Does Your Pastor Carry a Concealed Weapon?
Rev. Douglas Olds
17 October 2013
“The cross and the gun offer us two very different versions of power. One says that there is something worth dying for, and one says that there is something worth killing for.” -
One thing likely to cause a scandal to non-Christians is the
news that a church pastor who dons the clerical collar, a Cross, and/or a Robe
carries under that garb a concealed weapon, perhaps a loaded gun. And that they may organize a portion their congregation to carry concealed weapons to church. This causes many inside and outside the church
to be scandalized, as isn’t Jesus a peace bringer and a peace maker? What role does a concealed weapon play in
pastoral ministry? And what, if anything,
might the Bible say about pastors carrying guns?
What might convince a pastor that it is legitimate to carry
a concealed weapon in his public and private ministry? The arguments that I’ve found from pastors for
carrying weapons involve three broad
categories. First, these pastors claim
that we live in evil times, and that their role in guiding a flock necessitates
the physical protection of that flock, which includes the responsibility to
bring deadly force against bad guys who might storm in. Second, they are convinced that Jesus was not a pacifist,
contrary to the common cultural perception, and that the Book of Revelation,
certain Old Testament verses concerning David and the temple, and Jesus’ own
instructions to the disciples validate the taking up of weapons by Christian pastors. Third, these gun carrying pastors resort to
the claim they are American citizens entitled by the Second Amendment to bear
arms.
The first argument for a pastor to arm himself (or herself?) clandestinely involves a “watchdog” theory of
leadership. This scenario involves
the pastor’s followers--the sheep--assailed by wolves who are the bad
guys. Pastoral leadership adopts this
secular leadership paradigm so that a pastor is not an especially fearless or
spiritually endowed and trained caretaker sheep, or an agent battling evil with
words from scripture, but rather a sheepdog who can engage the wolf on the wolf’s
terms while simultaneously or sequentially engaging the sheep on the sheep’s
terms. Pastors who conceal a gun under
their preaching garb speak the language of violence—some have claimed to “shoot
for the center” and “won’t be cowering behind a pew when the bullets start
flying” all the while claiming allegiance to agape love.
The second argument for pastors taking up concealed weapons is
that Jesus was not a pacifist, at least in the modern understanding of the
term. These pastors argue for a fuller rendering
of the Godhead’s power than afforded by a simple view of a putatively
peacemaking earthly ministry of Jesus.
This understanding of the supposed violent power of the Godhead comes from a
warrior’s reading of the Book of Revelation.
Notoriously difficult to interpret, so much so that even the prolific John
Calvin refused to produce a commentary on the Book, Revelation promotes itself
to pastors who are drawn to the language
of violence so that they may claim a prerogative to carry concealed weapons. The fact that others read these as metaphors or
allegories of violent battle in Revelation does not matter: they are alleged to
be outsiders to the true Revelation of God’s historical plan. Pastors who read
the Book of Revelation as justifying and demanding preparation for a military
earthly battle validate concealed weapons on their person from the basis that
they have a justifying understanding of the “full reality of Christ.” This knowledge of Jesus as part of the
Godhead’s supposed eschatological violent battlefield power gives them warrant to accrue
concealed weaponry for application to their pastoral ministry, always justified
by the duty to protect the flock.
Isolated Old Testament verses, it is proposed, support this
view of God’s commissioning of weaponry.
The writer of Psalm 144.1 is asserted to be David, whom they see is an Old Testament "type" of Christ.
Since "David" writes in Psalm 144:1
(NRSV)
1
Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my
hands for war, and my fingers for battle;”
it is interpreted
that Jesus is trained in the military arts. (Of course, such a claim ignores that "David" stops speaking through the Psalms at Ps 72.20 so that Psalm 144 is not Davidic).
Another isolated Old Testament verse is proposed by armed
pastors: Nehemiah 4:16–18 (NRSV):
16 From that day on, half of
my servants worked on construction, and half held the spears, shields, bows,
and body-armor; and the leaders posted themselves behind the whole house of
Judah, 17 who were building the wall. The burden bearers carried their
loads in such a way that each labored on the work with one hand and with the
other held a weapon. 18 And each of the builders had his sword strapped at
his side while he built. The man who sounded the trumpet was beside me.
In this verse, the
builders of the second temple were authorized to build while armed, even to build with
one arm holding onto a weapon. Here we are to meant to see sacred construction is
blended with outfitting for physical battle.
The third argument for pastors claiming the authority to
carry concealed weapons is that they are citizens of the United States, and as
such, they have that right under the second amendment to the Constitution. I found in my challenge to armed pastors when
the Biblical arguments failed for justifying concealed death dealing weapons,
almost to a man (and they were all men) they reverted to their citizenship rights
to bear arms in America. It seemed to me
that my challenge to them was a prelude to stripping them of the second
amendment rights which they hold precious.
There are many arguments against “inverted reading” of
the New Testament that seeks to engage weaponized violence to go back to Old Testament projects. First, the Book of
Hebrews seems to me clearly to warn against a return to Temple building of a
physical kind. Thus the quote from
Nehemiah as a directive would be mooted for Christians. Second, reading David
as a “type” for Christ also is very problematic. What “type” means is unclear (though Col 1.15 uses similar language when proposing that Jesus Christ is the image for the
new man, not David). Also, David (who, historical critics argue, may not have written this particular Psalm) was a sinful and haunted man
according to the accounts in the books of Samuel and Kings. In no way is he a
model for the sinless Christ of our Confessions or for the renewed and reconciled person discipling and struggling to put
on that sinlessness.
In my discussions with them, gun wielding or gun permitting
pastors agree with me that some references to “sword” in the New Testament may
be allegorical while other references are literal.
For example, Matthew 10:34–36 (NRSV)
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the
earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to set a man against his
father,
and a daughter
against her mother,
and a
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
36 and one’s foes will be members of one’s
own household.
In this quote we can clearly discern allegory. Otherwise, a literal reading is that the
sword in this passage is brought to bear against relatives in an aggressively literal manner. This cannot possibly promote “family values.”
In the book of Revelation, so studied by these pastors who
are drawn to and speak the language of violence, the first three references to
swords occur in Rev 1.16, Rev. 2.12, and 2.16.
None of these first references refers to a literal battle sword. They are symbolic or allegorical. Yet how do these pastors move into the later
narrative of Revelation to pick up a current historical reading of literal swords? The Book of Revelation is a confounding mix of symbolism, heavenly proposals, and seemly concluded history, and it was for John Calvin a closed book--one for which he refused to write
commentary. I’ve read and translated the
Book of Revelation from Greek and I am likewise not opened to its spiritual and supposed earthly meaning, but I am agreed with one pastor who noted that "Revelation offers no warrant for violence,
bullying, or killing by the earthly disciples of Jesus Christ."
Now, there is a New Testament passage read
literally by gun concealing pastors to show that Jesus arms his disciples, Luke 22:35-7:
35 He said to them, “When I
sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They
said, “No, not a thing.” 36 He said to them, “But now, the one who has a
purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his
cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in
me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me
is being fulfilled.”[2] 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He
replied, “It is enough.”
The gun concealing promoting pastors with whom I discussed this verse appeal to the “plain meaning” of verse 36-- that Jesus wants his followers
to become armed. Yet I read verse 37 as
directly relevant and contextualizes the previous verse. Two swords are “enough” to fulfill the
prophecy that he be counted among the lawless.
Verse 37 is related to verse 36 by the Greek connective γὰρ [1]
so it has to be asked, what is the scriptural fulfillment from Isaiah 53.12: “and he was counted among
the lawless”? It was that two swords
were sufficient for such a purpose.
Jesus is controlling his destiny by the calling for swords. My exegesis is that Jesus is not
carrying a personal sword up to this point. Two swords are shown to him, two
swords are enough for him to guide fulfillment of the prophecy of words from Isaiah 53.
Are disciples permitted to bear arms? Perhaps from the reading of verse 36 they
are. Christians may serve in the military and police if they sense a
calling. But are pastors? Pastors who appeal to verse 36 in Luke 22
ignore a more germane reference in Matthew 26. 47-56, specifically how a mob
carrying swords surrounded Jesus. These
swords were manufactured for the purpose of deterrence, protection against animals, and perhaps in extremis man-to-man combat. Note how verse 52 uses a strong construction to redefine the teleology (the end
purpose or final cause) of the sword:
Matthew 26:47, 51–52 (NRSV)
47 While he was still
speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; with him was a large crowd with
swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
... 51 Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it,
and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 Then
Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the
sword will perish by the sword.
Verse 52 is a command (imperative: ἀπόστρεψον) that redefines a sword’s “place:”
εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς The eschatological
prophet--our earthly Jesus--has redefined the
eschatological place of the weapon for "those with Jesus." It is to be
put away in the Kingdom he is inaugurating as he moves toward his destiny. Disciples who take up arms will
die by those arms, Jesus warns. Pastors
who take up arms, I believe, also violate their eschatological Kingdom call.
As Chris
Hedges notes, people who speak the language of violence are liable to take up arms
and act out their violence. Threats are
serious, threats backed up by weapons more so. As I mentioned above, some
pastors resort to images of hyper-masculinity to justify their
concealing guns beneath their robes, crosses, and clerical collars. One minister said, "I have to wonder what kind of man
hides in the garb that signals to the world that they are messengers and agents
of what many, including me, understand to be the Prince of Peace while themselves
bearing a concealed death dealing weapon on their person. What kind of man does that?" To which I add: And is that kind of man you want around
children? Is a church service with
attendants carrying concealed arms spiritually and physically a safe place for your children? Not for mine.
Other quotes from pastors who promote concealed weapons
include, “the scriptures are silent on whether the earthly Jesus carried a
sword, so pastors are permitted either way.”
I don’t recognize the Holy Spirit in an argument from silence, and it
conflicts with my "plain understanding of the whole" of the New Testament as well as my exegesis of Luke 22.37 outlined above. Another statement was made: the
Bible [including the Book of Revelation] reveals the “full reality of Christ.” Yet
we who believe in a living God--in a living Christ--cannot conceive how a
creature can make the claim that a written document of some limited number of
sentences reveals absolutely everything (“full reality”) of the Living, Eternal
God. And how could a limited creature
claim that he or she could understand with complete certitude such a full
reality? And how is it that these
literal readers of an inerrant Bible disagree so radically about the Book of
Revelation-- its times and prophecies?
See here
and here
for more discussion about the incoherence--really the scandal--of various Biblical fundamentalisms.
As Chris Hedges and Erich Fromm note, violence reveals a deep yearning to escape freedom. Literal ,
bullying readings of the Bible are like violence in that both settle matters to
a point of inertness. Bullying takes the
living spirit from those who are different from a norm and turns that spirit
into coldness, distance, and silence.
Bullying the scriptures likewise kills the spirit of deliberation and
the spirit of freedom to pursue joy and happiness, as well as service and
neighborhood. Shooting a gun at a provocation founded on anxiety or rage also
takes away from the Living God to settle the dispute according to God’s Living
operation of Justice and reconciliation that we have in Christ. Pointing a loaded weapon also silences
deliberation as it bullies and creates anxiety in others. One step earlier in this sequence of bullying
is carrying a concealed weapon. For it takes one step from concealment to
pointing, one more step to firing. How
would that process proceed? Would it be
a process of the Holy Spirit who according to Gen 1.1-2 and Mark 1.10
initiates new life? Or would it be a process of fear? Would the pointing of a gun, even ostensibly
to protect life (“for the children of our church”) initiate the new life of
those children protected? How would those children who witnessed a church shooting
by their parents' revered pastor take that memory forward into life? Rather, isn’t the process of concealing to
shooting a concealed gun by a pastor one of both taking the physical life of
an alleged bad guy and damaging the spiritual life of witnesses?
For me, the answer to the question of concealing a gun
during my ministry is obvious. For me
and my house, while we are on earth we will serve Jesus who preached the Sermons on the Mount and the Plain and is the Prophet of Eschatological peace and wholeness, through whom I am saved by the announcement of the forgiveness of sins validated by the gift of His Holy Spirit and the reports of His cross and resurrection (1 Cor 7, Col 1, Lk 23.24, Jn 1.1-5, Gal 1.6-10). Accordingly, I will
bless peace and peacemaking, neighborliness and care of the sick and hungry around me. I cannot do
that authentically and with integrity if my spirit is burdened by the false
sense of security of a concealed, human made death device. Those who live by the Spirit will live. Those
who live by the sword will die by the sword.
I won’t exchange my discipleship of the Lord of Heaven and Earth for citizenship in Bible thumping 2nd Amendment Exceptionalism.
The urge to assert our wills over that of others is part of our human tendency to tyranny and oppression. Our desire to assert out wills in the creation of a god with the same enemies as our own is part of our human tendency to idolatry. If you're at all concerned, ask your pastor about weapons and instances of congregants carrying guns. Demand the truth, for God is a God of light and truth, not a God of concealment waiting to get the preemptive or retributive drop on you or your neighbor the moment hostility is detected. My Presbyterian Church (USA) has a wide ranging policy where our churches prohibit or guide toward the prohibition of guns carried into our churches. Check out http://www.presbyterianmission.org/gunviolence/
The urge to assert our wills over that of others is part of our human tendency to tyranny and oppression. Our desire to assert out wills in the creation of a god with the same enemies as our own is part of our human tendency to idolatry. If you're at all concerned, ask your pastor about weapons and instances of congregants carrying guns. Demand the truth, for God is a God of light and truth, not a God of concealment waiting to get the preemptive or retributive drop on you or your neighbor the moment hostility is detected. My Presbyterian Church (USA) has a wide ranging policy where our churches prohibit or guide toward the prohibition of guns carried into our churches. Check out http://www.presbyterianmission.org/gunviolence/
[1] “For.” There was no punctuation or verse numbers in
the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament so that our English Bible's creation of a verse 36 and 37
makes a separation where there was none in the Greek.
[2] Resolving the differing manuscript witnesses to the fulfillment of Isa 53:12 contextualized in
Luke 22:35-38 OR in Mark *15:28 has significant ecclesiastical and moral import. https://carm.org/king-james-onlyism/was-mark-1528-removed-from-modern-bibles/
