| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
This Anti-Gun ‘Evangelical’ Can’t Be Pro-Life Because He Just Murdered Logic
Of all the sureties on this earthly plane, there is no more fundamentally, solidly certain than this: liberals have no use for God, unless they have a use for God. So it is of no surprise whatsoever that the Washington Post has this week an editorial that relies heavily and distinctly on scripture and Biblical law rather than judicial philosophy or constitutional law. Because in this case, the author is writing in favor of gun control.
Rev. Rob Schenck writes against private ownership of arms in an argument that his headline summarizes as “you can’t be pro-life and pro-gun,” a definitionally false statement as there are many people who vote precisely that way – something he even acknowledges in his editorial – and also a logically flawed statement as it is an obvious false dichotomy. The mere existence of a gun, or the mere ownership of it by a citizen, does not, in fact, take life. You can be pro-life and pro-gun. It is an obvious thing, which I will nevertheless belabor to make the point.
Let me begin by taking some major flaws point by point.
“…I disagree with my community’s wholesale embrace of the idea that anyone should be able to buy a gun.”
Straw man. It is easy to argue against the idea that “anyone” should be able to buy a gun, but I would venture to guess that there is not an evangelical soul in this country arguing for the newborn’s right to purchase firearms. Is mine a silly objection? Of course not. At least, no more than his. He says that his community has a “wholesale embrace” of the idea that “anyone” should be able to buy a gun. This is just a patently false characterization. And it does not support his thesis. He says you cannot be pro-life and pro-gun. Establishing that you shouldn’t be in favor of selling guns to anyone anywhere at any time with no restrictions is not an argument in support of that premise. Strike one.
“… our commitment to the sanctity of human life demands that we err on the side of reducing threats to human life.”
I agree with this. This is why I oppose the death penalty. But like the above straw man, this argument does not go to the ownership of guns. The continued guarantee of the American constitutional right to own guns is not an error, and certainly it is neither for or against “threats to human life.” It is beyond easy to list other inanimate objects that can be used to put lives at risk, such as knives, bats, swords, saws, tractors, trucks, cars, boats, planes, sunlight, and green M&Ms. And while one might argue degrees of risk, one didn’t. One argued erring on the side of reducing threats to human life. No case has been made that being pro-gun is a threat to human life. Strike two.
And our belief in the basic sinfulness of humankind should make us skeptical of the NRA’s slogan, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” The Bible indicates that we are all bad guys sometimes.
Okay. So the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a bad guy with a gun, then. I’m fine with that.
This is not an argument against self-defense, it’s a very weak appeal to guilt. Everyone is a sinner, but that doesn’t mean the laws of man or the church are incapable of determining the responsible or “guilt” party in a given circumstance. That’s simply absurd. And it’s no evidence that you can’t be pro-life and pro-gun.
“Assuming a permanently defensive posture against others, especially when it includes a willingness to kill, is inimical to a life of faith.”
Another straw man. Having a fire alarm doesn’t put you in a permanently defensive posture. It’s simply the good sense to be prepared should the worst happen. The ownership of a likewise inanimate gun is not a “permanently defensive posture” in the first place, and in the second place I reject the idea that this is inimical to a life of faith. Does the good reverend lock his car? His home? There is an old saying from that ancient religious relic, the movie “Sinbad, the Sailor”: Trust in Allah, but don’t leave your horse untied. I think the meaning is obvious.
These next two are quite a picture together:
Additionally, anyone using a gun for defense must be ready to kill. Such a posture is antithetical to the term “evangelical,” which refers to the “evangel,” or gospel.
Numerous Bible passages, such as Exodus 22:2-3, strictly limit the use of deadly force.
Note he begins with the premise that using a gun to kill in self defense is “antithetical” to the gospel. Then he closes with the idea that the Bible “limits” the use of deadly force. It is implicit in limit that sometimes it is allowed. He starts with an absolute prohibition and then closes with merely a curtailing. With no acknowledgement of the obvious distinction.
But let’s get further into that paragraph.
Additionally, anyone using a gun for defense must be ready to kill. Such a posture is antithetical to the term “evangelical,” which refers to the “evangel,” or gospel. The gospel begins with God’s love for every human, and calls on Christians to be more Christ-like. At no time did Jesus use deadly force. Although he once allowed his disciples to defend themselves with “a sword,” that permission came with a limitation on the number of weapons they could possess. Numerous Bible passages, such as Exodus 22:2-3, strictly limit the use of deadly force.
The Bible is also filled with countless examples of the use of deadly force, by both nations and individuals. A liberal outfit like the Washington Post is full, I am sure, of people who are happy to trot out such examples when they are engaged in their usual business of bashing Christians instead of using them to promote gun control. And not just in the fiery Old Testament either. I spoke tonight with another evangelical reverend, who notes that, in fact, you can look to the last book for an examples of from the very figure we are called to emulate and who Rev. Schenck reminds us we should be like: Jesus Christ.
I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
That’s from Revelation 19. Christ using the sword and smiting. Or how about when he tells his disciples to arm themselves?
He said to them, “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.
Luke 22. There are, as I say, many more examples of deadly force in the Bible. How does Schenck, therefore, back up his claim that the Bible is opposed to it? Well with another failure of logic of course. Or perhaps deliberate misdirection would be more accurate.
The impulse to protect oneself is natural, especially after terrorist attacks. But evangelicals must be careful that the noble language of self-defense is not used to cloak a more insidious lust for revenge. St. Paul wrote to persecuted Christians, “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay.’” We must turn away from our fears, base human instincts and prejudices, and turn toward the example of Jesus in word and deed.
The second sentence says it all. He completely tosses his entire premise up to this point, that the Bible opposes self-defense, and simply substitutes what is his actual contention: people who own guns are just vengeful, bloodthirsty jerkfaces looking for a free murder pass. After calling the use of deadly force in defense of oneself not Christ-like, he turns around and calls it noble, only to then say it’s not really why people own guns anyway. A betrayal of his entire point and article thus far. Then he throws in an admonition against this new topic he has brought up, vengeance, before suggesting that if you don’t oppose private gun ownership you’re probably full of “base” human instincts and prejudice.
It’s a carnival ride of poor thinking, poor presentation, flawed logic, fallacies, bad philosophy, bad theology, and simple factual errors. But other than that it’s a fine editorial which I am sure the left is eating like candy.
My exit question for the reverend would be to ask him how he feels about a Christian in the Middle East carrying a gun. Are they anti-life too?
The post This Anti-Gun ‘Evangelical’ Can’t Be Pro-Life Because He Just Murdered Logic appeared first on RedState.
Source: http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/29/leftist-evangelical-cant-pro-life-just-murdered-logic/
