Monday, 21 January 2013


One of the most common refrains in the feedback I get from hostile listeners, callers and emailers goes something like this, “Why do you always have to drag Christianity into the conversation?!  Why can’t you accept that a lot of people aren’t Christians?”

What’s odd about that kind of statement is that I certainly accept that.  That’s precisely why I’m taking the time to espouse the Biblical view on something.  Because people who don’t accept it need to hear it.  Now, the obvious implication of their statement is that because they don’t accept the Bible, I have no right “cramming my beliefs down their throat.”  Well, first of all, their mistake in not accepting truth is not going to make me abandon it.  That’s just silly.  Second, it’s not that hard to avoid my beliefs.  Don’t listen to my show and don’t read my writings.  Not hard.

But what is particularly perplexing to me is why these same folks never have any beef with people like Jim Wallis – the socialist minister who claims to be an evangelical Christian.  He regularly injects Scripture (albeit distorted and manipulated Scripture pushed through a political lens many times) into debates and issues.  Yet because he agrees with these ‘free thinking’ liberals in his conclusions (something that would cause any true Christian to pause and consider his judgment), he gets a pass.


I can only imagine what the response would have been if I would have taken the issue of gun control and self-defense, and started quoting Scripture as my justification for arming citizens.  I can only imagine what the response would have been if I would have praise the “theology” of the NRA.  “Theology has nothing to do with this issue,” I would have heard.  Yet, the left-wing’s God-consultant, Jim Wallis apparently disagrees:

“As an evangelical Christian, I’m going to make this theological,” wrote the Christian leader, going on to call a recent statement from Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the NRA, “morally mistaken, theologically dangerous, and religiously-repugnant.”

From my experience in following the work of Jim Wallis, this is a man who certainly knows religious repugnancy and is a master of dangerous theology.  What was interesting was the conclusion Wallis attempted to draw:

“When we are bad or isolated or angry or furious or vengeful or politically agitated or confused or lost or deranged or unhinged — and we have the ability to get and use weapons only designed to kill large numbers of people — our society is in great danger,” he continued.

Certainly I would agree that when people inspired by evil have access to killing weapons, our society is in great danger.  What’s odd is that Wallis never seems willing to acknowledge his own political movement’s culpability in helping obliterate public morality under the guise of “separation of church and state,” thus fueling the increase of such evil.  I also wonder if Wallis is seriously under the delightful delusion that it is even possible to rid the world of all guns and weapons used by men inspired by evil.

I could certainly site passages like Luke 22: 35-37 to defend the biblical notion of armed, self-defense.  But my biggest complaint with Wallis isn’t that he once again distorts Scripture for a political cause.  That’s par for the course, and anyone who is surprised by his willingness to let politics inform his faith and view of the Bible doesn’t know Jim Wallis.  My biggest complaint is that his argument is totally illogical.  He admits the presence of evil.  He admits the reality that evil has access to weapons to kill.  He (unless he’s completely idiotic) would have to admit that there is no reasonable or rational way to expect those evil folks to not access weapons.  Yet he believes we have a Christian duty to refuse to defend ourselves.  Absurd.

But notice the crickets chirping in the hallways of the same liberal quarters that can’t wait to pounce on the “idiocy of conservative Christians” when they share their opinion on political issues.  God is okay to mention as justification so long as He's against guns for self-defense, apparently.  Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Posted by: PHS AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  Email

Post comment
Email Address

(max 750 characters)
Verify image below
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.