pretty big on context. Of course, it’s worth noting that you can focus too much on context – if you get stuck on source criticism, you can forget to look for God. But within the narratives themselves, I rarely see it as a problem to look for the context. And it’s a necessary counter to the trend of cherry-picking verses, because verses in isolation can make the Bible seem to say almost anything.

          • Jonathan Starkey

            I think context will always bring you to a deeper understanding, but I also think there is a spiritual reading. And the writer of the gospel is inspired and he is showing you something in the spirit. That there is a deliverance taking place when you come into the spiritual light of what is being said.

            If that makes sense. There is a prophetic reading. And the writers were actually good writers.

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            Agreed.

    • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

      Context is key. We have discussed that particular passage ad nauseum around here, in the past several weeks. It’s not enough to take that out-of-context quote and claim that Jesus wants us to carry and use automatic rifles because of it. Read further, to the reason Jesus gives for them to have weapons. Read further, to when a disciples actually used his sword for its intended purpose.

    • http://www.facebook.com/peter.fodera.1 Peter Fodera

      That Scripture is contained in Red Letters and Jesus is to be understood literally and not figuratively EXCEPT when He’s speaking in parables, poetry, or obvious hyperbole. GENRE counts; the context was was one of impending VIOLENCE by swords. AR15s had NOT yet been invented; swords were the assault weapon of the day.

  • http://www.facebook.com/peter.fodera.1 Peter Fodera

    Liberal Leftist Litmus Test: Describe a crime and/or tragedy. Ask what should be done. If s/he insists blaming and banning, confiscating or otherwise outlawing some THING s/he’s a Liberal Leftist; if s/he insists upon blaming some ONE, arresting, prosecuting and if convicted, incarcerating him or her, s/he is a Constitutional Conservative and/or Christian.

    Try it sometime. It works for Gun violence, Hot and cold weather, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, theft, government deficits and debt, etc.

  • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

    WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT THAT THE SANDY HOOK BOARD OF EDUCATION WOULD HAVE COME TO THIS DECISION . . .

    ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT — ONCE AGAIN THE BILL OF RIGHTS PREVAILS!

    “The Newtown Board of Education wants more armed police officers in the town’s four elementary schools after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.

    “Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary schools in next year’s budget.”

    URL AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST — RLC STILL BANNING IMBEDDED LINKS!

    HINT: SEE THE DRUDGE REPORT

    GOD BLESS AMERICA! AND GOD BLESS OUR PRECIOUS CHILDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL; KEEP THEM SAFE, SHELTERED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF YOUR WINGS, AND SAFE FROM ALL WHO WOULD HARM THEM IN OR OUT OF THE WOMB. AMEN!

    TIME TO REJOICE!

×

TRENDING: Five Reasons Christian Parents "Lose" Their Children