With all the talk on potential gun control, I have to wonder, at one point do we say, "enough." It doesn't seem far-fetched to think we may have to soon confront this on any number of issues -- I read an article recently that was completely serious about having an Islam banking system operating side by side with our western system. We are having to accept more and more "rights" that are contrary to the clear teaching of scripture ...

So, at what point do we respectfully say, "no." And I do mean respectfully, because Christianity has at its core a respect for authority. We cannot frivolously engage in civil disobedience.

Firearms may be the first such issue on the table if many restrictions or registrations occur. Many of us keep firearms specifically for the protection of our families which seems in keeping with the preservation of life. How far would gun control have to go before we say, we cannot under God's law ....

__________________
JWithnell
Member Bethel OPC
Virginia
http://learningyesican.blogspot.com/

We say enough in one of two scenarios:

1. When the state requires us to disobey God's Law. We do not obey such laws, and we suffer the consequences for the disobedience thereof.

or

2. When another magistrate arises in righteous defiance toward a wicked magistrate. We then submit to this magistrate insofar as he does not require us to break God's Law.

Otherwise, we submit.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

I'm not sure if you are looking for general principles or if you want to look at gun control specifically. While I think it would be very bad for the state to ban guns, I don't think we are justified in disobeying the state here. It would be wrong for the state to forbid self-defense, but I don't think it follows that the state is forcing us to sin by prohibiting us from a certain means of defense. In any case, I'm not sure how disobeying the state here would even work in practice. If the state imposes mandatory gun registration, are we going to disobey at that point? Is the government really requiring you to sin by saying you must register your guns?

-----Added 4/24/2009 at 12:20:05 EST-----

Josh, I often hear your point two about the lesser magistrate, but what is the basic argument for this idea from Scripture?

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Winston-Salem, NC
scottandjenny.ws

Scott, primarily I consider the passages that tell us we should submit to the powers that be (Romans 13, etc.). From that, I deduce that if there are two Rulers, one evil and one just, then to whom should we submit if our allegiances are called to account? I would submit that the more just of the two is the one to whom I should submit. I also appreciate Calvin's words in paragraphs 22 onward in Book 4, Chapter 20 of Institutes.

Yes, I was thinking gun control in particular, but also the broader principle too.

Also, the book of judges is a good example of this principle. The judges were "lesser magistrates" raised up to throw off the yoke of the tyranny of the "greater magistrates."

__________________
Brian Eschen
Ruling Elder, PCA
Pleasanton, California

Though I would never disagree with an administrator, I have to take a bit of an issue with Josh. I don't want to be a "splitter" or "internet philosopher" here (saw that in another thread), but as you obviously know there are many "practical" cases which fall outside of the God's Law yeah or nay dichotomy. In general, the state today does not recognize or honor God's law, despite the fact that it is the foundation of ALL law; sadly, the US state now fails to recognize or honor more and often the constitutional principles on which our nation was founded. On that basis, there may arise situations where civil disobedience based on departure from the nation's constitutional principles may be necessary on issues where the law of God is silent, or at least subject to broadly differing interpretations. Private ownership of guns is of course an example, as would be the private ownership of land. I'm no lawyer, but I believe there are times to "civilly disobey" against (e.g. slavery) and for the constitutional make up of a nation like the US.

__________________
Eric
Deacon, PCA
Slow-moving seminarian
South Carolina

And that is certainly okay, because when I'm not writing particularly about Administrative stuff, you have no need to not disagree with me if you find my opinion/principle lacking. It's welcome.
I think that, principally, civil disobedience concerning things that do not cause me to break the Law of God should be permissible, but only under the wings of another magistrate. In other words, no matter how tyrannical a government becomes concerning my "rights" that don't pertain to the Law of God, then I should submit unless there's another leader who represents me in that place. I think it's a bad idea of individual citizens to take things into their own hands, unless it's actually a point where the State is requiring said individual to break God's Law.

Our constitution isn't a God-given privilege in the sense that it should never be taken away and if it is then those who do take it away are committing a sin. God did give it to us because of His grace, but He can take it away too. Therefore, if they outlaw guns (I really hope we do something to keep laws away that would outlaw them), then you would have to give them up in order to obey the government.

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

Thanks (or I guess these days, "props") to both Josh and Sarah--excellent and appreciated insights! I guess, Josh, that the final distinction will then depend upon proper definition of "magistrate" and/or "leader". Your definition of proper civil disobedience would then hinge on determining what a legitimate leader or magistrate would look like and how he would act, which essentially brings up the same question again, given the paucity of the Law of God as expressly adopted these days by either in the US. Sarah, what you say is most definitely true, though on the surface it seems to suggest a bit of passivity that was probably not in vogue among the US founding fathers. Many Israelites WERE armed for battle--the real underlying issue seems to be the battles God wants us to fight for Him and for His kingdom. Though I was in the military, I seem to lose so many of the spiritual battles that I KNOW I am to fight (Scripturally) that it is hard to be real smart about the others!!

I was wondering how to bring up the less-than-clear application of God's law, but I didn't want to say, "yes, but!"

I think Danial has excellent examples of obeying God's law over man's law. For me, that's a given as I seek to obey God first, than other authorities that God has established over me, such as the state.

But we are reaching some critical places in our country and I think as believers we need to soberly consider that we may have to resist We are likely to see the crumbling of principles that erode our ability to follow God's law over time. In some fields, the changes may come more quickly than others. Especially since federal dollars are flowing into previously private enterprise.

Christians in medicine are already approaching changes where they may have no choice in dealing with practices such as abortion. In gun control, I'm not as concerned about Constitutional rights (as precious as they are) as I am concerned about keeping the sixth commandment to preserve life. We look at Nazi Germany and think, why didn't anyone do something. Could Christians have done something earlier?

Actually, I can think of an example there in Germany. Some held onto radio transmission capabilities even as the Nazi state banned private ownership of two-way radios. These later became critical as people began to resist. Early on, it might have seemed straight-forward to say, its clear that obedience to the state requires giving up the radios. Later, they were used to get critical information out.

As was said in the OP many people especially on the PB view having guns used in Protection of family and others (in keeping with the 6th commandment).

1) If hunting was banned, then with what Josh is saying, which i agree, you would have to submit, and not hunt.

2) this is a little trickier. Are guns the only way to protect your family, is there a better way or a way in which you can still submit to the government if they did ban guns? Or would the 6th commandment and the preservation of life necessitate the use of guns to fulfill it?

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!