Public attitudes on a pair of contentious national issues—gun control and abortion—have moved in a more conservative direction over the past year. In both cases, the changes have been driven in part by relatively large shifts among men, while opinions among women have not changed very much.

For the first time in a Pew Research survey, nearly as many people believe it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns (45%) than to control gun ownership (49%). As recently as a year ago, 58% said it was more important to control gun ownership while 37% said it was more important to protect the right to own guns.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, also finds public opinion about abortion more closely divided than it has been in several years. Currently, 46% say abortion should be legal in most cases (28%) or all cases (18%); 44% believe that abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%). Since the mid-1990s, majorities have consistently favored legal abortion, with the exception of an August 2001 survey by ABC News/Washington Post.

The proportion saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August. The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%).

View the original post

Interesting development. I wonder what percentage believe setting limits on both would serve the public good? Or, within the church, how many take both abortion and the possession of weapons other than for hunting to be contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ?

That’s an interesting question Fr. Matt.  Reading this alongside other research makes me wonder if we’re seeing the emergence of a new social/political equilibrium as several studies or surveys I’ve read recently seem to show that people (especially younger adults) are both more accepting of homosexuality and less willing to support unrestricted abortion.  This is the first time I’ve seen abortion and the right to bear arms paired in a survey.

Christ told Peter to sell his cloak and buy a sword. He also said a man had a right to self-defense if a thief comes in the night into one’s home. Christ affirmed this right to self-defense.

The rest is a question of active versus passive resistance. Given our foundational laws intended for an armed citizen militia in respective states, we have a right to bear arms in defense of state constitutions against federal tyranny. That was the original intent behind the second amendment. Colonial government required men to be armed for the sake of citizen musters. Not to do so invited personal fines and penalties.

I say if the government gives citizens a right to arm themselves against tyranny and lawlessness, then we have the freedom to do so but only for the sake of self-defense or if called upon by our state governments to defend liberty. If we are asked to use our guns in an unjust way, then moral conscience says we should refuse and accept the penalties for passive resistance. But self-defense and defense-of-life is not an evil. The Kings of the OT punished wickedness, and Paul reaffirms this duty of the magistrate/sovereign. We also have the example of Rahab and the Judges. We share, as citizens, in this same duty to serve our states, federal government, and defend the life of both family and neighbor.

Yes. I’ve noted the emergence of this new equilibrium regarding homosexuality and abortion. And it appears to be happening both among younger Evangelicals from one direction and non-Evangelicals from the other. Which raises some questions for the older leadership of both the Evangelical community and mainline churches like TEC.

Chuck,

I’m a good deal less impressed by the claims of the modern nation-state to decide who and when Christians should kill. Nor does killing for the sake of liberty seem consistent with anything Jesus says. I’d also suggest that owning guns to protect ourselves from tyranny is fanciful. The example of the Civil War should be enough to lay that particular myth to bed.

I think you miss the irony in Jesus’ suggestion that the discples carry some swords so he can fulfill the prophecy that he will be counted among the “lawless”. That two “swords - probably more like daggers - were sufficient suggests having them was meant as a symbol of the irony that Jesus was being arrested as an outlaw and subversive (in the usual sense). Jesus’ words when Peter actually uses the sword also suggests his actual attitude toward violence. As Tertullian said, “When Jesus told Peter to put away the sword, he disarmed us all.”

One has to try pretty hard to find in Jesus much justification of violence of any sort.

Romans 13 needs to be read as following Romans 12 and understood in that context. That governemnts use violcence to keep order does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Christians should participate in that violence.

I find it curious and telling that the rhetoric of abortion “rights” is parallel to the rhetoric of the “right” to bear arms.  How different is a woman’s “right” to own a gun to protect herself from an unwanted intruder of her home from the “right” to abort the unwanted intruder of the womb?

Matt Gunter - 13 May 2009 12:04 PM

I find it curious and telling that the rhetoric of abortion “rights” is parallel to the rhetoric of the “right” to bear arms.  How different is a woman’s “right” to own a gun to protect herself from an unwanted intruder of her home from the “right” to abort the unwanted intruder of the womb?

I speak as one who is solidly pro-life, and formerly strongly in favor of gun control (but now questioning the latter position).  In response to your question Matt - there are significant differences - (1) reasonable threat of grievous bodily harm; and (2) invitation.  In the case of pregnancy (except for rape) the woman took steps which she knew, or ought to have known, might result in pregnancy, thus a case can be made that the unborn child is not an “unwanted intruder” but rather the foreseeable consequence of earlier actions.  Also, except in cases of risk of serious harm to the mother, pregnancy does not involve a reasonable threat of grievous bodily harm in the way that an house-invader does.

Thanks, James. That particular question is meant more for those who are pro-choice while supporting gun control, which is the current official stance of TEC.

You articulate a position that has a certain logic.

I think rejecting recourse to violence in either case is more consistent with Jesus and the logic of his gospel.

Fr. Matt,

You wrote:

I think rejecting recourse to violence in either case is more consistent with Jesus and the logic of his gospel.

I am curious as to how you would support that in light of two Gospel verses:

First, Luke 22:35-38 (King James Version):

35. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 

37. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Second, Matthew 10:34 (King James Version):

  34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

I would think that bearing arms for the defense of others, if for no other reason, is more consistent with the Gospel of Jesus, than is a position that Christians ought not to bear arms. And, just to be absolutely clear, the handgun is, in essence, the modern equivalent of the sword of Jesus’ time.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

The rhetoric may be similar at times, but I think there is a world of difference.  As James notes, a child is not a violent intruder—indeed a fetus does not even have the capacity for violence since there is no capacity to will for oneself, or to force ones will on another.  The “violence” perpetrated by an unborn child that pro-abortion rhetoric makes reference to when justifying abortion is existential in nature and is the result of the way in which a person experiences what amounts to biological cause and effect.

In some ways all of these changing attitudes, i.e. favoring some form of abortion restriction, a stronger emphasis on the 2nd amendment, and the already mentioned trend toward greater acceptance of homosexuality could all be chalked up to an increased commitment to individual worth and freedom (I know someone will argue that restrictions on abortion are fundamentally counter to freedom…but not if you consider the child to be a human being deserving a chance at life etc…)

As someone who has never favored gun-control per se (perhaps partly for cultural reasons, being from the South), and considers himself pro-life, I would say there is a bit of a common thread there for me, though certainly I consider the right to life (based upon our identity as image-bears of God) to be fundamental and basic while the right to bear arms is sort of a secondary or tertiary matter.

On a separate note, I’m unsure how the Civil War relates to whether or not an armed citizenry can be effective in resisting tyranny.  The example of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (for the opposite reason) seems more fitting, as would any number of contemporary insurgencies.  From a Christian perspective such resistance (especially in a situation like that of the ghetto) would, I think, be in keeping with the love of neighbor and calling to resist evil that is the basis of Just War theory. 

I say this while appreciating your argument for Christian non-violence—I’ve always been especially challenged by that Tertullian quote.

Keith,

See my response to Chuck (#3 above).

In light of the preponderence of Jesus’ teaching it is most likely that Jesus saying he came not to bring peace but a sword is meant metaphorically as describing the division between those who respond to his gospel and those who reject it. In context, it has nothing to do with physical violence.

Those who want to argue that Jesus thought violence is just fine have more “hard sayings” to get around than those of us who understand him to have rejected violence - N.T Wright, Richard B. Hayes, Stanley Hauerwas, John Howard Yoder, Dietrich Bonhoeffer to name a few.

Unless we start with the conscious or unconscious assumption that violence is necessary and thus Jesus could not have meant what he seems to have meant (and the vast majority of his earliest followers understood him to have meant) it is pretty hard to conclude that he endorsed the use of physical violence.

Jody,

Those who fought for the Confederacy understood themselves to be fighting against tyranny. Armed as they were, though, they were defeated. And that was before the full advent of modern weaponry when it was possible to be somewhat evenly matched.

I don’t care how many citizens own hand guns or even assault rifles, if the modern state wants to be tyranical, that won’t stop it. Not when it can field tanks. Or the apparatus of a police state. I unsderstand there were many citizens who owned guns in Saddam’s Iraq. A lot of good it did them.

For that matter, depending on how one defines tyranny, it might just as likely be that those with guns might be coopted for the sake of patriotism, national security, the protecting of our way of life or some such.

Matt:  I wondered if you were intending your comparison towards the pro-choice-on-abortion group, and I think that this makes a very strong point, which is why I think the “pro-choice” terminology is so misleading.  People who favor easy access to abortion are “pro-choice” on one very narrowly defined issue, but are typically “anti-choice” on so many other issues (such as gun control).

I would also agree with you that non-violence is the Gospel ideal, though I would never regard it a “sin” if a woman shoots a threatening intruder in fear of her life or a sexual attack.  I would contrast this to someone who shoots an escaping thief in the back to stop him from making off with his possessions.

I suspect that the primary reason for the shift in poll numbers since last year is the result of last November’s election. For eight years, gun owners have been very secure in their nearly unfettered right to arm themselves. Suddenly there is a fear (rightly or wrongly) that those right are under, or will soon be under, assault.

Similarly, while we had a conservative White House and Supreme Court, there was little fear that abortion rights would expand and much hope that they would be curtailed. Now the future of abortion law is a little more ambiguous. Pro-life individuals are a little more fearful.

I see two results from this: one is the change in public opinion polls addressed in the original post. Another is the increase in local and state laws that reflect these fears: our state assembly has already greatly expanded gun rights this year (Tennesseans can now bring their concealed handgun into a restaurant, bar, or state park) and they are also ready to put new abortion restrictions in place.

James,

I would disagree with your latter characterization that people who favor easy access to abortion are truly “‘pro-choice’ on one very narrowly defined issue.”

They have chosen that terminology deliberately in order to disguise what they actually favor. They favor the absolute supremacy of the choice of one person (the pregnant female) over the choices of two other persons—the unborn infant, whose life they wish, in the overwhelming majority of cases, to terminate, and the choice of the biological father of that infant. The opposite of “life” is not “choice!” And being in favor of essentially unrestricted access to abortion is, again in the overwhelming majority of instances, about having the license to terminate the life of, at least, one unborn infant. Put another way, and I would suggest that it is the sole truly honest means of stating it, they are in favor of their choice trumping the possibility of any other party’s choice.

Why else would those who favor an essentially unlimited abortion license object so strenuously to calling their position what it is?

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer