Earlier I mentioned a debate on citizen disarmament between the late Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. Atwood, both clergymen. MP3 files of the debate are available here, going for about two dollars for each half. I think that for a Christian wanting to look at the citizen disarmament debate from a Biblical perspective, this debate is well worth the four dollars it costs. It is not a thorough exposition of all biblical teaching on the matter, but rather a debate between two ministers on the question, “Is the civil regulation of firearms the Scriptural norm for civil government?”
I have had a chance to listen to the debate, and I want to offer up some thoughts on it. My thoughts will be presented here, loosely organized in a “this is how they came to mind as I listened” fashion. To be fair, I must say that I am in complete agreement with Dr. Bahnsen on this subject, and believe that not only is citizen disarmament not supported by scripture, it puts the state in violation of its Romans 13 mandate. The state that chooses to disarm its citizens is placing itself firmly in the camp of the Philistines, as described in 1 Samuel 13:19, who forbade the Hebrews to make weapons by a sort of “pre-emptive” restriction on buying and selling weapons.
Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:
Having made clear that I am most strongly opposed to Dr. Atwood’s position, here are the remainder of my thoughts on the debate.
The debate took place in 1991. As such, the statistics and events detailed in the debate are dated. As I have said before, statistics, proofs, and evidences are of some use, but not of ultimate importance in a discussion like this. The two debaters traded statistics for a while, before Dr. Bahnsen brought the debate back around to the matter at hand- moral right and wrong, and Scriptural guidance on the subject. It is my opinion that Dr. Bahnsen completely and thoroughly decimated Dr. Atwood’s opening arguments/statistics/assertions in short order, and did so before turning the course of discussion more towards the actual subject of the debate. In the first few interchanges, there were discussions about crime rates, homicides, Supreme Court decisions. I appreciated that Dr. Bahnsen dealt with these, and I appreciated more the fact that after doing so in detail, he turned the debate back on track.
I found many of Dr. Atwood’s assertions to be, quite frankly, ridiculous. For instance, he called the right to bear arms –and I quote- “the greatest con-job ever to be put on the American people.” If I recall, he then launched into a discussion about Supreme Court decisions. Dr. Bahnsen later reminded Dr. Atwood that weapon ownership and the right of effective self-defense is not a right given by the Constitution, but by God, and supported this with ample Biblical evidence. Effective self-defense, Dr. Bahnsen says, is ordained by God.
I was struck from the outset at the degree to which Dr. Atwood’s case relied on and resorted to blatant emotionalism, from his anecdotal stories and experiences. The death of a friend, which propelled him into the citizen disarmament activist that he was at the time of the debate, was tragic, but the use of this as an impetus to work for the desire to disarm other citizens further demonstrates the emotionalism that drives his actions. Further accentuating this point is Dr. Atwood’s constant use of the “scary” terms “street-sweepers” and “Uzis” to make his emotion-driven arguments. Interesting to note is that neither of these are handguns, yet Dr. Atwood’s efforts and arguments are focused on handgun violence.
Dr. Atwood used an anecdotal story of a woman making straw purchases for her male friends who could not buy guns as a reason to prohibit all handguns. I found it interesting to note that straw purchases were/are illegal. He is using a person committing a crime –violating existent laws- as justification to enact more laws. The irony of this was not lost on me. Dr. Bahnsen addressed Dr. Atwood’s blatant statism, and his expressed desire to seek a “political solution” to all problems, thereby elevating and making the state into a messianic figure of sorts.
Further, Dr. Atwood kept asking Dr. Bahnsen to compromise, give, and “discuss” principles instead of being so inflexible. I found this disturbing coming from a professing Christian, and a pastor at that! Dr. Atwood seems to think the ultimate realization of truth is when “everyone gives a little.” Taking this argument and logic to its consistent end, I wonder if Dr. Atwood would advise women to hold to it in the face of male assaulters, or if I as a father should apply it when responding to a home invader at 3 am.
I also found it interesting that Dr. Atwood admitted to being unable/unwilling to listen to Dr. Bahnsen, and then unfairly projected his failing in that regard onto Dr. Bahnsen, who obviously did listen to, address, and refute Dr. Atwood's citizen disarmament arguments at every turn. No, wait. I mean it. Every one. This debate was as one-sided as I have ever seen. It was encouraging to me to hear a very emotionally-based approach such as Dr. Atwood's refuted calmly, courteously, and quite matter-of-factly by Dr. Bahnsen.
In summary, I would like to quote Dr. Atwood, who said that we “owe it to God” to study the subject of citizen disarmament from a Biblical perspective. I completely agree. After listening to the debate, I would say that Dr. Bahnsen has done so, and in great detail. I would say that Dr. Atwood has not at all proven his case, and has taken a tragedy, along with certain presuppositions, and used vague notions of a “vision” from scripture to advocate that the government should do what explicitly violates the Word of God.
...thereby elevating and making the state into a messianic figure of sorts ...
ReplyDeleteIdolatry is alive and well.