salvation. It is the story of the weddingrnof Cana all over again but with this difference.rnAt the crucial moment whenrnthe wine failed, we took matters into ourrnown hands and used those five stone jarsrnto mix up a batch of Kool-Aid instead.”rnSuch is the state of affairs in contemporaryrnevangelical worship. The thin andrnartihcial juice of popular culture has replacedrnthe finely aged and well-craftedrndrink of the church through the ages.rnAside from the merits of the instantrndrink, it is hardly what you would expectrndefenders of tradition and the family tornchoose to serve at a wedding, or at thernbanquet supper of our Lord, And yet,rnjust as evangelicals in the 19th centuryrnsubstituted Welches for red wine, so arncentury later they have exchanged thernsuperficial and trivial for the rich formsrnof historic Protestant worship.rnD.G. Hart is a librarian and anrnassociate professor of church history atrnWestminster Theological Seminary inrnPhiladelphia. A similar version of thisrnpiece ran in the Calvin Theologicalrnjournal.rnDoes God Believe inrnGun Control?rnby David B.Kopelrnii You are doing God’s work,” BradyrnBill sponsor Charles Schumer remarkedrnto Sarah Brady at a congressionalrnhearing. And perhaps one could arguernthat if it took God seven days to makernthe wodd, people should not be able tornbuy a handgun in any less time. But didrnGod really support the Brady Bill? Onernwould certainly think so, given the hugernnumber of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewishrnreligious organizations that endorsedrnthe Brady Bill, and which endorse virtuallyrnevery other gun control proposal.rnGod’s antigun army is prominent notrnjust in Washington, but also in the staternlegislatures. This year, for example, asrnlegislatures have debated laws allowing licensed,rntrained citizens to obtain a permitrnto carry a handgun for protection,rnsome of the most vocal opponents havernbeen religious groups. The state chapterrnof the National Council of Churchesrndoes not show up at legislative hearingsrnarmed with criminological data. Instead,rnpersons claiming to testify on behalf ofrn”the religious community” come to expressrntheir “moral” opposition to the usernof deadly force against criminal attack.rnThis same worldview is at the heart ofrnthe federal ban on so-called “assaultrnweapons,” which attempts to distinguishrngood “sporting” firearms from bad “antipersonnel”rnweapons. It likewise motivatesrnthe publicly announced long-termrnagenda of Sarah Brady’s organizationrnHandgun Control, Inc.: to outlaw possessionrnof firearms for self-defense.rnWithin the gun control movement,rnone does not have to dig very far to findrnthe sanctimonious belief that the NRArnand its ilk are moral cretins because theyrnbelieve in answering violence with violence.rnBut is hostility to the lawful use ofrnforce for defense the only morally legitimaternposition? The moral authoritiesrnrelied on by most Americans suggestrnotherwise.rnThe Book of Exodus specifically absolvesrna homeowner who kills a burglar.rn(Exodus 22:2, “If a thief be found breakingrnup, and be smitten that he die, therernshall no blood be shed for him.”) ThernSixth Commandment “Thou shalt notrnkill” refers to murder only, and does notrnprohibit the taking of life under any circumstances;rnnotably, the law of Sinairnspecifically requires capital punishmentrnfor a large number of offenses.rnA bit earlier in the Bible, Abram, thernfather of the Hebrew nation, learns thatrnhis nephew Lot has been taken captive.rnAbram (later to be renamed “Abraham”rnby God) immediately calls out hisrntrained servants, set out on a rescue mission,rnfinds his nephew’s captors, attacks,rnand routs them, thereby rescuing Lotrn(Genesis 14:14, “And when Abramrnheard that his brother was taken captive,rnhe armed his trained servants, born in hisrnown house, three hundred and eighteen,rnand pursued them unto Dan”). The resortrnto violence to rescue an innocentrncaptive is presented as the morally appropriaternchoice.rnMost gun prohibitionists who look tornthe Bible for support do not cite specificrninterdictions of weapons (there arernnone) but instead point to the generalrnpassages about peace and love, such asrn”That ye resist not evil: but whosoeverrnshall smite thee on thy right cheek, turnrnto him the other also” (Matthew 5:59);rn”Love your enemies, bless them thatrncurse you” (Matthew 5:44); and “Recompensernto no man evil for evil”rn(Romans 12:17).rnNone of these exhortations take placernin the context of an imminent threat tornlife. A slap on the cheek is a blow tornpride, but not a threat to life. ReverendrnAnthony Winfield, author of Self-Defensernand the Bible, suggests that thesernverses command the faithful not to seekrnrevenge for evil acts, and not to bearrngrudges against persons who have donernthem wrong. He points to the passagern”If it be possible, as much as lieth in you,rnlive peaceably with all men” (Romansrn12:18), as showing an awareness that inrnextreme situations, it might not be possiblernto live in peace.rnFurther evidence that the New Testamentrndoes not command universal pacifismrnis found in the missions of Johnrnthe Baptist and Peter, both of whomrnpreached to soldiers who converted.rnNeither John nor Peter demanded thatrnthe soldiers lay down their arms, or findrnanother job (Luke 3:14; Acts 10:22-48).rnJohn told the soldiers “not to extortrnmoney and accuse people falsely, just asrnhe told tax collectors not to collect anyrnmore than they are required to collect.”rnThe plain implication is that being a soldierrn(or a tax collector) is not itselfrnwrong, so long as the inherent power isrnnot used for selfish purposes.rnOf course most gun prohibitionistsrndo not see anything wrong with soldiersrncarrying weapons and killing people ifrnnecessary. But if—as the New Testamentrnstrongly implies—it is possible tornbe a good soldier and a good Christian,rnthen it is impossible to claim that thernGospel always forbids the use of violence,rnno matter what the purpose. Thernstories of the soldiers support Winfield’srnthesis that the general “peace and love”rnpassages are not blanket prohibitions onrnthe use of force in all circumstances.rnIs an approving attitude toward thernbearing of arms confined to professionalrnsoldiers? Not at all. At the Last Supper,rnJesus’ final instructions to the Apostlesrnbegin: “When I sent you without purse,rnand script, and shoes, lacked ye anything?”rn”Nothing,” the Apostles answer.rnJesus continues: “But now, he thatrnhath a purse, let him take it, and likewisernhis script and he that hath no sword, letrnhim sell his garment, and buy one.” Hernends by observing, “This that is writtenrnmust yet be accomplished.” The Apostlesrnthen announce, “Lord, behold, herernare two swords,” and Jesus cuts them off:rn”It is enough” (Luke 22:35-38). Even ifrnthe passage is read with absolute literal-rnAPRIL 1996/43rnrnrn