God and Guns: The Bible Against American Gun Culture

by C.L. Crouch (Editor), Christopher B. Hays (Editor)

Using the Bible as the foundational source and guide, while also bringing contemporary sociological data to the conversation, seven biblical scholars and theologians construct a powerful dialogue about gun violence in America, concluding that guns are incompatible with the God of Christian Scripture. God and Guns is the first book to argue against gun culture from a biblical studies perspective. Bringing the Bible into conversation with contemporary sociological data, the volume breaks new exegetical and critical ground and lays the foundations for further theological work. The scholars assembled in this volume construct a powerful argument against gun violence, concluding that a self-identity based on guns is incompatible with Christian identity. Drawing on their expertise in the Bible's ancient origins and modern usage, they present striking new insights involving psychology, ethics, race, gender, and culture. This collection, carefully edited for clarity and readability, will change conversations―and our culture. Contributors

Genres: Nonfiction, Cultural, Christian

200 pages, Paperback

Published November 2, 2021

Reviews

[Sarah-Hope · Rating 5 out of 5]

God and Guns, edited by C.L. Crouch, isn't a perfect book, but is an important and very readable one. In general, I read historical fiction, mysteries, and magical realism—but I also have a fondness for theology, especially the history of the early Christian church and the ways in which the church is responding to the violence and hatred of the time we're living in. Thus, God and Guns.

This title is the result of a conference considering that same question that was held in Pasadena (oh, that I had known of it beforehand so I could have attended). In the essays gathered here, a diverse group of theologians each try to use careful examination of canonical texts to determine what message, if any, the Bible has for us regarding the ownership and use of guns.

Gun ownership and use, of course, are highly contentious issues, but the ethical wrestling here feels both sincere and thoughtful. Each essay takes its own approach, but the central argument of this collection amounts to "can you truly love others, all others, in a Christ-like way when you are prepared to end the life of any one of those others at a moment's notice?"

I don't know that this book is going to change the minds of believers who feel a need to be armed in order to face our times, but it does invite thoughtful reflection of a kind I find particularly valuable. Soul-searching, whether Christian or not, whether contextualized in a specific faith or not, can be a deeply rewarding way to spend one's reading time.

I received a free electronic review copy of this title from the publisher via EdelweissPlus; the opinions are my own.

[Caio Peres · Rating 5 out of 5]

“You are different with a gun in your hand; the gun is different with you holding it” (Bruno Latour, Pandora’s Hope, 179).

This quote is found in the last chapter of the book, written by David Lincicum, and it encapsulates, in my view, the main question that this book tries to answer: by holding a gun and making yourself capable of killing another human being instantaneously, are you being transformed into the kind of person Jesus’ ministry intended? The book’s answer, of course, is no, because the cross, not the gun, is the object that transforms us into the kind of person Jesus’ ministry intended. Many of the chapters post this contrast, in one way or another, between the gun and the cross, putting American gun culture as anything but Christian.

Chris Hays and Carly Crouch present us with devastating data on gun violence in the Introduction. Even if such statics are appalling on their own, they become even worst throughout the book when they receive cultural and theological meaning. The basis of this meaning in the US is the symbiosis between American freedoms and Christianity, as demonstrated in the second part of the Introduction, by Chris Hays.

In the first chapter, Brent Strawn showcases the best integration between theoretical method and biblical interpretation in the book. He uses the psychological concept of projection—attributing to other people our own feelings, impulses and thoughts—to interpret the book of Joshua and its reception. Strawn speaks of projection within the biblical text, in how it depicts Canaanites as wicked people to justify Israel’s brutal military action. But he also shows how violence is projected onto the biblical text by later readers, especially by ignoring how biblical traditions, from Old and New Testaments, are diverse in relation to violence. Strawn’s final suggestion is that we read Joshua from a positive projection, one that sees it as a narrative that liberates readers from repeating its heroism, because it has accomplished what intended.

Yolanda Norton offers a touching perspective, in Chapter 2, on gun violence, mortality rates of young Black men, and the power of a mother’s lament to accomplish justice. She starts with the narrative of 2 Samuel 21 on David’s murder of Saul’s descendents, including the two sons of Rizpah, in an attempt to end a famine. Norton shows how this action is based on the idea of bloodguilt as a way to end the famine. But the famine does not end by such action. The silent and resistant protest of Rizpah, standing by her sons’ dead bodies, calls out the shortcomings of David’s attempt. Only after David honors Rizpah’s witness and her sons’ bodies by giving them a proper burial the famine finally ends. For Norton, this narrative illuminates how American society treats Black blood as criminal and guilty, shed to purge and maintain the myth of equal justice for all. Black mothers, however, keep their prophetic lament for justice while American society only pays attention and mourn the death of White people.

Even if gun owners are nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who own no guns, gun ownership is still justified as a means of self-protection. Chris Hays argues against the core of this logic when he touches on the issue of fear. His point of departure is Isaiah 22, where the prophet condemns king Hezekiah for trusting in weapons as the means of securing Jerusalem instead of her Creator. Hezekiah’s plans of “self-defense” against Assyria were short-sighted and exclusive of many people, especially the poor, in Judah’s kingdom. Hays says that Ezekiah’s strategy violated the principle of divine justice (p. 66). So much so that the responsibility for the fall of Jerusalem, later in history, is attributed to Hezekiah in Isaiah 39. Hays is right to say that fear drives gun ideology and, like false idols, “they make promises of safety and security that they cannot keep” (p. 70).

T. M. Lemos offers a very insightful study of weaponry and ideals of masculinity as domination personhood, in Chapter 4. From the ancient Near East’s imagery of the bow, to the gun in America, weapons are symbols of military prowess and sexual potency. Lemos offers one of the most interesting cultural meanings of weapons when considering animal hunting with weapons. She shows how the bow in the ancient Near East and the gun in America are means to animalize the victims of these weapons. The gospel, according to Lemos, refuses to define human identity on the basis of violence; rather it creates an identity based on weakness, just as God himself indentifies with the weak.

In a very honest study, in Chapter 5, Shelly Matthews considers how we should approach the use of violence in the New Testament. Showing that Jesus’ speeches concerning the use of the sword (Lk 22:35–38, 49–51) are quite ambiguous, and how each side of the debate deal differently with different texts, Matthews compares the contemporary debate with nineteenth-century use of the Bible in America’s debate over slavery. From a feminist perspective, Matthew acknowledges the Bible as double-edged, “containing both words that can harm and words that can inspire, heal, and save” (p. 94), and that more than pick and choose, an interpreter committed to justice and liberation must give different meanings to texts that can harm. She exemplifies her hermeneutics by combining Jesus’ sayings on new family arrangements (Matt 10:35; 23:8–10; Mk 10:29; Lk 14:26) to interpret the household codes or “the castle doctrine”, as she calls it, in the New Testament as a check of male authority who should be transformed from paterfamilias to brother.

In the last chapter of the book, David Lincicum answers the provocative question: can a Christian own a gun? His negative answer to this question is not surprising. However, his answer comes from a very interesting perspective. He considers unique possibilities that a gun gives for its owner and contrasts those possibilities with the person’s role in the world from the perspective of the New Testament. I can summarize Lincicum’s 8 points answer with the following: a gun makes it possible for its owner to kill another person instantly, but the example of Jesus and Paul’s teaching are a call to be a bodily witness to a violent world of the powerless power of nonviolent love. As a conclusion, Lincicum speaks of gun ownership as identity formation in opposition to the Christian identity formation. He uses the gun and the cross as the organizing symbol of each identity and asserts that to changing the cross for a gun in Christian identity is to “substitute a symbol of retaliation for evil for a symbol of nonretaliation for evil” (p. 127).

Chris Hays and Carly Crouch offer a final thought in the Afterword which aligns very well with one of Lincicum’s powerful assertions at the end of his contribution: “The gun is a temptation to become a kind of powerful self, with the capacity to kill instantaneously. This is an arrogation of power that the New Testament’s witness does not support” (p. 127).

I would like to conclude this review highlighting what I think is the most important contribution that this edited volume has to offer in the conversation between Christian faith, society and culture in general, and gun ownership in particular. Norton’s and Matthew’s chapters, which offer important perspectives on their own, are a little bit at odd with the other chapters. Strawn, Hays, Lemos and Lincicum come to offer very meaningful resources to think about biblical ethics as they do not see gun ownership as one discrete matter of ethics. Rather, they all touch on matters of culture, identity and personhood in one way or another. This is definitely on point when it comes to a phenomenon that has long defined American culture, even as part of its Christian identity. These authors offer a contrast and an alternative to this culture and identity that is more aligned to the foundations of the Christian faith and ethos, and serve not only as a response to gun ownership culture and identity, but to many other ethical matters. They truly lay a good ground for any Christian conversation about what it means to live faithfully to our Christian personhood rooted in Christ’s identity.

[Joey Rasmussen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall this was a good and thought provoking argument of why guns and Christianity are not compatible. It gets at the core of gun ownership which is that even though gun owners might soften it by saying they have it for “protection,” they have in some way come to grips with taking someone’s life and have the power to do so at their fingertips. With a gun, a person has the power to allow someone to live or to instantly kill them, which is playing God in a way. I found this quote at the end of the book quite compelling:

“Who then is my neighbor?”—is that very question not something that should haunt one who carries the technology of lethal force on their person or stores it in their house? Have I imagined killing my neighbor, over and over again? Have I habituated myself to violence with the intention that I should kill effectively when my neighbor confronts me? How then can I fulfill the second commandment—to love my neighbor as myself—if I am preparing myself to kill my neighbor if I believe necessary?

[Nicholas Spencer · Rating 2 out of 5]

The collection of essays in this book was rather eye-opening. However, not eye-opening in the way that the authors likely intended. While some small portions of the book make convincing arguments, many of the arguments from the various authors are made from the standpoint of those willing to simply reject certain biblical passages as unsavory. This view of authority and interpretation does not align with orthodox views on the inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture which made it difficult for many of the arguments to convince me personally.

[Pete · Rating 5 out of 5]

A collection of essays asking really good questions.

[Kendra Skellenger · Rating 1 out of 5]

Heretical nonsense

[Hannah]

Though peppered with stats on gun violence, this is primarily a work of theology, not sociology. What is says on the tin; Recommended for those interested in Christian arguments for gun control. It’s a short read, with six chapters written by different authors making distinct arguments. A good collection; particularly the latter three. I’ll be gnawing on this book for a while.


With every nonfiction book I read, I try to summarize each chapter as I go, for my own reference later on:

Ch 1. Xians are horrified by the violence described in Joshua while failing to recognize the current mass scale of gun violence in America. We project our own desensitization to violence onto OT narratives.

Ch 2. Story of David and Rizpah. David’s sacrifice of her sons is likened to the killing of Black men and boys by police. Rizpah’s mourning of the bodies is seen as protest against David.

Ch 3. Dismantles argument for guns as self protection. The construction of Israelite military bulwarks by use of eminent domain over people’s homes is condemned by Isaiah (written in the context of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem).

Ch 4. Similar connotations of the gun in modern america to the bow in the ancient near east: masculinity, fertility, warfare. Contrasted with the example of Jesus’s execution.

Ch 5. Those searching for “proof texts” in NT, for OR against gun ownership, are misguided. Feminist lens recognizes that liberatory and oppressive texts are often side by side. Some verses describe patriarchal head-of-household assumptions that are used to support “castle doctrine”—this is in stark contrast to Jesus’s “anti-family sayings” which “hold up a different kind of family relationship format”.

Ch 6. “The gun is a temptation to arrogate life-destroying power to the wielder and should be resisted by those who follow in allegiance to a crucified Messiah.”

[Teresa · Rating 3 out of 5]

“To derive a sense of safety from the ability to kill your neighbor instantly is incompatible with the command to love your neighbor.” (P. 132)

This collection of essays is not to argue for specific gun laws or restrictions, but to challenge our American idolatry of guns. Although one would hope it would change minds or at least attitudes, the progressive and liberal bent of the writers will unfortunately turn off many conservative readers who might most benefit from it, and it may end up relegated to the echo chamber. However, for those curious souls who are ready to look critically at the leading cause of death among children in the US, the mass shootings, political violence, murder, suicide by gun, firearm accidents, etc. that seem like the air we breathe at times, this book may be the thought-provoking read you need. If you are conservative, be prepared to “talk back” by writing copious notes in the margins, along with underlining many good things too. This review is primarily my attempt to sift through and process my thoughts. The essays are:

“Guns in America, by the numbers”: if you think we don’t have a gun problem in the US, this may change your mind.

“Gun violence in America: a theological treatment for a deadly epidemic”: thoughts on gun culture in America. Not the strongest essay.

“Projecting on Joshua: you can’t worship both God and Glock”: too much extra biblical detail on psychology, projecting, etc. However, also some good thoughts. He points out that although we often think of the OT as violent, there were examples of grace shown to the conquered and some evidence that it wasn’t a total elimination (p. 22, 27). He also maintains that it is misguided to use the OT as an excuse for our own violence as “we are more profoundly violent than anything found in the Old Testament. We are entertained by violence: we choose to watch it on television and in movies, to listen to it in song, even to enact it ourselves in video games—all for our entertainment. We choose to do this for our leisure…this violence…can hardly be said to be better than what one finds in the Old Testament. To the contrary, it seems far worse in at least three ways. First, our violence is increasingly more graphic, more brutal, and more gruesome… Second, our violence is far more effective. In the ancient world, killing someone was a difficult thing to do… you didn’t kill someone, accidentally, with a preloaded bow and arrow… a third way our violence is worse than the Bible’s is that the prevalence of violence in our culture makes us increasingly desensitized to it.” (P. 23-24) He also notes that you cannot dismiss violence as being “just in the OT” unless you are biblically illiterate, willfully negligent, or a false teacher (p. 25), setting up the necessity of dealing with violence in the entire bible and not just dismissing it as “Old Testament God.” To deal with this, consider that while certain motifs (such as the exodus from Egypt) are repeated throughout the Bible, the motif of the conquest “is not enjoined as a primary or even repeated metaphor elsewhere in scripture… indeed, references to the Canaanites are very rarely found after the book of Judges. In the New Testament, the military metaphor is developed in Eph. 6:11-17, but it is entirely spiritualized: the helmet of salvation, the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and so forth. Another constraint is that combat and its prosecution are largely divine prerogatives. It is God’s work, not Israel’s work. That seriously limits any idea of replicating or reimplementing this violence later, by human beings.” (P. 30) The best excerpt from this essay is a rapid-fire bible verse barrage regarding the story of Jesus, “God’s own son (Mark 1:11), who chose a disempowered way (Phil. 2:6-11), who did not call on angels in his moment of need (Matt. 26:53), who told Peter to stand down rather than stand his ground… (John 18:11), and who did not resist the mob or his unjust accusers thereafter. This is the one whom Christians call the Prince of Peace, and every week, in the Eucharist, they celebrate his death—not his right to bear arms.” (P. 37)

“A Mother’s Lament: Mourning as a Witness to Lives That Matter”: applies the story of Rizpah in 2 Samuel 2:1-14 as a call to protest as a response to injustice and violence. This passage has been a head-scratcher to me, but the author points out that “Contrary to the advice David originally received, it is not when the sons of Saul are killed by the Gibeonites that the land recovers—it is only when David buries them properly.” (P. 45). “The narrative…emphasizes the importance of publicly naming the moral shortcomings of our leaders—first and foremost, those who choose to sacrifice our children to violence…it witnesses especially to the public to the public performance of personal grief as a form of prophetic witness.” P. 47 “Rizpah’s story reminds us that our mourning can be prophetic. In a society where the right to own a gun is more important than the human right to live, we cannot ignore her summons—and our responsibility—to mourn the dead.” p. 55

“‘Do Not Be Afraid’: The Walls of Jerusalem and the Guns of America”: The text used here is Isaiah 22:8-11 in which Hezekiah is rebuked for trusting his own measures of defense rather than trusting God. “… guns are our Moloch, the god to which we offer up our children’s very lives. When people claim sacred status for guns, revering them above the lives of their children and their neighbor’s children, and when guns shape people and their subcultures, defining their identities and setting people in opposition to one another, they become idols Like false idols, guns make promises of safety and security that they cannot keep.” P. 70 “It may be that consistent nonretaliation and nonviolence will be impossible in the world of violence, but if so, one should not seek legitimation in the religion that worships the crucified Messiah” (Miroslav Volf, quoted on p. 74)

“Israelite Bows and American Guns”: I hadn’t thought in depth about which biblical weapon is most analogous to a gun, but T.M. Lemos argues that it would be the bow and arrow, since both these and guns launch projectiles and can be used either for hunting or for war. I think he goes off the ranch a bit by implying a link between hunting and dehumanization. Bogus. I also would argue that it’s an oversight here to leave out spears, and that a prominent biblical example of an unhealthy dependence on weaponry is demonstrated by Saul, who never seems to be without his, and often hurls it with homicidal intent. Certainly not a hero to imitate. Best quote from this chapter: “Either we think human beings were made in the image of God—each and every one—or we think some humans are predators and others are prey—that some have value, while others are meant only for slaughter. We can’t have it both ways. On this matter, the crucified God we claim to worship gave us clear direction, not just through his words but through the example of his own broken body.” P. 90

“This Sword is Double-Edged: A Feminist Approach to the Bible and Gun Culture”: eye-opening, but not in a good way. She was making some interesting points and observations but lost me when she said “We cannot rest our claim on establishing what the Bible ‘really” or ‘literally’ says… Questioning the use of the Bible to uphold unjust social practices, while controversial in some circles, is part and parcel of the feminist biblical interpretation with which I identify, and which we now turn to consider” p. 104. Of course, I do not think the bible should be used to uphold unjust practices, but that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of picking and choosing which parts of the bible I pay attention to and what I neglect. Interestingly, her attempt to disprove the use of 1 Timothy 5:8 regarding paterfamilias’ duty to provide for the family, as applied to the castle doctrine, actually validated the gun advocates’ argument in my mind. (See pages 106-107)

“Can a Christian Own a Gun?”: Unhelpfully excludes guns purchased for hunting, sport shooting, collecting, etc. from the discussion and only addresses guns purchased for self-defense or defense of others. Even by narrowing the field, he was unable to make a convincing case, in my opinion, to fully abandon gun ownership However, along the way he credibly reasons against an inordinate love of guns or gun idolatry. “The choice to carry or wield a gun should be conceived as a conscious decision to extend one’s moral capacities to include killing instantly… we tend to trade in euphemisms, so we might say that we’d like to have a gun for safety, for peace of mind, for protection, or ‘just in case…’ It would be clearer to say that we desire to own a gun in order to kill instantaneously should the necessary occasion arise.” (117-118) “Christians taught by Paul should be suspicious of our own motives, our own propensity to rationalize a course of action, and even to justify unnecessary violence as necessary.” (119) “Above all, the New Testament envisions the Christian life as a via crucis, a following after the one who was subjected to violent mistreatment and did not resist in return. The call to the imitation Christi means nothing if not this.” (119) He asks if it is possible to shoot an intruder and still follow one who did not return abuse (1 Peter 2:23), whether “do not resist an evildoer” (Matthew 5:39) comes with exception clauses, and whether fear of death is an acceptable motive for violence in light of Jesus’ instruction not to fear those who can kill the body, but instead fear Him who can kill the soul (Matthew 10:28). He reminds us of our eschatological hope, that God will restore perfect justice rather than seeking revenge, as Paul says “Why not rather be wronged?” (1 Cor. 6:7) The Enlightenment concept of “rights” is not explicitly biblical, he claims, and “nowhere does the New Testament envision the state and its laws superseding the example of Jesus… the state cannot allow the Christian to do something God forbids.” (p. 124)

Afterword: Acknowledges that America will likely always be a place where people own guns, but “the call to action against America’s epidemic of gun violence—and, more fundamentally, against the idolization of guns that enables this violence—is a Christian responsibility: part of our response to the command to love God, to love our neighbor, and to seek the peace and wellbeing of the cities and country in which we live.” (133)

[Zane Akers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for a church discussion group. This collection of essays, which originated as a conference on gun violence at Fuller Theological Seminary, is something of a mixed bag, as is often the case with such books: a few of the essays are barn-burners and a few of them address the topic in such a scattered or tangential way that they don't really seem to fit the book. In particular I enjoyed Hays's, Norton's, and Lemos's essays, especially Lemos's confessional epilogue to her essay which deals with her ambivalence toward might-makes-right power structures and "domination personhood".

If you believe the Bible is 100% inspired, inerrant, and completely univocal on all ethical matters, please don't bother reading this book, because you will come away feeling you have wasted your time.

[Howard Boswell · Rating 4 out of 5]

God and Guns: The Bible against American Gun Culture comes at a critical time in the gun safety debate. It addresses the difficult reality that many Christians who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God consider gun ownership a divine right. The essays in this volume are unequivocal in their denunciation of this view. The authors are careful scholars of Scripture who concern themselves with what the Bible says. Looking at both testaments, they present a compelling case against our gun culture.

[Christina · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a collection of essays that originated with a scholarly conference. All address the problem of gun violence. All the essays are thought-provoking. I was hoping for a more systematic approach to the topic of the Bible and Gun Violence, but the essays were well worth reading, especially if you have some knowledge of the Bible and a fairly sophisticated understanding of biblical interpretation. The majority of essays discuss multiple biblical texts, rather than providing a close reading of a single text.

[Lynette · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of essays. Some with stronger arguements and development than others. The statistics, something I normally do not find interesting, from the intro were quite impactful and set the tone for what would follow. The final essay was the one I found myself most in agreement with, but I so needed to hear the other arguements as well. I'm glad I've read this, a great introduction for further discussion.

[BK · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a wonderful book, though a little dry; but I can’t hold any fault to it for that. It’s not a tale of fiction with twists and turns. What it is, is a wonderful resource for persons who support sensible gun legislation to be able to arm themselves biblically against Christian “gun nuts.” The author does a very good job of using the Bible to support a theology of being antiviolent and loving towards all persons, which is antithetical to the gun culture we have in America.

[Gabe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tremendously helpful!

[Joelle Lewis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Joelle WILL Read Her Bookcase #15

I am a pacifist now, and I will never regret becoming so.

[Lance Kinzer · Rating 2 out of 5]

The essay by Lincicum, and perhaps the one by Hays, are worth a read - the balance of the book, not so much.

[Michelle Sprague]

the dis

[Peter Reynolds · Rating 4 out of 5]

a needed book for American culture

[Tyler Hurst · Rating 2 out of 5]

A few interesting insights, but mostly anti-gun propoganda. I really don't have patience for people not trying to convince the other side. Here are a few selections:

Criticizing guns to a group of evangelicals “was the closest I‘ve come to the experience of cartoonists who make fun of the prophet Muhammad” (5). Umm, I was in Paris during the Charlie Hebdo shooting. The cartoonist died and the city was shut down by military police. I think the comparison was a bit of a stretch.

"As a feminist, I reject the castle doctrine as an expression of toxic masculinity."

"As a feminist biblical scholar, I reject the toxic masculinity of the pastoral epistles, including 1 Timothy, as well as other passages that argue for the submission of all household members to the paterfamilias- the kind of deference that paves the way for the castle doctrine."

Huh?