Right Wing US Ideology presented as Theology?

Wayne Grudem is Prof. of Theology & Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, USA. His recent book, Politics according to the Bible (2010) addresses the issue of gun ownership & gun control (pp. 201-212). Grudem argues that the Bible justifies people (at least Americans) arming themselves with guns.

Prof. Grudem: the Bible justifies Guns

Grudem deduces that the Bible gives people the right to defend themselves. He alleges Jesus' words about 'turning the other cheek' have been misunderstood. Jesus said, "You've heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, 'Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well'." (Matt. 5:38-40)

Dr. Grudem says, "Sometimes people think that Jesus prohibited all self-defense... But Jesus is not prohibiting self-defense here. He is prohibiting individuals from taking personal vengeance simply to 'get even' with another person. The verb 'slaps' is the Greek term rhapizō, which refers to a sharp slap given as an insult... So the point is not to hit back when someone hits you in insult. But the idea of a violent attack... is not in view here." [Grudem, Politics, pp. 201-2] Grudem emphasizes the insult, over the assault. But, is that really what Jesus meant?

Non-resistance limits Self-defense

It seems to me Grudem's emphasis on 'a slap in insult' is overly narrow. Jesus first gives the principle: "Don't resist one who's evil." No doubt it's not easy to apply, but that fact doesn't justify tempering this injunction's sharp edges. The principle of non-resistance--"Don't resist an evil person"--is illustrated by an unprovoked slap, taking you tunic, etc. Luke adds "if someone takes away your goods don't demand them back" (6:30). Jesus told his disciples not to exercise their right to retain possession of their own goods, clothing or an un-bruised face in response to an evil person's actions. Surely this precept does circumscribe the self-defense of one's possessions and physical wellbeing! Considered in context, Jesus' charge of non-resistance severely limits his disciples' exercising their rights of self-defense. David eluded King Saul's spear; Paul evaded his pursuers by escaping Damascus in a basket; Jesus escaped hostile crowds (Luke 4:29-30; John 8:59). But these are examples of self-preservation, not of self-defense.

Jesus encouraged his Disciples to have Swords

Grudem offers as an added basis for armed self-defense: Jesus' dialogue with his disciples just prior to his betrayal: "Let the one ...who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." They said, 'Look, Lord, here are two swords'. And he said to them, 'It is enough'." (Luke 22:36-38)

Grudem claims "People commonly carried swords at that time for protection against robbers, and apparently at least two of Jesus' disciples ...were still carrying swords, and Jesus had not forbidden this." (p. 202) He concludes from this "that Jesus is encouraging his disciples to carry a sword for self-defense, and even to buy one (v. 36) if they did not have one." (p. 203, emphasis original)

Jesus numbered with Transgressors

But this dialogue occurred in the context of Jesus' betrayal and arrest. Jesus said, "This Scripture must be fulfilled ...'he was numbered with the transgressors' [Isa. 53:12]." Were the disciples, armed with swords, the "transgressors," with whom Jesus was numbered? Jeremy Schipper is more definite, saying, "Jesus instructs his disciples to arm themselves in order to fulfill the prophecy ...In Luke the Lord draws a connection between himself as an innocent figure [Isaiah's suffering servant] associated with wrongdoers." [J. Schipper, Disability & Isaiah's Suffering Servant, p. 75] Thus expositors suggest Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves as a deliberate fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy; they played the role of "transgressors" or "wrongdoers." In this case, Jesus' endorsement of swords is explained by the exceptional circumstances of his betrayal–a prophecy must be fulfilled. It follows that this incident does not establish a general principle justifying Jesus' disciples arming themselves with weapons. But this refutes Grudem's position.

Jesus told Peter, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matt. 26:52-53) In this context isn't Jesus discouraging the use of swords? Moreover, why did the disciples need weapons for self-defense? Jesus could summon "twelve legions of angels" (i.e., 72,000 angels) for their protection, as well as his?

Not "take up your swords & follow me"

Other relevant Scriptures are not addressed. Jesus told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." (John 18:36) Jesus' servants didn't fight (offensively or defensively) because Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world." The reason (Jesus says) is not because he must be crucified, it's due to the nature of his kingdom. Throughout Christian history thousands of missionaries and martyrs have been wounded and killed, without resorting to weapons of self-defense based on Jesus' teaching. Were they all misled? Jesus didn't tell his disciples "take up your swords and follow me," as we might expect from Gruden's exposition. He said, "Take up your cross..."

Rather than finding "significant support" from Scripture for weapons of self-defense, Grudem has failed to prove his case. If he's correct we should find support for his view in Acts or the Epistles. But when Stephen and Paul were about to be stoned, they didn't draw swords in self-defense (Acts 7:58; 14:19). Plus Paul told Timothy to bring his cloak, books, & parchments (1 Tim. 4:13); he didn't ask for his sword! We don't find any support for Grudem's argument in the rest of the New Testament.

"It is morally right ...to be able to use ...a gun."

Notwithstanding his failure to prove his case, Grudem continues, "If the Bible authorizes the idea of self-defense in general, and if Jesus encouraged his disciples to carry a sword to protect themselves, then it seems to me that it is morally right for a person to be able to use other kinds of weapons for self-defense. Today, that would include the use of a gun..." (pp. 203-4, emphasis original). But, since we reject the first two "if" clauses, we also reject Grudem's inference–"that it is morally right ...to be able to use ...a gun." This is not a Bible-based teaching. Rather, it appears that Dr. Grudem is reading his right-wing American values into Scripture (what's called, eisegesis).

Grudem on Gun Controls

Having argued that the Bible justifies guns, Grudem gives "recommendations about laws and policies." These are supposed to follow from Scripture. The author emphasizes that "It is important to understand that I see these positions as flowing out of the Bible's teachings rather than positions that I hold prior to, or independently of, those biblical teachings." (p. 13) Turning to specifics, Prof. Grudem asserts that "Laws should guarantee that citizens have the right to possess... effective means of self-defense." (p. 210) Then he recommends "In the US, the rights of citizens to own guns for... self-defense should be protected by laws." (p. 211) Third, Grudem addresses the issue of gun control. He states that, "Governments should place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership." (p. 211)

Prohibit Anti-tank- & Anti-aircraft missile launchers

What does Grudem consider "reasonable restrictions" on guns? First, "governments should prohibit convicted felons and the mentally ill from owning or possessing guns" (p. 211). Second guns should be prohibited from "sensitive places such as courtrooms or on airplanes." Third, "reasonable restrictions would include the prohibition of private ownership of... weapons not needed for personal self-defense–for e.g. weapons such as machine guns, or an anti-tank rocket launcher or an anti-aircraft missile launcher..." (p, 211).

Right Wing ideology in theological Garb

This list would be amusing if the author wasn't serious; but he is! Prof. Grudem has avoided the hard questions. No one, not even the NRA, would oppose prohibiting machine guns, anti-tank- & anti-aircraft missile launchers. But, what about semi-automatic Bushmaster AR-15 used in the Connecticut mass shooting and to ambush firefighters in Webster, NY? The same gun was also involved in the 2003 Washington DC sniper shootings in which killed 10 people. What about similar weapons? Prof. Grudem is silent on these issues.

Grudem's Bible is a Right-wing American Book

Right Wing Americans and the Christian Right won't be offended by Wayne Grudem's policy positions. In fact, they'll be grateful that he has provided a "biblical justification" for their position. However, in my view, Grudem's conclusions are the result of reading Right Wing Republican values into the Bible, rather than letting the Bible speak for itself on the issue of guns. Grudem says, 'I am well aware that the Bible is not an American book.' However, in his hands the Bible becomes a very American book, aligned with the conservative wing of US politics. On the issue of guns, Wayne Grudem presents conservative ideology as theology. What he portrays as "policy according to the Bible" is (in fact) Right Wing American ideology cloaked in theological garb.