I have noticed that while I have seen articles on Orthodoxy and guns, I have not seen any articles or blog posts on Orthodoxy and concealed carry of weapons by civilians. I suspect that this is because this is such a controversial subject currently in the USA. But, also it is because in practice, if not in theory, there is a back and forth in Orthodoxy on the subject of war, self-defense, etc. Because of the various arguments, it important that when I speak of concealed carry, I am speaking of responsible concealed carry. For instance, look at the rules below:
-
Treat every firearm as if it is loaded.
-
Never point any firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.
-
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have made a conscious decision to shoot.
-
Know your target and what is beyond it.
-
Know your local gun laws.
-
Make sure that your guns are safely locked and protected from children
-
Help raise awareness of gun safety issues in your area.
I am not speaking of the yahoo who simply goes around carrying a gun just looking for someone to annoy him/her in order to be able to pull their gun and shoot them, such as the gentleman who was recently convicted of murder for pulling a gun and firing it into a car of teenagers simply because the music was too loud. Neither the prosecutor, nor the jury, nor the judge bought the argument that he was in fear of his life or that he saw a gun, and he is now safely serving a jail term. Rather, I am assuming the best case scenario, the reliable adult who strictly carries their concealed weapon for the most upstanding of self-defense reasons.
Is there an Orthodox position that covers a civilian who carries a concealed weapon for self-defense? The answer is that no Orthodox canon specifically addresses that position, so one can only put together some principles and ideas that may help. First, let’s look at how the Orthodox Church looks at war and the bearing of arms. The quote below is from the official website of the Orthodox Church in America:
Christ taught that perfection requires the love of enemies and the absolute renunciation of resisting evil by evil. Thus if a man will be perfect he will renounce the relative values of this world totally and will not participate in any act which is morally ambiguous. In this way, for example, the Church forbids the bearing of arms to its clergy and does not allow a man to continue in the ministry who has shed blood, theoretically even in an accidental way!
However, the Orthodox Church follows Christ and the apostles in teaching that the relative and morally ambiguous life of this world requires the existence of some form of human government which has the right and even the duty to “wield the sword” for the punishment of evil. …
… According to the Orthodox understanding, however, pacifism can never be a social or political philosophy for this world; although once again, a non-violent means to an end is always to be preferred in every case to a violent means.
When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils, it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it must never be identified with perfect Christian morality.
The ideal Orthodox position is an ideal pacifism, but the Church recognizes that the ideal is not yet here. In the webpage cited above, you can also read, “Thus total pacifism is not only possible, it is the sign of greatest perfection, the perfection of the Kingdom of God.” That is why a priest may not bear, “arms … and does not allow a man to continue in the ministry who has shed blood …”. So, it is clear in the canons that those who are ordained clergy may not conceal carry a weapon for self-defense. This does not mean that a priest may not pick up a weapon or fire it at a target. There are many photographs from Orthodox countries of priests picking up weapons, blessing weapons, and even a few of test-firing a weapon.
Note that a clergyperson may not even hunt for sport, “Hunting is referred to in the canonical legislation only in as much as Christians are to refrain from taking part in the arena spectacles during which animals were killed (Canon 51 of the Quinisext Council).” In other words, the killing of animals for pleasure appears to be forbidden, by Council, to Christians. As best I know, the Orthodox Church has no objection with killing of animals for food, or for such actions as thinning a herd, or to destroy a dangerous animal, or to put a suffering animal out of its misery. But, sports hunting, which serves none of those purposes appears to be a forbidden act. The “sportsman” who kills merely for the horns or a trophy skin, and then discards the food is running afoul of that Canon. The hunter, who hunts and brings the food home is not covered by this canon.
But, let’s go back to the killing of people. Look at what it says above, “When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils, it can never be blessed as such …”. The first answer of the Church to the person who is alone and is about to be robbed and killed is that the ideal would be for you to turn the other cheek, let yourself be robbed and even killed, and join Christ in his Kingdom.
But, this is a morally ambiguous world. Where there is a government, “… which has the right and even the duty to ‘wield the sword’ for the punishment of evil,” the second answer would be to attempt to call the appointed authorities to deal with the malefactor rather than undertaking to personally be an instrument of justice. Let the violence, if any, be undertaken by those set aside in Romans 13 to bear the sword.
But, finally, where the legally constituted authority has laws that permit concealed carry and self-defense, and where you have met all the requirements to so carry, and if you decide that you must protect your life and that of others, then I cannot simply bless you when you pull that gun and use it. I must ask you to repent of that action as being less than perfect Christian morality. [Note that this is a failure to achieve the highest standard, it IS NOT a declaration of personal and intentional sin, but the acknowledgment that in a perfect world this would be wrong.] But, I will also recognize that, “the relative and morally ambiguous life of this world [sometimes] requires [that you may have] the right and even the duty to ‘wield the sword’ for the punishment of evil [or at least for defense against that evil].” And, I will also hug you and cry with you afterward and thank God that you were spared.
I would add that the Orthodox person who chooses the lesser of two evils must never make it a greater evil by simply firing such a weapon upon any provocation. You are not a legally constituted part of the government that meets the requirements of Romans 13. Therefore, for you to simply use a gun because someone is in your house is a dangerous attitude to have. If the perpetrator is willing to retreat, the Orthodox believer should not shoot. To kill someone merely for threatening you is not appropriate. While the “in fear of my life” is a legal defense, it may not be a moral defense if no actual advance against you occurred.
So, is concealed carry for self-defense purposes permitted? Let me give a qualified yes, provided that you have met all appropriate local legal regulations. I think that if you must use the gun, then the most you can claim is that it is the lesser of two evils to be prepared to defend yourself, your family, and those around you. Because the Orthodox Church allows that argument as being valid in a less-than-perfect world, it is willing to bless weapons. But, it blesses those weapons only for defense against evil. The prayer is below:
O Lord our God, God of Power and Might, powerful in strength, strong in battle, You once gave miraculous strength to Your child David granting him victory over his opponent the blasphemer Goliath. Mercifully accept our humble prayer. Send Your heavenly blessing upon these weapons (..naming each weapon..). Give to them power and strength that they may protect Your holy Church, the poor and the widows, and Your holy inheritance on earth, and make them horrible and terrible to any enemy army, and grant victory to Your people for your glory, for You are our strength and protection and unto You do we send up praise and glory, to the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.
If you conceal carry a weapon for self-defense, make absolutely sure that you are doing it for the right reasons. Make sure you have thought through the moral and legal implications should you pull that weapon. And, make sure you are a responsible concealed weapon owner.
Very well said.
Personally, I will never be without a weapon. Not sure if I could actually use it to protect myself or my belongings, but I would not hesitate for a heartbeat to use it if someone was threatening to harm one of my kids or grandkids…..not one, single heartbeat. Pray God I never need it and if it did ever come to that im not sure I could live with the damage it would do to my psyche and/or soul.
I certainly understand the concept of those who believe it is necessary to carry a weapon to protect themselves and their belongings…however, I strongly resent the constant refrain of those people who would view themselves as a modern day savior just waiting for the opportunity to be the good guy with a gun. Since I did a speech on handguns in 1972, I have been an adamant supporter of gun control. And since I work in pediatrics now, I am even more convinced of the stupidity of the general public carrying concealed-or not concealed- weapons. If you review even the most superficial studies (although the CDC is not even allowed to conduct studies on gun violence right now) they show that overwhelmingly, guns are used against the person or families of those it is meant to protect. Unless you are law enforcement or military, you do not have the skills necessary to make the kind of judgements necessary to protect anyone. Yes, there have been many occasions where guns have actually saved people, but exponentially more times those guns have been used to kill or harm either the gun holder or their loved ones-whether by accident or by the fact that a gun is available at the wrong time. Children have been killed by finding the loaded guns or by trying to sneak in at night. Husbands and wives are killed either by accident or because of arguments escalating. I personally do NOT want some yahoo who thinks they are the next John Wayne to decide to start shooting up the place because they perceived some harm when there was none and to that point, if I see someone with a gun on their hip and not a LEO or servicemember, I leave whereever I am and tell the manager that I do not feel safe in an environment where someone has a gun and I don’t know if they are well trained or some douche itching to shoot someone. I’m sorry, I do NOT believe the 2nd amendment meant that it was OK for the general, uneducated public in the year 2014 were meant to carry the type of weapons available now…especially since we actually have a standing military and law enforcement agents. One more thing…as to those who would question how they were to protect themselves, I have only one thing to say: I trust that God is in control and He has the sword…not me. Just my 2 cents worth as an advocate for less guns.
Just because you see someone with a gun is no reason to be fearful
Grow up a little and keep in mind there isn’t enough police to protect you from all threats and you are responsible for you and your safety
As an ex cop I can say their (the cops )
duty is to maintain the status quo
The people who lawfully care concealed
Are not the ones who are committing
gun violence
Not all concelled carry is stupid also as an ex cop I can tell you
We were spread way to thin to protect every one
our duty is to maintain the status quo
Serve and protect is Hollywood
Sir, you apparently do not understand the 2nd Amendment. It is a personal individual liberty (as are all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights) guaranteed by the Constitution and to be upheld by the government. If you or other don’t like it, then it needs to be amended. Many millions of the educated and “uneducated public” appreciate that it is in the Bill of Rights.
A friend from church asked our priest for a blessing for their firearm. He said no, and gave a really strange answer for why. He is anti gun which is no secret, but how can he go against church teachings on this and refuse prayers? If anything, if he’s scared of people with guns then you should want to pray the appropriate prayers over the weapons and person that they would be used justly. So I don’t get why he can go against their request. (Yes, he’s orthodox)
The reason he can refuse is because the prayer(s) for weapons is always linked to a government group such as law enforcement or the armed forces. Think of Romans 13 and the government authorities. Notice that the prayer includes a desire for justice. Justice is considered a function of the government, not of the individual.
The same was true when St. Augustine of Hippo wrote his original rules for a Just War in the West. They assumed that only a “prince” could wage war, no one else. There was no idea in St. Augustine of a rebel alliance fighting an evil empire. I can remember some serious arguments in seminary about whether the American Revolution would have been considered appropriately Christian back when.
This does not mean that self-defense is forbidden. However, both the East and the West considered self-defense as being a questionable activity, given how easy it is to confuse a just response and a revengeful response. It is hard for us today to understand the idea that the Early Church had a higher view of government than we do. We live in an age (and a culture) in which despising government is seen as the only possible normal stance.
I, personally, would be willing to bless someone’s weapons with some caveats. Frankly, if I thought the person’s attitude were one of looking forward to defending himself or herself, I probably would not wish to bless the weapon(s). If the person were a hunter or simply wishing to have the weapon for safety reasons, with no inordinate desire to use the weapon in self-defense, I would probably bless it.
One important point about sin from an Orthodox perspective. The article states:
“[Note that this is a failure to achieve the highest standard, it IS NOT a declaration of personal and intentional sin, but the acknowledgment that in a perfect world this would be wrong.]”
Except that IS sin – missing the mark of perfection. The New Testament word is «???????», which is an archery term. Sin, then, is ‘missing the mark’ as in not hitting the bull’s-eye in archery.
When that happens, you, with the tools provided by the Church, figure out why you missed the mark, then try again. Sometimes you try your whole life to actually hit the bull’s-eye; sometimes you never do.
This is a fantastic essay… Thank you for taking the time to write it. It’s difficult to find cogent Orthodox discussions of modern self defense that make sense of both our Christian Ideal and the fact that the Church practiced symphonia in Byzantium for over a thousand years and with every single Orthodox kingdom during and since… I would only ask one thing:
In our English Common Law system, (England herself being Orthodox for over a thousand years), the government receives its just powers from the governed, (that is “from the people”, themselves having received it *naturally* from God), and the “militia” (I.e. all able-bodied males not currently in government) is *legally* the final guardian and guarantors of these freedoms under God.
*Legally* that is, from the actual stated intent of the Second Amendment, which itself derives from its older Common Law precedent, the Magna Carta’s “right to revolt” clause.
“Self Defense” in our system therefore is directly tied to our English Common Law concept of *the people* being the ultimate source, under God, of government.
Our culture’s concept of self-defense is definitely tied to English Common Law. But, that it is not an Orthodox principle per see. Neither is it an anti-Orthodox principle per se. Orthodoxy ranges from the nomocanonical regulations of the Eastern Roman Empire to the centrist rule of Tsarist Russia to the Orthodox principles of the Magna Carta. What is true in all these cultures is the God-centered approach any government should have.
See Fr. John Whiteford’s (ROCOR from Spring TX) treatise on “self defense” on his blog site.