The issue of gun control and 2nd Amendment rights is one of the most intractable, polarizing topics in contemporary America. Because it is such a partisan issue, many Christians naturally view the topic through that lens. But is there a Christian lens? If Christian ethics are brought to bear on the issue, what is the more biblical position? More restrictive gun control or more individual freedom to bear arms?
These and related questions are addressed in this debate between Bob Thune and Andrew Wilson. Thune and Wilson share their arguments in a discussion moderated by Jim Davis, teaching pastor at Orlando Grace Church.
This debate is part of TGC’s Good Faith Debates series. When we keep the gospel central, we can disagree on lesser but still important matters in good faith. In the Good Faith Debates, we hope to model this—showing that it’s possible for two Christians united around the gospel to engage in charitable conversation even amid substantive disagreement.
Transcript
The following is an uncorrected transcript generated by a transcription service. Before quoting in print, please check the corresponding audio for accuracy.
Bob Thune
On February 24 2022, Russian troops launched a massive military invasion of Ukraine. In response, Ukrainian president Zelensky posted this on Twitter, we will give weapons to anyone who wants to defend the country. The right to bear arms is no abstract, right? And the debate over it is no ethereal debate. If ever we needed a picture of how important the right to bear arms is, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has given us yet another one. What Should Christians think about gun control and the right to bear arms? That’s the question before us in this good faith debate. And the answer is simple. Because Jesus Christ commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Christians have a moral duty to protect every person’s right of existence, and of self defense, which includes the right to bear arms, I will demonstrate this assertion in three phases. First, I will show biblically that human beings have the basic right of self defense or to say to another way a right to preserve their own existence.
Bob Thune
Second, I will show that Christians have a moral duty to love our neighbors by protecting this right and third, I will show that the right to self defense in the modern world includes the right to bear arms. And thus, to defeat my argument and opponent would have to show either that human beings do not have a basic right to preserve their existence, that Christians do not have a moral duty to love our neighbors by protecting that right or that that right does not include the right to bear arms. to state my case, another way you might say this, the right to bear arms derives from the right of self defense which exists by virtue of creation. Organisms that exist, have the right to preserve their own existence. And because loving our neighbors includes protecting their right to existence, we have a moral obligation to protect the right of self defense in society. And that includes the right to bear arms. So let’s start with a very simple fact. Organisms that exist, have a right to preserve their existence.
Bob Thune
The preservation of life is a basic commitment of biblical ethics. And as organisms have a right to exist, so to they have a fundamental right to self defense. The most important biblical text on this matter is Exodus 22, verse two which reads, if a thief is found breaking in and is beaten to death, no blood guilt is incurred. The pressing question is, why would an Israelite not be guilty before the Lord for killing a man during a robbery? Quite simply, because it’s a clear case of self defense. In the Talmud, the rabbi’s offered this commentary on the text. It says though the thief was considered dead from the start. Here the Torah teaches if someone comes to Kill you, kill him first. The Bible and the Jewish common law tradition assume the basic right of human beings to self defense. Greek and Roman law also recognize this basic right. The Roman orator Cicero, in a speech before the court during a self defense trial asked, What is the meaning of our sorts?
Bob Thune
Surely, we would never be permitted to have them if we might never use them. This therefore is a law a judge has not written but born with us. If our life be in danger, every means of securing our safety is honourable. For laws are silent when arms are raised. The law very wisely and silently gives a man a right to defend himself. The great Thomas Aquinas also understood the right of self defense to be a given. In the Summa, he writes, in as much as every substance seeks the preservation of its own being whatever is a means of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles belongs to the natural law. In the Reformation tradition, Francis Turretin states the matter quite plainly, to repel by force, and to defend oneself belongs to natural and perpetual, right, even unto the slaying of the aggressor. So biblically, logically, and theologically, human beings have a basic right to exist and therefore a basic right to self defense. Furthermore, Christians have a moral duty to love our neighbors by protecting and preserving this right for them. This is most clearly seen in the way the Protestant catechisms understand the sixth commandment, You shall not murder. The Westminster larger catechism asks What are the duties required in the sixth commandment? And an answer is this way.
Bob Thune
The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies and lawful endeavors to preserve the life of ourselves and others, including just defense against violence. The Catechism goes on to say the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are all taking away the life of ourselves or of others except in case of public justice, lawful war or necessary defense. According to the Catechism, the law of God and joins upon Christians a moral duty to defend our neighbors against unjust violence, and to preserve their lives by all means possible. This was Calvin’s understanding of the commandment as well. He writes, each man ought to concern himself with the safety of all we are accordingly commanded, if we find anything of use to us in saving our neighbors lives faithfully to employ it. If there’s anything that makes for their peace to see to it, if anything harmful toward it off. God’s law commands us to love our neighbors by protecting their existence and defending them against unjust harm.
Bob Thune
So thus far, I’ve established that biblically, logically, and theologically human beings have a basic right to existence into self defense, and that Christians have a moral duty to love our neighbors by protecting that right. It remains then to show that the right of self defense includes the right to bear arms. If it is granted that human beings have a right to defend themselves and a duty to defend others. The only matter to be settled is what are we to defend against? And the answer is against violence to their person. On the playground, it may be the violence of the bully’s fists. In Cicero’s day, it may have been the violence of a Roman sword. And in our day, it includes the violence of modern weapons. We live in a world where guns exist. We may wish that wasn’t the case, but it is. And in a world where guns exist, the threat of gun violence will also exist. If a bully attacks me with his fists, I can fight back and call for help. The stranger picks my pocket, I can cancel my credit cards and replace my lost goods. But if an attacker threatens me with a firearm, my life itself is an immediate in grave danger. And therefore the right and responsibility to defend life in the modern world includes the right to bear arms, for the simple fact that one of the gravest threats to life in the modern world is the threat of gun violence.
Bob Thune
And this thread exists not only for individuals, but for churches and schools. As we’ve seen repeatedly in recent decades, advocates of strict gun control laws would deny to human beings a defense proportional to the threat against them. They work to craft a world in which we face the threat of gun violence, but lack of proportional means of defense for ourselves and for others. And that violates both the right to self defense that is ours by creation. And the duty of neighbor love that is ours by redemption. Because Jesus Christ commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Christians have a moral duty to protect every person’s right of existence and of self defense, which includes the right to bear arms.
Bob Thune
In closing, let me speak briefly to what I think is the strongest argument for gun control in the modern world. And that is this, that we are better off to entrust the defense of ourselves and others, to the government and to its agents. And that works well, until the government and its agents become the threat. And history has no shortage of such cases. It’s the reason the right to bear arms was enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 69. And in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. During the debates around the ratification of the Constitution, the anti Federalists frequently warned that a powerful federal government could simply disarm the people and impose military rule. And so Joseph Story, an early Supreme Court Justice, argued that the security of a free State included security against the tyranny of an overreaching government, because governments and not merely individuals are prone to violence and injustice. The most biblical approach to guns and gun ownership is to enshrine the right to bear arms broadly across a society. Yes, that does mean that guns will be accessible to criminals.
Bob Thune
But it’s also the only way to ensure that every individual maintains the right to defend themselves and others against violence, whether that violence comes from an individual or from a government. The scriptures promised us that one day The lion will lie down with the lamb. That one day, swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning oaks that one day nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. But until that day, the scriptures assure us that wicked men will continue to eat the bread of wickedness, and to drink the wine of violence. Therefore, Christians should worship our savior for laying down his life, and becoming a sacrifice for us. That we may not sacrifice the lives of those around us by our refusal to defend and protect them. In this fallen world, Christians have a moral duty to protect every person’s right of existence, and of self defense, and that necessitates the right to bear arms.
Andrew Wilson
Well, it’s great to be with you. Thank you for having me. There is a long and distinguished tradition of British people crossing the Atlantic and telling the Americans that they should lay down their guns. And we’re having this conversation just a few 100 yards away from the Capitol building in the presidential mansion that my ancestors burned down two centuries ago. So it’s probably worth clarifying that my paper today this presentation is not motivated by a desire to get any of you to surrender your empire, become loyal subjects of Her Majesty and give us back our tea. Although I would not be untoward, that kind of thing. But if anything is actually motivated by a more serious desire, which overlaps I think very closely with Bob’s, which is a desire to save American lives, particularly those who are most vulnerable in society rather than to take them. Now you all know the statistics I expect, if you don’t a paragraph if you’ll bear with me, America is a striking outlier amongst rich rich countries when it comes to gun deaths. And indeed, homicide rates in general, are significantly higher here than elsewhere. In the in the rich world, over 100 people are shot and killed every day. In this country.
Andrew Wilson
25 times as many people are murdered with firearms than in other rich countries proportionately and 28 times as many women are murdered with firearms in this country, guns appear to substantially increase the total number of homicides. Last year, there were as many murders in Philadelphia, as they were in England in although England has 30 times the population that Philadelphia does. And those deaths are disproportionately clustered amongst poor communities. African Americans, black Americans are 10 times more likely to be shot dead, and white Americans, 1 million American women have been shot by a domestic partner. Firearms are the leading cause of death for American children, and so on. No doubt there’s anybody here who isn’t. So hope there is nobody here who isn’t seriously troubled by those statistics, and doesn’t see them as a significant problem that the question of course, is not is that bad. The question is, whether anything can or should be done about that? And if so, what it is. Australia faced that question in 1996. After 35 people were killed in a mass shooting in Tasmania, the government took robust action banning all semi automatic and automatic weapons. They impose longer and stricter waiting periods and more rigorous licensing and storage restrictions.
Andrew Wilson
And they required a genuine reason to own a gun, which included hunting and target shooting, but did not include self defense. Since then, the government has bought back 1 million semi automatic weapons having the total number of gun owning households in the country. The number of gun homicides has dramatically reduced in that time, and the overall homicide rate has halved. Now, I mentioned the Australian example because I’m a sort of squishy British guy who’d probably doesn’t have the moral authority to speak on these things to this audience. The Australian example also because Australia seems to me to share a lot of cultural traits with the USA which European countries like mine do not. Australia, like America has a low population density, dangerous animals a legacy of hunting of Wild West, a popular culture of rugged masculinity, so a lot of cultural things which it has in common with the states, which might not be true in Britain. But it also has a tragic recent history of mass shootings, and interestingly, shares with America a high popular support for tightening firearm restrictions. Of course, there are additional political and legal obstacles to reform in the US, which do not exist in Australia. But that won’t trouble most people in this audience. Because pro life Christians in this country have a track record of advocacy for what they believe is right in the face of congressional intransigence or whatever.
Andrew Wilson
Now, my case today basically involves four claims, and I’ve already made the first two and when I say the fourth one, till the very end for Fear of losing the audience. I hope I’m reading it correctly on that front. But the first two claims I’ve made these one, gun violence is a massive and tragic problem which afflicts America far more than comparable nations and disadvantaged Americans significantly worse than anybody else. And that is a grievous injustice. That’s the first claim, there’s a problem. The second claim is the international examples suggest that this injustice could be reduced if tighter gun restrictions were applied. And domestic examples do as well. Because regression analysis comparing US states has shown that greater restrictions are strongly correlated with lower gun deaths. There’s a lot of debate, unsurprisingly about which drives which, but the correlation is itself interesting, I suppose I think. The third claim I want to make is that the benefits of tighter gun control both for potential victims and for the communities in which they live and die, outweigh the limitations on personal freedom that they involve. As I said, I’ll save the fourth one for later. Let’s assume for a moment that no one here is proposing an absolute ban on all potentially deadly weapons for all citizens. So I don’t propose a ban on carving knives, I’d propose a ban on baseball bats or moving vehicles, even though all three of them can be used to kill people and have been, I don’t even propose a ban on hunting rifles, or target ranges, both of which are actually legal in the UK, and both of which I have used myself for what they may be worth.
Andrew Wilson
But on the other hand, at the same time, I’m going to assume that nobody here believes that there should be no limits on the potentially potentially deadly weapons that a citizen can own. I’d be amazed if anybody watching this thought that a private citizen should be allowed to own nuclear devices, or cluster bonds, or howitzers, or VX gas, on the grounds that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. In other words are both extremes. And I don’t think anyone’s really on either of those positions. There may be some, but that’s certainly not where I’m pretty sure it’s not where Bob is either. In other words, I suspect that most of us already believe that citizens have the right to bear some arms, and that the right to bear other arms should be infringed no matter what the Second Amendment says, and so on. And put differently there’s a spectrum. With carving knives at one end and weapons of mass destruction at the other end. At the light end, we might issue a warning on the packaging, or refuse to sell them to children or restrict their carriage in public spaces, including the space in which I’m speaking now, in which guns would allow the heavy end, we would refuse anyone found making or owning one of those heavier items for of domestic terrorism. And the rights in each case are not absolute.
Andrew Wilson
They’re balanced with the right of other people to cut up their stake. That In other words, that’s why you’re allowed to work on a cabinet that will play baseball, but they’re also balanced with the right not to be blown to smithereens while walking home from the office. We think the benefits of using carving knives are greater than the risk of being stabbed by them. Meanwhile, we find we think that the personal freedom to own a Molotov cocktail is dramatically outweighed by the chance of killing or maiming an innocent person, or assessment of where something sits on that spectrum, I think is a function of lethality. How many people how many people that could kill teleology, what it’s designed for, and utility, what it’s typically used for. And that would be a way of grading the spectrum. Maybe we could talk about that in a moment. So let me ask this, on that spectrum, where would replace assault weapons, machine guns, AR fifteens the sorts of weapons that Australia banned 25 years ago successfully. And I put it to you that when it comes to lethality, teleology and utility, how likely it is to kill what is designed for what is used for all of those weapons, that the sort of the weapons that are assault weapons, ar 15 or whatever, are very much at the heavier end of the spectrum, they are designed to injure and kill people.
Andrew Wilson
They’re used to injure and kill people with a polling frequency. And in that sense, they’re more like a Molotov cocktail and a baseball bat or a carving knife. So we’re implementing, say Australian style restrictions, which are not as tight as British ones. But if implemented the Australian style restrictions with half the number of innocent people being killed by them or even close to it, then that benefit should take precedence over the personal freedom to own them. And nothing I’ve said so far is uniquely Christian, you will have noticed, this is a common good argument that could be used in the public square, regardless of whether the audience is evangelical or even Christian, because many who make the laws or not, but my fourth claim is more radical. The fourth claim is that Christians should oppose the use of deadly weapons on principle, because we’re committed to the way of Jesus, the way of the cross, the practice of non violence. followers of Jesus should oppose the use of AR fifteens, or machine guns in self defense for the same reason that we should oppose landmines, drone strikes, capital, punishment, abortion, you name it, Christians should never kill people. That’s a tricky case to make in 60 seconds, but here goes. Jesus never use violence against people whether to defend himself or to defend the innocent.
Andrew Wilson
He teaches his followers to live the same way not resisting evil, and turning the other cheek. Matthew five, Luke says, Every time a disciple tries or threatens to use violence and the Gospels, even in defense of the innocent, Christ rebukes them, Luke nine Luke 22, John 19 The apostles regularly present Jesus is suffering as an example for believers to follow. Romans 12 Philippians. Two One Peter two disciples are commended for joyfully accepting the plunder of their property. Hebrews 10 Our struggle is not with worldly enemies or worldly weapons Ephesians six Christians conquer, not by killing but by dying by the blood of the Lamb, the word of our testimony and not loving our lives even unto death. Revelation 12 And every church father before Constantine who addressed the subject, Oregon’s Italian Cypriot Lactantius, after a rigorous agree that killing image bearers of God is always morally wrong. Now, I’m not naive. I know my audience will almost entirely disagree with me on this. And that’s fine. But be that as it may, there is a strong common good case for tighter gun controls in America, perhaps along Australian lines, which just war advocates could happily support. The stakes are high. During this debate, we’re having 10 Americans will be shot and killed during this brief apologize shot during this brief debate. They went when we go. In Britain, we average one gun death per week. And the reason why I submit to you is encapsulated by Hilaire Belloc at the end of the 19th century, and albeit writing in a very different context, you said, Whatever happens, we have got the maxim gun, and they have not. Thank you.
Jim Davis
All right, well, thank you both. For both of your arguments. I’m going to start with you, Bob, then I’m going to kind of start off where Andrew finished. So my question is, how then do you apply Jesus’s teaching on the sermon on the mount where he says, 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?
Bob Thune
Yeah, excellent question. And I think that is the question for anyone who wants to make a case for the right to bear arms. And the the way the mainstream theological tradition has answered that question. It’s just to say that that Jesus’s ethic there is one that Christians are free to apply personally. But obviously, we don’t expect countries nations to apply that ethic in the same way. Right? Or to say it the way Frederick dill Bruner says it Jesus isn’t saying I should let someone slap my neighbor’s cheek also. It’s an ethic I’m free to apply personally, but it does not apply to the protection and defense of others. And so, though Anders, certainly correct at the earliest history of the church, the first 300 years, almost across the board, there was a understanding that Christians should not serve in the military shouldn’t shouldn’t use violence in any way. And so there’s maybe some fun conversation we could have about what changed. You know, people want to blame that on Constantine and all of that. But it is interesting to me that the mainstream theological discussion since Augustine would say, there’s there’s freedom here for Christians to that Jesus is not intending to undo the Old Testament law related especially to the protection and defense of others.
Jim Davis
That’s helpful. All right, Andrew, you didn’t mention you’ve shot a gun before in your arguments. You’ve been hunting, what in what context? I’m
Andrew Wilson
here I wasn’t, I was. So I was in the gap. I was in the cadets at school. And we had to fire SATs, like a target ranges, that kind of thing. I think I used when I used a hunting rifle. It wasn’t it was the firing of the gun, rather than I haven’t actually shot an animal. But I used it, I think probably clay pigeon shooting or something like that. I can’t remember what I remember where I was, I don’t remember. I think it was one of those things where they fly things through the air. And so it’s a lot of fun. But I’ve kind of mentioned it, because I don’t think it’s because I don’t know that the principle of saying nothing, no weapon that could be used to kill somebody can ever be owned by any array, which is at a more extreme level as the carving knife baseball by argument, but I just thought it was worth throwing out because otherwise people think, Isaac, English guy, what does he know? So that’s like,
Jim Davis
So Andrew, I do really appreciate the way that you make the argument in terms of unacceptable extreme extremes. That’s what you’re getting at there, of what can be used as a weapon and where we would draw those lines. So let’s go to your fourth point, which you call your most radical, but it had the most Bible. So I think that’s a good place to start. Do you think that there is a time for self defense? And if you do, how do you align that with Jesus’s command to turn the other cheek?
Andrew Wilson
I mean, I think it depends what you mean by defense. Right? So I think obviously, the word defense is very slippery, because it goes from I, if I don’t if I’m not prepared to kill somebody, I’m not going to defend them. And I don’t think that’s true at all. I think there are lots of ways of defending your neighbor, Defender, your neighbors reputation, honor stat, literally standing in front of the bullets standing in front of the tank, whatever it may be. And the Christian tradition is obviously full of nonviolent ways of defending people. So to me, I don’t think the debates really about defense. That’s that isn’t the terminology I would use because I think the idea of defending on a but there’s a noble thing, and in some circumstances, the idea of defending myself depending on what it is, I can defend myself against charges of false accusation. I don’t think that’s wrong. I don’t think Jesus is saying don’t in that setting. I think the issue of Do not resist the one and who is evil is I think you have to do a lot of wiggling to try and get out of it. If by that you mean somebody is coming to me and I think that they are going to attack either me or even someone close to me and so I can kill them. I think that’s a very very difficult thing to square with done the resist the one who was evil. But I think defending doesn’t only have to take violent form, it doesn’t have to involve carrying a gun or even any kind of weapon. So that’s why I would sort of want to disentangle defense as a word. I think it’s to be honest, I think it’s a euphemism mostly for the right to own a gun that might kill someone. I don’t think that’s the same as defending something. I think there are lots of ways of defending yourself without violence, and many, and you’d say we’re just a few 100 yards from the Martin Luther King Memorial that you can defend people as he did without using violence. So to me, those two things are quite distinct, so desperately helpful starting answer now.
Jim Davis
All right, Bob, let’s go back to you. One of your main arguments that you made is that we need to protect ourselves from governmental oppression. And you spoke specifically mentioned what’s going on in the Ukraine right now. And we’re President Zelinsky is trying to get weapons of pretty much any kind into the hands of his people so they can defend themselves. And that would include fully automatic weapons RPGs, Molotov cocktails, as we have seen in the news. And I think it’s fair to say there’s just there’s probably not much of a limit in what he would want in the hands of his people. So if we were to follow your argument, and Andrew kind of alluded to this, I want you to be able to make it clear and Speak for yourself. If you were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it would seem like that you would be for Americans having access to any kind of
Bob Thune
pocket nuclear weapons, or at least
Jim Davis
I mean, so that it does open you up to that, to be prepared for either war or some sort of governmental overreaction.
Bob Thune
So I use that analogy for two reasons. One, because I’m curious from Andrews perspective, if you know, the weakness I see in that argument that he made is, the more Christian the Ukraine was, the less anyone would be willing to take up a weapon. And so I’m wondering if there if you’d make an exception for national defense. And I think in our context, in America, obviously, we’ve allowed the Supreme Court to sort of interpret that and the way they’ve interpreted in Supreme Court jurisprudence is to say that the Second Amendment protects the right of a civilian to own a weapon, that a civilian, you know, that would have been the kind of a weapon that a militia man would have, would have owned. So they’ve allowed for the growth of technology, but not for the kinds of weapons that we would have always said, a tank or a cannon or whatever, those kinds of things that are more of a clear, they’re meant for a certain purpose and meant to be used by the nation in the defense of a nation.
Jim Davis
Well, he opened up a question to you, as it pertains to national defense, how would you answer those?
Andrew Wilson
I’m a pacifist. That might not be the best best term, you know, committed to non violence. So yeah, I don’t I would apply it through national defense as well. But I think the reason why so much of my presentation was not actually focused on that argument is partly because, no, I’m not going to win that one in this audience. But also, partly because I think there is a common good argument to be made. Nonetheless, along the same lines, actually, I think I’m interested by that qualification to say that the citizen could own a, you know, a gun, but not a grenade launcher. And it just to tease out the principles behind that, that effectively, you would still make a distinction you differentiate, I guess, between what the state could do and what the individual could do. And the question is whether whether that’s consistent because effectively, I think that’s exactly what I’m saying as well.
Andrew Wilson
It’s just the last line on drawing, rather than being nation states typically are the people who use these there’d be plenty of places where assault weapons and even grenade launchers are owned by private citizens and militia, certainly, if you travel in large parts of Africa, you know, in particular, where things where the government isn’t as strong that would not be uncommon. So in that scenario, should Christians own those things, too. And so I just want to know, where does it in your scenario, where does it end? I think in mind, it kind of doesn’t start, in the sense that I think that’s what Christians are. I think that’s what Jesus is teaching. So I don’t think the Old Testament arguments are particularly, because I think Jesus is saying you’ve heard it was said, but I’m saying this. And in a sense, it’d be the same as what we said about lust or divorce, or many other things that Jesus is calling us to a higher standard. But in a context where you do think some weapons can be used in some cons. I mean, where is the line? Or is that just the line that it exists within the US?
Jim Davis
And I will say, since I did I allowed your question to be directed to him? Would you mind answering that question? Where does it end?
Bob Thune
Yeah, I’ll do the best I can. What’s interesting is we’re really in the heart of Political Theology here, aren’t we? Where are we I was trying to make the broadest case from a natural law Bible sort of ethic, a theological case for the Bible permits us to defend other people’s rights to existence. And I think the right to bear arms is a derivative of that imperative. Every I think everyone would agree with the point that you made, which is the on a spectrum, we all agree that we should we don’t have a right to own a suitcase nuke or a drone, right? There are certain weapons, we just say, Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. And so I think what’s interesting is it seems that every nation sort of has to define that for their own. They have to set the boundary where they choose to as a nation and so I don’t it’s interesting to me that I don’t know how we can answer biblically the question of where where does A line drawn. So that’s where I say, as an American, that’s where the Supreme Court has answered that question for us in terms of saying it describes it applies to the kinds of weapons you would have for hunting and for your own personal use, but not to the kinds of weapons that only exist for national defense or for a military use. And again, I think, is that line arbitrary?
Andrew Wilson
Sure, in some ways, which side of the line? Do you would you put assault weapons?
Bob Thune
I don’t know. I probably am ambivalent on that. Because I think that’s one of the live debates in the American context is just do those. I know people who use those for hunting? I know, I know, people who would say those are only meant for military use. And I think you can make a case either way.
Jim Davis
Okay. Let’s good. All right, Andrew. So there are many out there who would make the argument that gun restriction keeps the guns out of the hands of those who would use it, use them responsibly? Not out of the hands of those who would not? How do you respond to that argument? Given where we are now?
Andrew Wilson
Yeah, so I think this is this is why I spent so much time, so much more time talking about Australia than I did to talk about the Bible. As strange as that is in this context. Because I think, I think if I just if I make the pacifist argument, I don’t think it’ll convince anybody. And I’ll just go, wow, okay, well, it’s a moral conscience thing. But I think with with the example of Australia, to me is helpful, because it’s an example of a nation which has got enough culturally in common with the US and which did have assault weapons and doesn’t now, and in which all of the results and outcomes I think we would want, if we’re what we’re trying to do is to defend the innocent. And that actually, I think you could just wide distinguish between defensive violence is I think, you would defend the innocent better, by dramatically restricting what kinds of weapons can be used and how many people they can kill at once.
Andrew Wilson
Even if in practice that sounded like you were taking away, I was taking away your right to defend yourself, I might actually defend you and your family better by imposing that law. And by making it possible for people to give them back now. There’s a big public opinion, water war to be won there and all war that’s an inopportune choice of words. And, and also, I know there’s a lot there’s a lot of history and context in in Britain, but I think it’s not dissimilar from a lot of what happening in Australia. And so that’s why I just think that comparables, even within states in the US, as I said, let alone internationally suggest that, in the end, tighter gun restrictions are correlated to and you could argue about the causality but are correlated to lower gun deaths, not higher ones. So although in principle, it sounds like, Oh, if you got a gun, I want one to to defend my family. Actually, if neither of us have guns, or if I put mine down, and you probably put yours down as well, there might be a few miscreants who still have them. And that’s tragic. And of course, they may abuse them. And they have in Australia, it’s not like they no one’s ever shot anyone ever since. And they do in Britain. But the overall effect to the nation is significantly diminished, not just gun deaths, but homicides in general. And I think that’s a very good outcome. So I just don’t think it’s borne out by the evidence of what’s happened in developed nations, when they’ve applied it is obviously is different in nations where the state is much weaker and less able to enforce and we’re, poverty is more rife, and so on. But in Western nations, I think the comparables are encouraging for gun control.
Bob Thune
It seems like though that argument would depend on the government having a vested interest in stopping that, at least in deciding where that boundary is. And I think for many people in American context, the open question is, can I trust the federal government to tell me what kinds of guns are okay for me to own and what kinds aren’t? Because as soon as I entrust that decision to someone else, and allow them to define how big a magazine I can have, or what kind of rifle counts as a hunting rifle versus not one, I’m seeing a lot of ground least in the American context that the Constitution gives to the people and to the citizens. Yeah.
Andrew Wilson
And that’s why it’s the question about how Christians should think about it. I know, I know, this isn’t going to happen, but it’s what I think Christians should want to happen. That’s the point. So I think if you had a Christianized nation, where people were people saying, I really want to know what what does Jesus think about AR fifteens, I do still find it very hard to believe that people would just would go over the Bible if they didn’t have the Constitution in their background and go is this an area where American life has been more discipled by a mixture of history and an opposition against people with accents like mine, and all sorts of things in the history as well wearing as you know, wearing red by and large.
Andrew Wilson
But whether or not that’s that’s over shaped the the American narrative on it, in contrast to people who went I’m going to I’m going to read the Bible and because even just for advocates across the history, I don’t think most of the Augustine Aquinas the guys who are quoting, I maybe it’s a failure of imagination on my part, I cannot imagine the sort of lethality that is currently possible with an AR 15. And Thomas Aquinas saying, Yeah, I think you should have guys, you know, taking deadly weapons into church or, yeah, I think you should have it. You know, I just I don’t think that’s an application that just were advocates who made it so difficult for the state to go to war. They said you can, and I disagree with them on that. But they said it’s so hard. The bar you have to clear is so high. I think that the bar we have in this country is very, very low in comparison. And I think that Christians, constitutional arguments and government intransigence and concern about state power notwithstanding I think Christians should not be okay with that.
Jim Davis
And so in my hearing, I think He said this, are you kind of challenging whether we’re reading the Bible through the lens of the Constitution or the Constitution through the lens of the Bible?
Andrew Wilson
Yeah, I definitely think that’s a challenge with making but I think it’s I was, I think that’s true. Generally, I think that’s all true, right. As I’ve got to do the same as an English person, I think we’ve got to do it. And you read the Bible through your economy and what you know what’s okay for what jobs are okay for Christians to do and those sorts of things. I think we all do that. But I was making probably a narrower point, which is I think that the concern about ceding power to the state which the Constitution has given to the individual, to me, is this a constitutional argument it’s in its right that Americans are having that conversation. But I think Christians can, to an extent circumvent that intramural constitutional American debate and say, well hang on a second, if the outcome of that is that we’re saying that Americans can and should, and that in fact, I think in some of Bob’s argument, there’s a sense there’s not just a you’re allowed to, but there’s almost a moral imperative to own machine gun that could come in and kill everybody in this building in the space of a few seconds.
Andrew Wilson
I just feel like at some point, and Christians have to say, well, I don’t know if that’s where we got with the constitutional argument, don’t we need to take a step back and say, is that we prioritize correctly? The two, I’m not saying that only Americans read the Bible through their culture and taught them I hope that wouldn’t be that naive. But I do think in this particular case, it’s a, it’s a, it’s like having a, you know, a queen for the head of the church in Britain. It’s just one of those things that I think you’ll be on your on your own nation, you go all, you know, idolatry of the National Health Service, or whatever it might be, you would notice things in my culture is what I’d say you sure about that? So I think it’s to me, it’s not one of those things.
Jim Davis
So one of the heavy things that he threw out where those statistics statistics of the United States, I don’t think anybody listening is going to hear that and not have their hearts break. How do you in your position? How do you hear that? How does that land on you? And how does that inform your, your defense of, of having gun ownership?
Bob Thune
Well, he’s absolutely right. I mean, there’s statistics, America’s the most violent country in the world when it comes to gun deaths. And that’s a tragedy. And I think it shouldn’t grieve Christians. And the question is asking the right question, which is what, what then should we do in light of that if we care about peace, if we care about the flourishing of human beings if we care about Jesus’s way being cared about in our world, in our society? And so I don’t think we can ignore those questions. But I am suggesting I think that it is interesting to me that this question, in some ways is specific to each country into its history, right to each country’s history. And in America, in particular, because the Second Amendment has been such a important part of our founding in our history, and the way that the framers understood the right to bear arms as being an essential human right now we’re at a place where we’ll arms have technologically advanced since that time, and so we do have questions of what about ar 15?
Bob Thune
And what about assault weapons? Right? Those kinds of what about questions are important questions. I’m saying I don’t think that those questions, deny or erase the fundamental reality, that the citizens right to bear arms is important and should be the primary thing rather than entrusting that to the government. And I think that’s the basic American experiment. That is, you know, the statistics prove two things at once. Right? They certainly proved that if you allow gun ownership broadly, in a society, you’re going to have to face the reality of more violence. But when the response, the only answer to that is, let’s restrict that right and allow the government then to be in control of who owns guns and where I think in our country, we decided early on, that’s not the way we want to go. I think it’s an open question, Should we want to go that way? And Andrew, is actually what the point you just made was interesting is if as a society becomes more Christianized, right, if we see gospel influence more broadly in society, how would it change the way we think about that question? That’s actually a provocative question to me.
Jim Davis
Well, I thought it was interesting, Bob, that you started out by saying what he would have to do to, to beat you, basically, and you laid it out. And so I’m going to read what you said, you said, to defeat your argument, Andrew would have to show either, that human beings do not have a basic right to self defense, that Christians do not have a moral duty to love their neighbors by protecting that right, or that the right to self defense does not include the right to bear arms. So do you think that Andrew has made a compelling case? That the right to self defense has limits for the sake of loving our neighbors, which may not include guns? Well,
Bob Thune
of course, not because I want okay. I think obviously, I think his point was aimed at that third point of saying, you made a distinction between defense and, and the and violence. Right. And I think that is the it seems like that’s the place where he’s aiming sort of his argument is to say, yeah, we can draw a distinction between the right to defend one another, but the question of does that necessarily include guns and the right to own guns and the unlimited right to sort of, especially in America, right to to have no limitations as Australia does. And so I think that is, I mean, I think that’s the if I were making the counter argument, that’s probably the place I would aim to because I think those First Few things are more, that’s more fundamental to humanity. Right, we would say, Well, every human being has the right to existence and to protect their existence and, and has the duty to love one another. So I don’t think it seems to me that what I was trying to do is to say that those two things are a little more transcendent. Yeah, that last one is the question that I think applies in a debate like this.
Jim Davis
So he started out talking about Zelinsky. And in the Ukraine, and what he’s doing now to try and do whatever he can to get weapons into the hands of his people because of what’s going on there. Obviously with Russia invading in World War Two, from what I understand reading of history, one of the Axis powers were very concerned about how in the world you would invade the United States because of how many private citizens owned guns and ammunition how how does that part of the debate land with you because he made that argument is one that circulating now, I’m curious how you respond to them?
Andrew Wilson
Yeah, I think I think World War Two is the the closest thing we have to a just a genuine war of good against evil, right. And I think probably most wars in history, so there’s, you know, there’s bad men on both sides as good men on both sides. I think when you have Hitler and Nazism wanted to steamroll everybody, you’d go okay, that’s, uh, I think we’re as close as we can be to saying, that’s a very, very bad man. And a lot of very, very bad things are going to happen if he’s in charge, but and so as that sense, it follows us. It’s like the reductio ad absurdum of the pacifist position. And I think you as a pacifist, you, you basically swallow it, and you say, Yeah, that might mean Britain had been invaded, they might or might not be speaking German, maybe. I think the world would be I have to trust this the providence of God, I have to, I have to ultimately say, This is what Romans 12 is doing. So you don’t do these things. Because Vengeance is mine is mine therapy? And I think in the Sermon on the Mount don’t again, I think if you read the sermon on the mount and say, What is this say I should do with it? There? You go. Yeah, I think that means you might have to say, I don’t resist and, and at that point, you might say, oh, that’s cowardice. I think I actually think that takes a lot of courage to hold that position.
Andrew Wilson
But it is very costly. And it has been, it’s not. The thing to bear in mind for me is that it’s not hypothetical. Even for people who lived in Israel, Palestine in the first century, they themselves had terrible, you know, they were talking the era of Caligula Nero, you know, this is how they died. This is what pulled out how Paul died, Peter died these guys. So then Jesus Himself, of course, crucified, but you know, in a sort of, as an example, to be humiliated as an example of Roman state power. So I don’t think it’s I don’t think World War Two is the conversation. I’m not saying you’re using it this way, or you are, I don’t think it’s the conversation stopper, it can seem like Well, obviously, you had to kill Hitler, didn’t you? And then from there, we reasoned out to owning AR fifteens, or whatever, I think, no, I’m not even going to accept that. Because I think that in the early church, that is precisely the question that judge had to ask is, so yeah, how do we respond to Rome? How do we respond to oppressive, malevolent empire? Who, who is forcing us to worship false gods and so on? And they said, Yeah, we don’t fight and kill them, which is, I think, be inserted to get to the Constantine thing, actually. But I think that’s one of the in the era of state persecution of the church, as fascinating that that’s just not the argument the church ever made. So I don’t it sounds very weird in our world to say, let Hitler invade, you know, bring it on, and trust it to God. And you know, who knows what would have happened? But also, the question turns around what would have happened if German Christians hadn’t picked up arms to fight the French polish Russian British brethren? And so I think you can turn it on its head a bit.
Jim Davis
All right, I am going to go to Constantine in just a minute. I love that you’ve talked about, you know, what you you said it was this way and something cherished. And so we’ll go there. But I want to I want to take I want to pull on this thread just a little bit more, you mentioned that there are weapons that can kill everybody in this room. Recently, at least in the United States, that’s my context, there have been videos circulating of somebody showing up in a church or elsewhere, with a gun intending to kill a lot of people, but because someone else had a gun, it was stopped. Does that seem like a an argument for people to be able to bear arms to you?
Andrew Wilson
And when he said to you, and you’re No, it doesn’t. And I think for two reasons, I think firstly, if the camera was to pan back from that encounter with you know, and it of course, it sounds heartless, I’ve never been in this situation, Prescott. And I know that some have, and there may be people watching this who have seen that or people close to them. But I think if the camera was to pan back from that specific situation to the entire nation, and you said, actually, the the freedom to do this, that applies to this guy defending these people, when extrapolated to all of these 350 million people means a lot more innocent people die, which I think is what statistics at least suggest, then that changes the moral character somewhat, I think at a pragmatic level. And I also think at a theological level, this is basically exactly what Peter was doing when he picked up the sword and shot the guy’s ear off is what the disciples were saying they were going to do and it’s called down five and I think that when when Christ in engages with Christians raising that question and only happens three times.
Andrew Wilson
But each time it does, he’s he’s pretty direct. He says, No, you don’t do that. And so I think at that point, I think Christians, as we all do in many other fields anyway, is we have to choose the way of the cross to choose to suffer, rather than to take up arms and kill. And I think that’s yeah, that’s essentially what Christian pacifism is. That’s that’s the That’s my position. I know that it’s in that one in that room. At that moment, it looks like a very strange moral decision. And I would say, I think sometimes, Christian morality does. But I also think if you were to take the wider view, you might say, well hang on it. Would a European Australian Swiss approach to weaponry in the overall actually save more lives? And it costs in that one situation? So that’s a more pragmatic way of doing it,
Jim Davis
would it would the danger had presented itself in the first place? Is what you’re saying, right?
Andrew Wilson
Or would it present itself in more rarely overall in the nation than it did? I think it would, I think that’s what the Australian experiment, as well as I mean, you could use lots of European examples as well. It’s just I know that, you know, when we Europeans, we can do things differently. But I do think there are, it would suggest that there’s a broader moral calculus and simply what’s happening in that space, when someone comes in here with a gun? That’s a very different thing. When you pan back at a national level, you might say, yes, some of those innocent people might die in that situation. But the legislation required to limit this guy from defending them, if applied nationally, yeah, might actually save more lives rather than cost them.
Jim Davis
That makes sense. So we’ve talked about Constantine, you referenced in your argument that, that indeed, in from what you’re reading the first 300 years of Christianity, their view, if I’m hearing you right, would have aligned more with Andrews view? What changed?
Bob Thune
Well, I mean, there’s two ways of reading that are probably more than two ways of reading it, right. The the cynical way of reading it is, well, Constantine came to power. Now Christianity has the power of the state behind it. And so we need Christians to serve in the military. We need Christian like many Christians to be in the army. And so pacifism needs to go away. And we have to make a new case. And I think that’s a one way of reading it. I think that’s a cynical way of reading it. I suspect that I mean, it’s the same thing that we would say like correlation doesn’t equal causation, right. So there are other factors going on. One of the things I think is interesting is, in those first 200 years of the early church, one, the church is still growing through the Roman Empire.
Bob Thune
And two, it’s really a one world empire. I mean, I mean, Rome is the Empire. And so you don’t have individual nation states, you don’t have Christian all over the world, yet. It’s still early in the life of the church. And so the main thing that church is dealing with is Rome. And so the question of if my own government is oppressing me for being a Christian, if I have to go become a martyr for the professor’s name of Christ, should I do that? Absolutely. That so that’s the question. I think that they’re answering the first few 100 years of the church, I don’t think they’re having to answer the question. If my neighbor is under threat of grave attack from someone other than the government, right? Or what about, you know, is it okay for my neighbor to serve in the army, if it’s not the Roman army that has been oppressing us in the same people that put Jesus on the cross?
Bob Thune
But if we’re talking about the ongoing progress of history, so I think it’s interesting that certainly, you could say, Constantine coming to power is the thing that changed the argument. But I think that’s a too simplistic way of reading it. Because it’s interesting to me that since then, in history, from Augustine, to Luther to many, many, right, Protestant, and, and broader Christian exegesis in various places throughout the world since Constantine, many of them have made the argument that Christians should be able to serve in good conscience in the military or in police officers or whatever. I do respect. I think the Christian pacifism is a really respectable position. And primarily because it is a hard position to hold on to defend when you look at things like Hitler, it’s hard to, it’s hard for him not to be in the chair and say, yeah, actually, my position would say we should have let Hitler take over the world. That’s, I mean, I’ve respect a man who’s willing to have the conviction to say that’s what how I read the scriptures would would what it would lead me to say, and I think that’s the very reason why, in the history of the church, sort of, broadly speaking, the more magisterial Protestant tradition has generally said, you know, it goes back to sort of Luthers vision of the two kingdoms, right, that there’s, there’s what Christians are to do as Christians, and then there’s what Christians are to do as citizens of a society, and that there’s a distinction to be made there. And I think he made it most clearly. But I think he’s just sort of doing the same work Agustin did in in the fourth century.
Jim Davis
So if there were World War Three and in, I don’t know how old we all are, and who’s eligible or whatever. But like, would your conscience prevent you
Andrew Wilson
without an implication that
Jim Davis
I guess? I’m 43? I’m 42. So if there was a scenario we were called to support a country with your conscience prevents you from
Andrew Wilson
To be honest, lots of people would who don’t even Ultra Christian.
Jim Davis
That’s fair. That’s fair. Well, we have about five minutes left. And one of the things that I appreciate about you too, is that you’re really not shooting at each other pun intended. I mean, you you, you appreciate each you appreciate each other and I and I appreciate the way that you’ve have argued this you have people to your flanks that would have more, not only more extreme views, but a less congenial and charitable way of communicating them. So I want to finish by just asking, in your opinion, what is the most compelling part of your opponent’s view?
Bob Thune
Think the most compelling part of Andrew’s view is twofold. One, I don’t think you can argue statistically that the prevalence of guns leads to a greater prevalence of violence. And so I think the question of how should a Christian feel about that? And what would a Christian response to that be? is the most important question, and I think that you’re the distinctions you made between the importance of defense and the question of should it be violent defense is a great question and a great distinction to be made.
Andrew Wilson
And I think the best part of Bob’s argument actually is the point he was making just a moment or two ago, about the church tradition since Constantine in that, you know, obviously, people like me are going to play the early church card, but I think, if if I if I was to be found out I was wrong, or what like, what would be the tell argument that I found it, I should have seen that all along? It would be that pretty, you know, pretty much from 400 to 16 1700. Until, until the Anabaptist. Really, there was a lot of almost uncontested church witness on the legitimacy of violence. Now, I’m talking amongst Baptists. So we may not be particularly persuaded by that from that angle. But I actually feel the same way a baptism too. If I was found out I was wrong about that. I think it’s because these guys were so I think that’s probably the bit that makes me go. I’m saying a lot of very, very smart, godly people are wrong. And that gives me pause. I still think they are otherwise I wouldn’t be here but but that’s probably the bit where when you raise it, I think, yeah, that is, I wish a few more of those guys were on my side. Let’s put it that way.
Jim Davis
Well, I want to say as we finished how much I appreciate both the time that you’ve given to this topic, you’re clearly your your motivation is to love people. Your motivation, even though you disagree is to honor Christ, and it shows in the way that you’ve communicated today. So thank you for coming here for being a part of it and for delivering your view to the world at large.
Bob Thune
Thank you for hosting and moderating
Bob Thune (MA, Reformed Theological Seminary) is founding and lead pastor of Coram Deo Church in Omaha, Nebraska, and a Council member of The Gospel Coalition. He is the author of Gospel Eldership, coauthor of The Gospel-Centered Life and The Gospel-Centered Community, and creator of the Daily Liturgy podcast. In addition to his work as a pastor and writer, he coaches and trains church leaders and helps to lead a classical Christian school.
Andrew Wilson (PhD, King’s College London) is the teaching pastor at King’s Church London and a columnist for Christianity Today. He’s the author of several books, including Remaking the World, Incomparable, and God of All Things. You can follow him on Twitter.