Expression of Love

The Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 5:6, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.  The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love," (NIV).


Now the words circumcision and uncircumcision were in reference to the Jewish custom of circumcising their children eight days after their birth.  This was done in accordance with God's command (Genesis 17:10-14) as a covenant between the Jews and God, and also as a sign that the Jewish people were set apart from the pagans of the world.  In a larger context, circumcision represents God's law in that God's people had to follow the law to be pure with Him.


However, when Jesus arrived on the scene He became the fulfillment of God's law.  As Pastor Andy Stanley of North Point Church in Georgia stated it was if everything in the Old Testament pointed to Jesus.  The Apostle Paul, who had been raised a Jew named Saul and had been a Pharisee, or religious leader of the Jewish religion, reminded the gathering at Galatia that because of Jesus, it no longer mattered if one was circumcised or not because that would no longer separate them from the world.  What would separate Christians from the world was their faith expressed by loving one another.


What does that mean for us?


Well, I think our biggest problem in life in regards to our relationship with God is we spend so much time worrying about if we are following God's "rules" that we become discouraged when we slip up and sin.  Perhaps though if we spent more time loving others we would not sin.


Think about this way.  Do you want to be hurt by others?  Do you want your spouse to cheat on you?  Do you want someone to kill you?  Kill your loved one?  Do you want someone to verbally berate you or someone you love?  Do you want to be mistreated? 


I would hope the answer is no, and if it is then we should not want to do the same to others.  Not because it is required of us by an unseen being, but because we have love for one another.  You see, love compels us to treat others with more respect and courtesy than perhaps we give ourselves.  That's why Jesus tells us to love others as we love ourselves, if not more (Mark 12:30-31).  If we love someone we would not commit sin against them.


It is not just that sin separates us from God because we break His "rules", or His law.  Sin separates us from God because we have violated that love for others.  Sin is not just a transgression towards God for when we sin it is usually against others.  Think about it.  If we commit adultery does it just involve us?  No.  It involves the person we commit adultery against and the person we committed adultery with.  We hurt our spouse and we also hurt the person we committed that sin with.  That is why we are all connected, and the actions we commit to, whether good or bad, has consequences toward one another.


This is why Jesus tells us that if we are trying to get right with God but still have transgressions, or grievances against someone, we are to leave God and go make right with that person (Matthew 5:24).  God can wait, and He wants to wait because He wants us to be right with one another.  Being right with one another will mean we are right with God.  There is not a special sacrament or ceremony or obedience to the law that can trump our love towards one another.  It's not the act of Communion or feet washing that makes us right with God, it is our love towards one another.


It is that simple.  In the last few months I have been searching for what it truly means to be a Christian.  Well, it means to show love toward those around me.  If I love my wife then I show it, and I make sure she knows it.  I make sure everything I do is for her and that my love is expressed in everything I do for her.  If I love my children then the same thing applies.  I do everything for them.  A stranger on the street needs me to love them and express that love to them.


I am not seeking personal reward or recognition.  I am not doing it because it will make me feel better about myself.  I am doing it because I love them.  Doing things like ceremonies or sacraments is not expressing love to anyone or God.  It is just so you can feel better about yourself.  However, loving someone, helping someone out of love; well, that is greater than any sacred thing you can do.  In fact, loving others is sacred.


Until next time...

Wish List for 2016

My Top 10 Gift List Ideas for 2016:

10. The Walking Dead Trade Paperback (TPB)

9. Deadpool and Cable TPB

8. Game of Thrones Season One and Two on BluRay (DVD acceptable)

7. A new car (preferably a small size pickup truck-won't make the same mistake I made in 2012)

6. A clean garage so I can then have...

5. A weight bench/squat bench combination (thinking Gold's Gym equipment)

4. A sleep number bed

3. Star Wars: The Force Awakens on BluRay (DVD non-acceptable unless it is included with BluRay)

2. Watch Deadpool February 12 in theaters

1. Watch Captain America: Civil War in theaters

Dodging the Bullet

I had an interesting conversation last week concerning military service.  We were discussing my time in the military and he mentioned he was called up to serve during the Vietnam War but dodged the draft. At first I thought he was joking, then I thought he was serious, but he was actually joking.  In truth, he was supposed to be drafted but before he left for training, he was out drinking with his friends and somehow broke his entire foot.  He voiced regret of not being able to go despite how he felt about the Vietnam War.

I started thinking about it.  I really have no problems with those who would dodge being drafted.  Yes, I believe it is a definite honor to serve in the military, and I am better off having served my time.  I also believe it would be better if every able man were to serve at least two years in the military.  However, I maintain it should be a volunteer force because typically, though not always, those who volunteer are more willing to do what needs to be done versus those who are dragged into something they never wanted to be part of in the first place. 

My true problem are those who willingly volunteer for the military but then try to get out when the number is called to deploy to war.  It is something that has always bothered me because no matter what excuse one can dream up, the individual should know the primary purpose of the military is for war. 

Trust me, I heard it all during my time in the military.  I have heard people say they only signed up for the free college money.  I cannot count the number of people who tried to get out of their enlistment or commission when the unit I was serving in received our deployment orders because they thought they were only in for the college money.  

I do not believe in the term "conscientious objector" because, again, history tells us what the military is all about.  One time I understood completely when a soldier in my brigade refused to carry a weapon in Iraq.  He was originally from Egypt, and he believed that raising arms against the Arabs in Iraq would be the same as raising arms against his own brothers and sisters.  Since he had been a skilled surgeon in Egypt, he was able to still deploy with our Brigade as a combat medic because he had a necessary skill that was required.  

However, Christians from America who join the military and then plea "conscientious objector" on the basis of the Bible stating "thou shalt not kill" first don't understand that verse and its meaning, and also show stupidity.  Again, they should realize what the military was about.  However, guess what?  I heard that excuse as well.  Ironically, I was a Christian minister in Washington State while serving in a combat brigade.  I could not tolerate hearing other Christians use that excuse.

The issue here is when someone volunteers to be in the military, then they should know what they are getting into.  The days of using the excuse of "the recruiter lied to me" are long gone with the accessibility of information on the Internet.  Heck, even before the advent of the Internet, there really was no excuse for "not knowing" what one was getting into.

I was glad a fellow soldier did not deploy with us to Iraq.  He had willfully volunteered to join the Army as a Combat Medic, but once we arrived to Fort Lewis, WA, he started to find ways to somehow get released from the Army.  Finally, after some minor criminal acts, he was left behind while we deployed to Iraq and dishonorably discharged.  No one in the unit had any respect for this guy and were more than happy to see him leave.

Just to be clear, I was not the model soldier.  I had my share of issues with authority figures receiving two Article 15's for Disrespect to NCOs.  However, I accepted I had screwed up and continued to fulfill my committment.  There were times I did not pull my weight but I think my continual persistence finally won my comrades over and they started pushing me to be better.  The point is even someone as weak and anti-social as myself found a way to make it but I would never have given up.  I would never have broken my oath to serve.  After all, what is a person if they are not able to keep their word?

I do recognize there are times that are extrenuating that would cause a person to not be able to fulfill their oath.  A good friend of mine left the Army because of a family emergency of which the Army refused to recognize.  Another friend had to be discharged due to medical reasons beyond her control.  Those type of situations I am not talking about.  I am talking about straight up breaking one's contract because they do not want to do the hard work.  They just wanted the benefits of wearing the uniform or they just couldn't grow up.

Bottom line, if you volunteer to serve than you serve.  That means you do what you may not like to do but you are honor bound to fulfill.  Do your research before even agreeing to talk to a recruiter.  Do not be naive like I was when I joined (I'll discuss that another time).  Know what you are getting into before you get into it.  Trust me, it is better never to bother joining than it is to join and then try to get out because you simply never wanted to be there in the first place.

Untii next time...

Peaceful Easy Feeling - A Tribute to Glenn Frey

It was the summer of 1995, the worst summer of my life.  I was 16 and I had just been thrown out of the only home I had ever known by a step-father who was divorcing my mother, and after a few choice words from her son, he wanted no more to do with me.

After completing my freshman year of high school, I was bouncing around from house to house with my mother.  I was lost, hurt, and scared of the possibilities of never finding stability again.  Yet somehow in that time of darkness I found peace in the music of the Eagles.

Before 1995, I only had a slimmer of of knowledge of who the Eagles were.  I had heard some of their songs most notably "Desperado" and "Take It Easy" but only because they had been covered by Country Music singers Clint Black and Travis Tritt respectively.  I barely remembered "Hotel California".  However, when my mother's boyfriend (ugh) purchased a VHS copy of "The Eagles: Hell Freezes Over" tour and played it on his VCR, I sat there in front of that TV and found some peace.  I became hooked, and the Eagles easily became my favorite all-time band.

I hate to admit it, but even with all my years surrounded by church music since the fall of 1995, the music of the Eagles has been more spiritual of an experience to me than any so-called Christian music.  The lyrics speak to me, the rhythm and music strummed by the strings of the guitars are glorious to my ears.  Whenever an Eagles song comes on the radio, time for me stops and everyone and everything around me disappears.  Just ask my wife.  Short of streaking across my field of vision nude for all the world to see, there is nothing that can shake me out of the trance I am in when the Eagles start playing.

They mean that much to me.  Their songs like "Desperado" speak to the wandering soul within me, "Peaceful, Easy Feeling" reminds me of a God who won't let me down, and "Hole In The World" reminds me of the damage that blind hatred can do to one another.  Their song "The Last Resort" reminds me of paradise lost and how we have truly hurt this world.  I can't say enough about their music.

I dreamed of seeing the Eagles live in concert but timing and finances prevented me from it.  Now I realize I may never get to.

As I was washing the dishes earlier this evening, my wife texted me informing me of the passing of co-founder Glenn Frey.  When it comes to The Eagles, Don Henley and Glenn Frey are the heart, soul, and mind of the group.  Losing one is like ripping a wing off of an eagle permanently grounding it for life.  

I know many argue about the egos of Henley and Frey, but no one can argue the music these two made together.  Many of the songs that became Eagles hits were written by these two.  Yes there are others in the Eagles like Joe Walsh, Timothy Schmidt, and at one time Don Felder; however, without Henley and Frey the Eagles would never have soared.

Glenn Frey brought a hard edge to the soft, melodic tonality of Don Henley.  Frey could belt out that Detroit steel, street sound only to head down South and give us some country.  Frey was a singer, guitar player, keyboardist, and song writer.  Don Henley called Frey an encyclopedia of modern music.  Frey, along with many of the other members of the Eagles, represent a true renaissance of a musical artist that is rare to find in today's synthetic, pop, sing-by-the-numbers formula being forced through the radio.  Frey was talent, and I dare say other than Henley and Walsh, few could dare touch Frey's level of genius.  I even enjoyed some of his solo work particularly "You Belong to the City".  There was just something primal and rough about that song that reverbrated within me. 

I popped in my DVD of "The Eagles" Farewell Tour I" this evening and watched the whole concert with my wife and 2-year-old son Liam.  I cried as the Eagles belted out "Hole In The World" because there truly is a hole in that group, and in my life that can never be filled.  However, like Frey sung, there is a peaceful, easy feeling.  Frey was suffering from multiple medical conditions but he no longer does.  The Desperado has ridden his last horse, he's seen his last Tequilla Sunrise.  

I can go on and on with every song title he has helped to write to send Glenn Frey off, but I think I have said enough.  Music can truly speak to the soul, and Glenn Frey's music did exactly that.

Soar high Eagle, go and rest in music; direct that great symphony in the sky.

Know Your Role

The People's Champion, the Great One, the Rock used to tell his wrestling opponents to "know your role and shut your mouth."  

While I won't tell people to shut their mouths, perhaps it is time we re-examine our role in relationship with our servitude towards God. 

In John 8 starting at verse 2, an adulterous woman is brought before Jesus by the Pharisees and a challenge was made. In verses 4-5 the Pharisees state, 4. "Teacher," they said to [Jesus], "this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. 5. In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women.  So what do you say (HCSB - all verses will be from this version unless otherwise stated)?"

Now Jesus did not answer right away.  Instead, the Bible states Jesus stooped down to the ground and started writing in the dirt.  Finally, in verse 7 after much persistence by the Pharisees Jesus answered, "The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her."

Verse 9 states that one by one the Pharisees left with not a stone cast at the woman being accused. 

Many people use this event as the lesson that no one is to judge others because of their sin, and while they are technically right, do they know why it is not our place to judge sinners?

The answer lies surprisingly in the statement made by the Pharisees to Jesus when they said "in the law [of] Moses".  The law the Pharisees were referring to concerning adultery is found in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22-24.  Both verses do contain condemnation for people caught in adultery.  However, the Pharisees were wrong in that the adulterous woman must be stoned, but we will get to that point soon.  Also wrong were the Pharisees in attempting to carry out the judgement against the woman and for tempting Jesus to do wrong as well.

The law of Moses was for the children of Israel to follow in order to keep themselves pure as this was a time before Jesus' crucifixion and thus no grace existed for their sins.  The law gave very strict guidelines on moral conduct.  To enforce it, God appointed 70 elders who would be the judges (see Numbers 11:16).  They were called the Sanhedrin.  It was appointed to the Sanhedrin to serve as judges and to enforce the law of Moses.  This authority was not given to anyone else.  Keep that in mind.

At some point two influential entities came to power within the Jewish religion: the Sadducees and the Pharisees.  These were not groups appointed by God (like the Sanhedrin had been) but rather formed from positions of power and of tradition practiced outside the will of God.  The Sadducees were of the rich class while the Pharisees were of the middle class.  The Pharisees were considered representatives of the common man not unlike today's Democrat Liberals.  The Sadducees were more political and sided with Roman occupation, thus earning the scorn of the common people.  The Pharisees were more religious and opposed Roman occupation, therefore earning the praise of the people.  Because of support from the people, the Pharisees had major influence over the Sanhedrin.

So why is all this information important to the adulterous woman event?  Because in the account, the Pharisees challenged Jesus on whether or not the adulterous woman should be stoned.  They used the law of Moses as their reasoning.  However, because Jesus knew the law of Moses (He had written it after all for Jesus was there in the beginning; see John 1), He knew this was a trap.  

If Jesus had said she should definitely not be stoned then the Pharisees would accuse Jesus of defying the law of Moses and thus discrediting Himself.  Remember, Jesus said he came not to replace the law but to fulfill its purpose.  Defying the law would strike that statement down and thus Jesus would lose His validity.  However, if Jesus had said "yes" to stoning the woman, then the Pharisees could accuse Jesus of performing the duties that He should not perform as they were only for the Sanhedrin to perform.  Also, the Pharisees knew full well that the adulterous woman was not punishable by being stoned to death unless she had been engaged to one person and yet had sex with another man (see Deuteronomy 22:23-24), thus Jesus would be supporting the illegal stoning of her.  The Pharisees thought they were being clever.  However, Jesus is the Son of God, and He is the author of cleverness.

Jesus turned the challenge around against the Pharisees.  At Jesus' statement of whoever is without sin throw the first stone, if any of the Pharisees had casted that stone then they would be usurping the Sanhedrin, losing the influence they had on the judges and thus losing the support of the people.  If they wanted to maintain their position with the Sanhedrin and maintain the support of the people, they had better know their roles and stay within the confines of their role.  

Jesus' statement of whoever is without sin to cast the first stone was a direct challenge to the Pharisees because not only were they purposefully misquoting the law of Moses in front of many witnesses and at the risk of losing their validity, but they would also be in violation of that law for performing the appointed duties of the Sanhedrin.

This serves as a challenge to us today; God's people, those saved by accepting the gift of Jesus.  God is the appointed Judge, and the judgement lies with Him.  To condemn others because of their sin would be to usurp God and that is sin upon itself far greater than the act of adultery.  Just as the Pharisees were not the Sanhedrin and therefore not allowed to perform their duties, so too are we not God and should not perform any responsibility that lies solely with God.

What is your role in God's Kingdom?  We are to be Jesus to others.  We are to be a lighthouse guiding the lost ships in.  We are to be an example of God's love to others, and if our light shines so bright because of the love we exercise towards others, then we will fulfill the Great Commission.

Know your role, and leave God to do His role.

Until next time...

The Advice is Wrong

When watching The Price Is Right there are always some things you can rely on: someone out-bidding another person by $1, a chance to win a brand new car, beautiful models, and of course the humane advice from the host to help control the pet population; have your pets spayed or neuter.

I have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with responsible pet ownership, and as such if one feels they need to have their pets spayed or neutered then you should exercise your conscience.  The problem I have is when one exercises their conscience by railroading it over others.  

For example, I felt compelled to challenge a post on Facebook depicting a picture of a flyer on a telephone pole advertising puppies for sale.  Someone wearing their ASPCA superhero uniform decided to write over the flyer how inhumane the seller was for not depriving the animal the right to reproduce when there are so many homeless animals in shelters.  Many of the commenters in fact went on to point out the evil of breeders and their capitalistic greed. 

There are many problems with this:

1.  Not all animal breeders are irresponsible.  In fact, many animal owners responsibly breed their animals and provide care for the younglings.  I have no problem with these breeders nor do I have a problem if they decide to then sell the younglings.  After all, they have to recompense the cost of providing for a multitude of animals.  Does a rancher give a cow away for free?  Or does he sell it?

2.  Someone actually challenged my stance by stating that until every animal shelter is cleared because every pet is adopted, then pets should be spayed or neutered.  Okay.  So then where do we get the animals then because they just don't come from anywhere?  Orphanages are filled with children and yet we still procreate.  

3.  Irresponsible breeders should be held accountable; not responsible breeders.  This is my stance for every group.  I am tired of seeing the responsible people being punished for the acts of the irresponsible.  Yes, there are irresponsible pet owners but there are more responsible pet owners.  Yes, there are irresponsible hunters but there are also more responsible hunters.  We should not classify the majority based on the irresponsible acts of the minority. 

4.  There are many reasons why people want full breeds and it does not always involve pit bull fighting. Alaskan Malamutes and Siberian Huskies are sled dogs so someone living in the Yukon Territory or leading expeditions in Antartica may want full bred sled dogs.  German Shepherds make excellent full utility dogs for military and police forces.  Don't you think they would want full-blooded GS?  There are many great reasons to go to the shelter and adopt whatever tickles you heart, but there are also many reasons to want a pure blood animal as well. 

Bottom line, let each person exercise their own judgement on how to raise their animals.  If they are being irresponsible, then hold them accountable but don't cast the same stone at everyone else.  I hope to have a dog sometime, and while I will have it spayed or neutered it will be because I do not want to raise a litter or pups.  I alone make that decision though, and not some Lori Laughlin commercial. 

Raise your animals responsibly.  Treat them respect.  That's all that is required. 

To Control Guns or Not - A Christian Perspective

Today, President Obama announced his plan to initiate executive orders which will heighten the background checks of individuals looking to buy firearms, and restrict gun shows and online retailers in how they sell their weapons to individuals.  In America when it comes to gun control, it creates a firestorm of controversy.  There are those on the Conservative Right who believe it is not only our Constitutional right to bear arms, but also a God-given right.  There are those on the Liberal Left who see guns as an instrument of violence and thus need to be eliminated.  There are Christians who believe Jesus called for pacifism and therefore not to be armed, and there are Christians who state we are to be armed as commanded by Jesus.

It is my hope to cover these points with this blog because it finally needs to be explored as objectively, honestly, and as bluntly as it can be on whether or not we should have guns.  It is time we strip down the fear and "torch branding" the media on both liberal and conservative side have perpetrated and instead hone in on the truth.  After all, it is only the truth and the whole truth that will set us free.  As lawyer Jake Brigance played by Matthew McConaughey in "A Time To Kill" stated: "It is incumbent upon us not to just talk about the truth, but to actually seek it, to find it, to live it."  So I invite you to seek the truth with me.

Since it has long been rumored that America is supposed to be a Christian nation, and as such many use the Bible to either defend that notion, or use it against those who believe in said notion, then I think we should start with the Bible.

Does the Bible warrant gun control?

After studying numerous scriptures concerning guns I can honestly say I have not been able to find one scripture mentioning them.  I am shocked because here I thought it surely must be in the Bible for the many times I have seen the Word of God to validate one point or another.  Okay, I am jesting here with sarcasm.  I know guns were not invented in the time the Biblical Scriptures were first written, but surely God being God and knowing how humans are (He did create us after all) would have advised His people concerning weapons?

It just so happens He did, and depending on where you stand on this issue may just influence your stand.  However, with the Bible you really have to dig deeper than the superficial level of the scriptures.  You have to understand the context of the time in which the scriptures were written, know some of the history behind certain scriptures (take Jesus' birth for example being foretold in the latter Old Testament books of prophecy), and those scriptures have to be able to stand in context within today's society.  Veer away from that context and you are basically using scriptures for ill-gotten gain.

I want to examine the Bible in relation to gun control in three areas.  They are:

1. The confusion between the role of the government and the role of those governed,
2. Trusting God,
3. Self-Defense vs Murder.

In these three areas there will be much discussed so I hope you have time to read this and study it, for I indeed took the time to study this material, write out a pre-draft (which rarely happens for these blogs), and then to post it here.

The Confusion:

In the last three years of my life, I have been confused concerning my faith.  Lost in my "prodigal" journeys, I started asking questions about why I believed what I did and how that all fitted in with being a Christian and an American.  Three years later on this day I still don't have all the answers.  What I have come to realize since taking the journey back to God is that there exists a large amount of confusion among Christians here in America.  There also exists confusion among the non-believers in America concerning scripture.

So it is no surprise that certain scriptures are used to either validate gun control or to validate our place in context with our government.  I hope to clear that up.  First we need to establish the roles of the government.  The government serves as God's civil magistrate to His people.  Read Romans 13:4 which states, "Government is God's servant [minister] to you for good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it (the government) does not carry the sword for no reason.  For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong (HCSB - Please note that unless otherwise notated, all scriptures will be taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible)."

The government's role is to protect those who do good, and carry out justice to those who commit evil.  We who are called to serve God must obey the government for if we do not, then as Romans 13:2 states we are opposing God's command and bring God's judgment upon ourselves.  Be patient for I will discuss when a Christian should disobey the government, but right now I am talking about the roles of the government and the roles of the governed.

There existed religious leaders in Jesus' time on Earth called Pharisees, and these Pharisees were steeped in their own traditions that went against God's teachings received through Moses.  Since they were supposed to be teaching the Law of Moses, they taught it wrongly and thus confused many of their followers.  So it was up to Jesus to provide clarification.  This is very important because there are many today who are taking scriptures and twisting them to their own viewpoint, and Christians are starting to listen to them instead of studying the scriptures themselves.

In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus was clearing up some confusion concerning the roles of the law enforcer and the role of those under the law.  Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (see Exodus 21:24).  But I tell you, don't resist (or don't set yourself against, or don't retaliate against) an evildoer.  On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

Was Jesus telling his followers to not defend themselves?  Absolutely not, and proof will be provided but first examine the above passage.  Notice Jesus uses words like "you have heard that it was said".  Jesus is addressing the confusion the Pharisees were teaching.  The Pharisees were teaching that it was okay for everyone to retaliate, or more appropriately to take vengeance against evildoers.  However, the laws established in Exodus such as "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was a capital punishment meant to be carried out by those appointed as law-keepers, or back then they would be known as magistrates or judges.  Only God can carry out vengeance (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19), and He uses those in governing authority as His ministers/servants/avengers (refer back to Romans 13:4) toward those who do evil towards others.

Should the government dole out punishment to criminals?  Most certainly and Jesus was clearing this up.  The government can dole out punishment as long as it fits the crime as described in Exodus 21.  In Matthew 5, Jesus was telling those who were not in the civil authority that they could not take vengeance.  They could not retaliate against evildoers, but the government can.  However, this still does not mean we cannot defend ourselves.  We have to exercise extreme caution though and ensure we are on the right side if it ever comes down to that situation.  We will cover that later.

People use the scripture in Matthew 5 as well as Matthew 26:52-54 to tell the right-winged Christian that they should not believe in guns.  Examine Matthew 26:52-54, Then Jesus told him [Peter who had just sliced a Roman soldier's ear off with a sword], "Put your sword back in place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.  Or do you think that I cannot call on My Father, and He will provide Me at once with more than 12 legions of angels?  How, then, would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way?"

Many gun control advocates and Christian pacifists will use this scripture against gun advocates.  Even I have flirted with this scripture in such regard, but tonight I decided to take another look at it.  I noted a few things:

1. Jesus was not rebuking Peter for owning a sword but rather for interfering with the will of God.  Jesus knew His time was at hand to be handed over to the government, tried, wrongfully accused and punished, and to die for our sins.  When Peter attacked the Roman guard, he was exercising his lack of understanding to all that Christ had already taught and his lack of faith.  If Jesus was rebuking Peter for owning a sword, then why would Jesus previously tell his disciples "whoever doesn't have a sword should sell his robe (clothing folks; Jesus didn't play around) and buy one (Luke 22:36)?"  Jesus would be a hypocrite for instructing Peter to buy a sword one minute only to turn around and chastise him for following Christ's commands.  It's like a parent telling a kid not to cuss only to cuss right in front of the kid!  Also note that Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in place but not to get rid of it entirely.  If Jesus was an advocate for sword control, would not have Jesus told Peter to cast it aside and never pick it back up?  Of course not!  Because again Jesus would be a liar and a hypocrite as already mentioned. 
2. Note Christ's use of the words: "for all who take up the sword will perish by the sword."  This is interesting to note because Jesus was saying either you will have faith in the sword and thus be punished by the sword, or you will have faith in God's plan for His Son and be saved from the sword, or one's sin.  It also was a note to the disciples on when a sword should be used and should not be used.  In Luke 22:36, clearly the sword is meant to defend themselves.  Why?  Because Jesus knew His disciples would be pursued due to their beliefs in Him (and they were;  each and everyone except for Jonah who killed himself).  However, in Matthew 26:52-54, the sword should not be used to thwart the will of God.  Something else to note that Peter probably was thinking with the best of intentions in defending his teacher; however, even the best of intentions fall flat when in comparison to God's will.  It would serve as one of the final teachings to Peter and the disciples present before His crucifixion.

Once again, the scriptures concerning Peter's sword is not Jesus advocating for pacifism or "gun control".  It is Jesus telling Peter when not to use his sword, and to first and foremost have faith in God.  Ah, but that leads us to the next area of interest:

Trusting God:

Should a person trust in God?  Absolutely!  There are many scriptures that tell God's people not to worry or be anxious (Matthew 6:25-34), God is our refuge (Psalm 46), and to even trust in The Lord with our heart (Proverbs 3:5).  So the argument comes up that shouldn't Christians not trust in guns but instead in The Lord for protection?  After all, many think that was what Jesus was talking about in His rebuking of Peter?

Again, we already covered what Jesus was really rebuking Peter about and it was not owning a sword.  It was indeed not trusting in God's will.  However, as already established in Luke 22:36, Jesus clearly told his disciples to buy a sword even at the expense of not having clothing.  So is Jesus teaching not to trust in God?  Absolutely not, for then Jesus would be a heretic!

Consider this:

Say you had no job, no ways to provide for your family, and you're a Christian.  So in faith and trusting of The Lord, would you sit around all day doing nothing trusting God to provide?  I hope not because according to the Word of God you would be in the wrong.  Consider 1 Timothy 5:8, "Now if anyone does not provide for his own relatives, and especially for his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 

That seems pretty harsh but the truth of it is that while trusting in God is a must, so too are works.  Writer Larry Pratt puts is this way, "The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God."  

We have to provide for our family, and that does not just mean ensuring the bills are paid or food is on the table though it is part of that.  It also means we protect our family, our household.  Read what Moses had to say in Exodus 22:2-3 as directed by The Lord, "If a thief is caught in the act of breaking in, and he is beaten to death, no one is guilty of bloodshed.  But if this happens after sunrise, there is guilt of bloodshed.  A thief must make full restitution.  If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft."

God is clearly telling His people that if someone intrudes into your home then they have every right to defend their home without guilt.  However, if that thief escapes and flees then the victim cannot chase after them and kill them.  That is retaliation which Jesus tells us not to take in Matthew 5.  Do you see how this is lining up here?  We are to defend our household but we cannot pursue the criminal.  Bottom line though is we better make sure we are in the right when claiming self-defense or else there will be guilt of bloodshed.

Now before anyone tries to refute the Old Testament, may I draw your attention to Malachi 3:6 (Old Testament book), "Because I, Yahweh [God], have not changed...," John 1:1-3 (New Testament book about Jesus), "In the beginning (harkening back to Genesis 1 - first book of the Bible) was the Word (translated from the Greek word Logos which means Jesus as the communication and revealer of God the Father), and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created,"  and also consider Hebrews 13:8 (New Testament book), "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."  So Jesus was God, was with God in the beginning, and is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  So don't you think that what Jesus was teaching in the Old Testament has some bearing in the New Testament and beyond?  I think so.

Getting back to trusting in God, it is folly to be caught in a dangerous situation with a thief in your household and not do anything to defend your home with all the occupants inside.  Is that doubting God to protect you?  No!  It is trusting God that justice will be served to both yourself and the thief you had to put down.  It is trusting in God to know when to pull the trigger and when not to.  It is trusting in God to trust in the civil authorities He has put in place (Romans 13) to execute justice if the wrongdoer is out of your "jurisdiction".  Lack of trust, or faith comes from not providing for your family as indicated in 1 Timothy 5:8.  

Also consider Proverbs 25:26 which states, "A righteous person who yields [surrenders, falters] to the wicked is like a muddied spring or a polluted well."  This scripture can mean yielding to the wicked both spiritually and physically.  Spiritually, we are not to yield to our sin, our wickedness and also the wickedness of others.  When people tempt us to sin like they are doing, we are to stand against them. It also means we are to stand against a person when they are attempting to perform a wicked deed against us.

For everyone using these scriptures to promote pacifism let me ask you this: would you just stand there if I walked up and slapped your child across their face, or would you let me have it?  Need I say more.  We trust in God but we also protect ourselves and our homes when necessary.

Self-Defense versus Murder:

The Sixth Commandment, Exodus 20:13, "Do not murder."  Pretty blunt but what is murder exactly?

As a noun, murder means: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.  As a verb, murder means: to kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

Is self-defense murder?  No!  Did the person committing self-defense set out that day to kill someone?  Did they plan for the thief to break in their home, or some dirtbag to attempt rape on them so they could kill them?  Maybe in a bad Lifetime movie but in real life?  No.  

Murder is the unlawful act of premeditated, or murder planned out.  It is the taking of an innocent life.  Someone breaking into your home, or attacking you on the street is not innocent.  As a righteous person, you have every right to defend yourself.  It could turn into murder if say you follow some kid wearing a hoodie in Florida looking for a fight.  Otherwise, when you are defending yourself from an attacker or an intruder, and the only course of action you feel is appropriate at that time is to end their life, then that is self-defense.  

We as God's people must know the difference.  We must know the difference between self-defense as described in Exodus 22:2-3 and trying to take vengeance which only God can take as stated in Deuteronomy 32:35 and Romans 12:19.  

I know this is a long read, but there is so much to cover so please bear with me as I wrap this up.  How all of this pertains to President Obama and many gun control advocates pushing for tighter gun laws is this: regardless of one feels about the government we are still subject to it as stated in Romans 13.  However, there may come a time and place for God's people to actually make a stand against the government.  I would encourage everyone to read the Book of Daniel paying particular attention to the acts of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego when forced to worship the golden statue, and also pay attention to when Daniel was told he could no longer pray to God.  Make sure to note that even though they made their righteous stand, they were still punished by the ruling authority and they received it without resisting.  Praise God they were delivered.  

We can stand against the government but we had better sure it is for the right reasons as Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did.  Also note that all the disciples were put to the death or exiled (except for Judas because he committed suicide) for going against the government when they were preaching the Word of God and Jesus' death and resurrection.  However, their attitudes were not to purposefully rebel against the government, but to purposefully serve Jesus.  Huge difference!

Do I have misgivings about these gun control laws?  Of course I do.  One of them being how can the background checks truly clarify who is mentally able to own a gun and not?  What will they be based on?  What if a person sought marriage counseling?  Does that disqualify them as having mental issues?  If so, there goes the majority of the American population including the recently recognized and legalized gay married couples.  Work-related stress?  We are a capitalist society who must work, work, work so there goes that population.  PTSD?  I hope not because that accounts for 7-8% of our population (ptsd.va.gov) including many our veterans (like myself) who are probably more able to use firearms than our civilian counterparts.

The bottom line, there are way too many flaws for this to work.  Yes, delay when a gun can be sold to Person A, but what is to stop Person A from going to Person B and buying it off the street?  What is Person A's grandfather has a firearm that has been in the family's possession for X amount of years and decides now is the appointed hour to pass the heirloom over?  How is the government going to regulate that?

Before you state that the grandfather should be punished, might I add that perhaps we shouldn't be punishing the righteous but instead the wrongdoer?  Ezekiel 18:20b tells us, "The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him."

That is the major problem with gun control.  It dooms us all based on the actions of the few.  Real life is not the military where all must go down with the ship.  If we are truly individuals then we must be treated as such.  Punish the evildoers.  Stop giving them pleads of insanity that alleviates their punishment.  Stop punishing those who use a firearm properly to provide for sustenance on their family's tables and provides protection for their household.  

All this is for naught though because as Romans 13 tells me, and as I must admonish to my brothers and sisters in Christ that if these laws are passed, we are instructed by God to obey them.  We are to submit unless we feel the government is restricting our ability to serve God (see the Book of Daniel) or to provide for our family (see 1 Timothy 5:8).  We must exercise sound judgement if we are to make a stand (see Exodus 22:2-3).  It is up to us to ensure we are following God's will concerning our government until such a time that may come when we are to stand.  Just be sure because remember, the government's punishment will still stand just as it did with Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Daniel, Jesus, His Disciples and Apostles (minus Judas), and many others who have been punished for their faith.  

We need to remember that the government serves as a mediator for civil justice, but an individual must practice self-governance.  Only when self-governance has failed, or a person has committed a criminal act then the government must step in.  A person must be given the right to defend themselves because as my study has revealed to me, it truly is a God-given right to do so.  To deny that right, to restrict that right flies in the face of not only the Bible, but also of a civilized society.  As Pratt states, "It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on."

Does something need to be done about gun violence?  Sure it does, and the best way to do it is to do what society in generations past have done: punish the criminal, not the righteous person.  Do not punish the decent people.  If God was against a person arming themselves, then God would have done away with rocks.  It was a rock that Cain used to commit the first murder of his brother Abel.  God punished Cain, not the rock.  It is an example we need to follow.

Until next time...