"Bullets or Babies?" More to Say

In a previous post, I wrote the following:

Bart McCurdy posed a hypothetical question on his Facebook page. I tweaked it just a bit without changing the premise. Ken Cook with CARM then posted the question on CARM's Facebook page, which ignited nothing short of a firestorm. Here's the question:

If the US Government said it would ban abortion if the American people would give up their right to bear arms, would you give up your gun(s)? Since this is a hypothetical question, it assumes the US Government would keep its word.

Many people responded to the question. Some said yes, they would give up their guns to save the lives of unborn children. Others said they would not. Most of those who responded in the negative based their reasoning on a perceived inalienable right to not only self-defense (which is supported by Scripture), but also self-defense with a gun. In doing so, some made arguments that could leave one wondering if the Second Amendment was sacrosanct -- if the Second Amendment was the Eleventh Commandment.

I spent the last 15 minutes of last night's edition of Cross Encounters Radio addressing the question and the answers I received. Admittedly, I rushed through the segment, which was a mistake. I should have tabled it until next week's show so I could give it the time it deserved.

After reviewing the audio of last night's program, I discovered (with the help of others) that I did misspeak at one point. I inferred that none of the arguments made against giving up gun ownership to save the unborn were based on Scripture, when a few brothers in Christ did in fact try to give a biblical basis for there position. I should have said most failed to turn to the Bible to support their position. I will try to correct the mistake in this article by addressing one of the arguments made, in which Scripture was employed.

Some have suggested the hypothetical question poses a false dichotomy (or false dilemma). It does not. According to the CARM website:

"A false dichotomy is the presentation of two opposing conditions or views that do not properly represent all options. For example, 'Do you still beat your wife?' is a false dichotomy because it assumes you have beaten your wife and asks if you have stopped. It is a false dichotomy because there is another option: you never have beaten your wife."

The "bullets or babies" question does not suggest that the option presented is the only option. It is simply a limited hypothetical with narrow parameters.

A Faulty Syllogism

Some who argue against giving up their guns so that abortion would be banned in the United States put forth a syllogism, which is based on an interpretation of Exodus 22:2.

"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him."

Here is the way the syllogism is constructed:

Major Premise: Guns can be used defensively.

Minor Premise: God's Word gives me the right to defend myself, my property, my family, and other people.

Conclusion: Therefore I have the right to own a gun.

The syllogism is fallacious for a couple of reasons. First, it is a Non Sequitur. The conclusion does not logically follow the premise and has little or no relevance to the topic. It is illogical to conclude that the God-given right to self-defense results in a God-given right to bear arms.

Second, by simply transposing the positions of the major and minor premises, the syllogism reveals a Fallacy of Division.

Major Premise: God's Word gives me the right to defend myself, my property, my family, and other people.

Minor Premise: Guns can be used defensively.

Conclusion: Therefore I have the right to own a gun.

What is true for the whole is not necessarily true for the parts. In this case, it is true we have the God-given right to self-defense; but the improper division is that we have the God-given right to self-defense by any means we choose, including firearms.

Here's a ridiculous example that shows the fallacious nature of the above syllogism. Recently, North Korea conducted a test launch of what is believed to be a prototype of an inter-continental ballistic missile. Based on analysis of debris of the first stage of the three-stage rocket recovered by South Korea, it is believed that North Korea is one step closer to developing an inter-continental ballistic missile with an effective range of 6,200 miles. This means that North Korea may soon have the capability to fire a missile that would reach Los Angeles, CA, and beyond. If North Korea fired such a missile at Los Angeles or the surrounding area, me and my family could be in imminent danger.

Let's again apply the syllogism; but let's replace a firearm with an inter-continental ballistic missile:

Major Premise: Missiles can be used defensively.

Minor Premise: God's Word gives me the right to defend myself, my property, my family, and other people.

Conclusion: Therefore I have the right to build, own, and use an inter-continental ballistic missile or a rocket that could bring down an inter-continental ballistic missile. I have the right to develop a weapon of mass destruction in my garage, in my residential neighborhood.

Really?

No. Of course not.

Eisegetical Use of Exodus 22:2

During an online conversation about the "bullets or babies" question, a few brothers in Christ, as previously stated, turned to Exodus 22:2 to support their position that they have a God-given right to possess firearms for self-defense and the defense of others. As already shown, an argument for the right to gun ownership based on a biblical right to self-defense is fallacious. But it is more than fallacious. In the case of Exodus 22:2, it is eisegetical. Here's why.

There is a comma, not a period, at the end of Exodus 22:2. Granted, punctuation was added to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures long after they were written. Nonetheless, the thought in Exodus 22:2 continues through verse 23, which reads:

"...but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

Exodus 22:3 makes something clear that some proponents of unrestricted gun ownership for self-defense seem unwilling to admit. There are limitations to the extent to which someone can defend themselves. Not only can Exodus 22:2 not be used to support a God-given right to gun ownership, but when taken in its proper context Exodus 22:2-3 clearly shows there are, at times, a limit to how far one can go to defend themselves.

In the case of Exodus 22:2-3, someone could be struck down (killed) for breaking into the house to commit a burglary if the crime was committed at night. But to strike down a burglar after the sun had risen (daylight hours) was to employ excessive force.

While we have a scriptural, God-given right to self-defense we do not have a secondary God-given right to self-defense by any way or means we choose. Rights often come with limitations.

My Position:

If a Christian answers no to the "bullets or babies" question, I do not question their salvation or their commitment to ending abortion in the United States. Self-defense and the defense of one's family or other people is a legitimate consideration when weighing such an important decision.

I am a gun owner. As a deputy sheriff, I had to use (on one occasion) my firearm in self-defense and the defense of others. I affirm the Bible's clear teaching regarding self-defense. While I am not a member of the NRA, it is not a sin for a Christian to be a member. It is not a sin for a Christian to legally possess weapons, including firearms. Pacifism is not commanded in Scripture. Christians can serve in law enforcement and the military without compromising their faith in Jesus Christ.

As to the "bullets or babies" question: yes, I would give up my gun(s). There are other ways without a gun I can defend myself and my family. While God does give me the right and the responsibility to defend myself and my family, nowhere in God’s Word are the ways and means of my defense specified or commanded. Nor is there any place in Scripture where it is even suggested that I have the right to unfettered, unrestricted access to any weapon I choose to possess and/or employ.

I would give up my firearms to save the lives of the unborn knowing the Bible does not explicitly command or even suggest giving up my government-given right to gun ownership to save the lives of the unborn. Yes, my position would potentially pose a risk to me and my family if the hypothetical ever became a reality (I don't believe it will). However, a ban on abortion in this country would be compelling enough for me to weigh and take that risk. I believe my family would join me in my decision.

My position simply put is this. I would choose to put the lives of unborn children before my own. I would choose to do what I could to defend the unborn even if it meant I might lose the ability to defend myself. My position is predicated on several passages of Scripture that weave a common thread through my thought process. They are not passages about self-defense. They are not passages about property rights. Again, I would be willing to give up these rights for the sake of the unborn.  No, the passages to which I turn are about being other-minded.

“Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” ~ Phil. 2:3-4

“Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” ~ John 15:13

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” ~ Matthew 7:12

“Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” ~ Proverbs 31:9

“Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” ~ Matthew 16:24

“By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.” ~ 1 John 3:16

“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” ~ Matthew 10:28

Conclusion

While the comment and conversations swirling around this hypothetical scenario has been fascinating and intellectually stimulating, there also have been times when they have been disturbing. I have been exposed to some of the dark sides of certain theological constructs, which I may address in future articles.

I have seen a level of vitriol among some Christians that has been disheartening.

I have seen a level of militancy by some that I liken to those who followed Jesus thinking He would become a ruler and king who would dislodge the Roman tyranny from Israel, instead of following Him as their eternal Messiah.

I have seen by some a casting aside of the lives of the unborn in favor of property rights.

And I have seen otherwise pro-life Christians seemingly putting their own perceived freedoms over the lives of unborn children who, like themselves, are knit together by God in their mothers' wombs.

Yes, the question of "bullets or babies" was merely hypothetical. And again, I do not foresee the United States government ever stopping the slaughter of unborn children, under any circumstances. God must either change the hearts of those who participate in abortions, or pour out His wrath against a world that is drunk on the blood of its children. However, if posing the "bullets or babies" question serves any positive purpose, I hope it gives Christians a moment of pause to consider just how pro-life they really are (or aren't) and whether or not they think more highly of themselves than they ought.