David Bercot on the Church and the World

David Bercot

Review:
    The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down
    David W. Bercot
    Scroll Publishing, 2003
    268 pp., pb.

 
    David W. Bercot is a thought provoking writer if nothing else. He is a practicing attorney who spent most of his adult life in Texas but now resides in Pennsylvania. He has written a number of books, and his vision of radical Christianity is sure to challenge the modern American Christian who has grown comfortable with the popular blend of Christianity, patriotism and middle class prosperity. Mr. Bercot takes us back to the early church with its strong emphasis on the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus. It is a book that will no doubt shock and disturb many.
    And it is a message that sorely needs to be heard. We are far too complacent and far too ready to compromise our beliefs. We pass all too lightly over the ethical passages of the New Testament. But when Christ returns His assessment of the modern church may not be as comforting as we would like to think.
    Nevertheless we feel that Mr. Bercot's work, as valuable as it may be at many points, is marred by several serious flaws. First and foremost is his black-and-white treatment of church history. For Mr. Bercot the Christian church can be divided up into two opposing camps: those who advocate what he calls "the Constantinian Hybrid" (the alliance between church and state) and "Kingdom Christians" who advocate what Mr. Bercot calls the simple kingdom gospel of Jesus. Chief among the former were St. Augustine and the major Protestant Reformers. Included among the latter are such groups as the Anabaptists, Mennonites and Quakers.
    Mr. Bercot's tendency to see everything in black-and-white, either / or terms leads him into a series of false dichotomies. He tells us at one point that Jesus "didn't come to preach a message about changing governments and kingdoms of the world. He sought to transform individuals, not to transform the world" (p.115). But the Great Commission calls us to disciple the nations. By transforming individuals we transform the world. Likewise Mr. Bercot tells us that "The banner of Jesus' disciples wasn't 'God and country!' It was God or country" (p. 120). But if we are to love our neighbor and let our light shine before men, would that not include a care and concern for our country?
    A major issue for Mr. Bercot is non-resistance. At one point he has a quote form John Calvin to the effect that, in Calvin's view, if God permitted even good kings in the Old Testament to wield the sword, why would He forbid Christian believers from serving in the government or in the military (p. 249; cf. Calvin, Treatise against the Anabaptists). Mr. Bercot criticizes Calvin on this point, saying ". . . in Calvin's mind, nothing had changed with the coming of Christianity. Everything – except theology and ordinances – was just the same as it had been in Israel" (Ibid.).
    But Calvin raised a legitimate question. One of the Ten Commandments said, "Thou shalt not kill." The sanctity of human life has always been a basic moral principle right from the very beginning. Yet when taken in the context of the Mosaic legislation as a whole, the commandment obviously did not preclude either capital punishment or just war. In fact, long before Moses or the birth of Israel as a nation it was laid down as a basic principle that
        "Whoever sheds man's blood,
         By man his blood shall be shed;
         For in the image of God
         He made man." (Gen. 9:6; NKJV).
The word translated "kill" in the Sixth Commandment is used only to refer to the shedding of blood by a private individual, whether it be murder or manslaughter. It does not apply to acts of war or judicial punishment. (The Hebrew Bible has different words for killing in those contexts.)
    So does the situation change in the New Testament? There we are told specifically that "the authorities that exist are appointed by God," and that the civil magistrate is "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Rom. 13:1-6). So if capital punishment is specifically ordained by God, what prevents a Christian from serving in the capacity that God has ordained? Mr. Bercot would have us to believe that the fundamental principles of God's moral law have changed over time; that God forbids in the New Testament what He specifically enjoined in the Old. And while there are some things which doubtless pertained only to the theocracy of Old Testament Israel, the New Testament makes it plain that civil government, per se, is an institution ordained by God. It is hard to see how Mr. Bercot's position can be squared with Scripture when taken as a whole.

The Right to Bear Arms?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

    The U.S. Congress is currently debating proposed gun control legislation, and it appears at this point that there will not be a ban on military-style assault weapons. The President had appointed a commission headed by Vice-President Joe Biden, which conducted hearings and issued recommendations. Among other proposals under consideration are universal background checks, a national gun registry, and a ban on high-capacity magazine clips. As expected, all of this has met with stern resistance from the National Rifle Association, which has traditionally opposed all restrictions on gun ownership. At this point there appears to be too much political opposition to a ban on assault weapons.

    The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. But what exactly does it mean? The amendment ties gun ownership to "a well regulated militia" being "necessary to the security of a free state." The amendment is modeled on similar provisions in the Virginia and Pennsylvania constitutions, which explain that "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained in arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state." The underlying idea is that the people possess a natural right to self-defense, that governments possess only the powers granted to them by the people, that the right to bear arms is a bulwark of individual liberty, and that the safest way for a democratic society to provide for its national defense is through an organized militia composed of the entire body of the citizens themselves.
    In actual practice, however, the militia concept did not work very well. During the War of 1812 the militia proved unreliable in the field, and it wasn't even clear under whose control they were, the state or the federal governments. Thus it became painfully obvious that the federal government would have to rely more heavily on a regular army.
    Originally members of the militia were each expected to provide himself with a "good musket." In the early 20^th Century, however, the militia were organized into the "National Guard," and provision was made for the federal government to issue the militia the same military equipment used by the Regular Army. This, of course, would include all of the weapons of modern warfare: tanks, aircraft, missiles and artillery. These, in turn, are kept under lock and key in designated arsenals. Thus there is no longer a need for the "militia" to have their own firearms.
    What, then, does the "right to bear arms" mean today? First of all, it has to be acknowledged that what the Founding Fathers specifically had in mind were military weapons. They were not enshrining in the Constitution the sacred right to go deer hunting. Rather, the Second Amendment serves a more serious purpose: the right of self-defense, and, by extension, the right of armed resistance to the government.
    But can the Christian countenance such an idea? Our Lord specifically enjoined non-resistance. "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also . . . But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you" (Matt. 5:39, 44; NKJV). Given our Lord's plain instructions, can we really justify shooting someone?
    Any attempt to ban military assault rifles would be frankly unconstitutional. Yet it must be borne in mind that a firearm is a lethal weapon: it has the potential to kill human beings. There is an obvious need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and madmen. Certainly a prudent regard for public safety would require the registration of firearms and universal background checks. If a license is required to operate a motor vehicle, if proof of age is required to purchase alcohol and tobacco products, then why not to own a weapon? If the "militia" consists of the whole body of the citizenry, shouldn't it be "well regulated"?
    But beyond that can a Christian really justify owning a semiautomatic assault rifle, specifically designed to kill as many people as possible quickly and efficiently? We hesitate to judge here. I once lived in a crime-ridden inner-city neighborhood (in Philadelphia) and know the dangers fist hand. But I have never owned a gun, and have lived to tell the story. Let each examine his own conscience and act accordingly.

Other blog posts of interest (click on link):
You Shall not Murder 
An Eye for an Eye 
Peace on Earth 

“An Eye for an Eye”

    "I don't get mad; I get even." We have all felt that way at one time or another, and it does seem only fair. After all, what is wrong with insisting on our rights?
    Jesus continues His discussion of the Jewish Torah by examining the principle of retributive justice. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'" (Matt. 5:38; NKJV). The law actually did say that, in several different places in fact: Ex. 21:22-25; Lev. 24:17-22; and Deut. 19:21. It was a well established principle of law, and seemingly a matter of simple justice.
    What problem, then, could Jesus possible have had with such an obvious truth? The answer goes back to what we have said earlier about the difference between civil and moral law. Civil law is meant to serve a specific function: it involves the way order is maintained in society by the civil authorities. Moral law, however, involves our duties and obligations towards God. Civil law regulates external conduct. Moral law touches the heart and mind. The difficulty here is that the Torah embodies both civil and moral law at the same time. The problem is that during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry the rabbis had focused on the civil aspects of the law, sometimes to the neglect of the underlying moral precepts. The present instance is a case in point.
    The passages cited above were addressed primarily to the civil magistrates and involved the administration of justice. In meting out punishment the rule was strict equity: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. A whole body of case law was built up around this principle and was eventually codified in the Mishnaic tractates Baba Kamma, Baba Metzia, Baba Bathra, and Sanhedrin.
    It was tempting to think that we are entitled to stand up for our rights and demand retributive justice, but we are wrong to think that way. What the moral law requires is quite different. "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord" (Lev. 19:18).
    And so it is that Jesus said, "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two" (Matt.5z;39-41). If we love our neighbors as ourselves, if we genuinely car about his wellbeing, we will not seek vengeance but rather reconciliation. The point is to win him, not the case at law.
    And so it is that Jesus sums up His argument by saying, "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away" (v. 42). And here Jesus is but echoing the words of the Torah itself: "If there is among you a poor man of your brethren . . . you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs . . . You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him . . .your shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land" (Dt. 15:7-11).
    God requires the civil magistrate to administer the law with strict equity and justice, but He requires us as individuals to practice kindness and compassion in all our dealings with others. The civil law is a concession to human weakness; to practice love is divine.