Not only is there a legitimate debate about the effectiveness of the treaty to begin with, and not only will the potential negative implications disproportionately affect the rank-and-file evangelicals the NAE purports to represent, but the treaty’s failure in the Senate is practically assured. The NAE has fallen into the same bad habit that continues to plague the advocacy arms of mainline denominations: taking a undeniably Christian principle (loving ones neighbor, preventing death and suffering) and using to support a specific policy proposal (the Arms Trade Treaty). 

On September 25, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a United Nations treaty designed to stem the illegal sale of arms worldwide, on the behalf of the United States. Secretary Kerry’s signature was largely symbolic, as implementation of the treaty in the United States would require ratification by the U.S. Senate. “I signed it because President Obama knows that from decades of efforts that at any time that we work cooperatively to address the illicit trade in conventional weapons, we make the world a safer place.” Secretary Kerry said. “And this treaty is a significant step in that effort.”

The ATT will go into effect once 50 nation-states ratify its provisions, but it faces an uphill battle here in the United States. Many gun rights organizations such as the NRA and Gun Owners of America have spoken out against the ATT, arguing that its provisions could endanger the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. In particular, the NRA has claimed the registration requirements of the ATT represent “blatant attacks on the constitutional rights of all Americans.” Others oppose the treaty over its restrictions on U.S. sovereignty and its impact on arms deals with allies such as Israel and Taiwan. By most accounts, the treaty is dead on arrival in the Senate: 54 Senators, including 7 Democrats, have stated their opposition to the treaty in letters to the Obama administration, far short of the 67 votes needed for ratification.

But despite the entirely political implications of the treaty and grave reservations expressed by the majority of the Senate, mainline Protestant and Evangelical organizations have rallied behind the treaty. The National Association of Evangelicals in particular has been vocal in its support for the treaty. In 2012, NAE sent a letter to President Obama urging him to “seize this historic opportunity” and support the Arms Trade Treaty.

The push from the NAE is odd given that polling has consistently found that evangelicals are among the most anti-gun control individuals in the nation. In the wake of last year’s mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado (during which gun control support tends to spike), only 35% of white evangelicals supported increased gun control measures compared to 42% of white mainline Protestants and 62% of Catholics. The same poll found that 58% of white evangelicals own guns in their homes, a collective gun ownership rate that is only surpassed by Republicans (60%) and Tea Party members (63%). Given the high rates of gun ownership and support among evangelicals, it’s almost unthinkable that they would support the NAE’s push for a treaty that’s been strongly opposed by every major gun rights lobby.

But if NAE Vice President for Government Relations Galen Carey is to be believed, evangelicals are united on the issue. On November 7, Carey spoke at a pro-Arms Treaty panel on Capitol Hill, alongside Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and representatives of various human rights and arm control organizations. Carey told the audience that “we in the evangelical community support this treaty,” without any qualifications. The Arms Trade Treaty, he said, was supported by the Bible’s commandments to bring peace to all nations.

The purpose of the panel was in part to assuage fears in Congress that the ATT would be used to limit legal ownership in the US, but ironically the members of the panel at times were often openly antagonistic to the very existence of weapons. More than once, a panel member expressed their hope for “a world without weapons.” Carey personally dismissed concerns about those in the US arms industry who would lose their jobs, saying that most people would want to know they weren’t contributing to the illegal use of arms, and that workers in the gun manufacturing industry should “beat their swords into ploughshares.” Carey did note that there would still be a legal arms trade to produce guns and jobs… “unfortunately.”

It was clear that Galen Carey and his allies on the panel certainly meant well and legitimately believe ratifying the treaty would save lives. Carey in particular spoke from the heart about how his missionary experience in war-torn nations drives his passion for the issue. But we all know what paves to road to Hell, or in this case, the road to bad policy. As even the panel acknowledged, the United States currently possesses the most open and transparent arms sale policy in the world. Ratification of the treaty would be almost entirely symbolic for the US, while non-signatories such as Iran, North Korea, and Syria would be entirely unaffected. In return for this symbolic act, the US would be bound to a treaty with at best an uncertain effect on our Second Amendment rights.

The commitment of the NAE to the fight over the Arms Trade Treaty continues to baffle. Not only is there a legitimate debate about the effectiveness of the treaty to begin with, and not only will the potential negative implications disproportionately affect the rank-and-file evangelicals the NAE purports to represent, but the treaty’s failure in the Senate is practically assured. The NAE has fallen into the same bad habit that continues to plague the advocacy arms of mainline denominations: taking a undeniably Christian principle (loving ones neighbor, preventing death and suffering) and using to support a specific policy proposal (the Arms Trade Treaty). As with the fights over immigration, the Affordable Care Act, and the welfare state, the ones who end up paying the cost are everyday Americans.

This article appeared on the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s blog and is used with permission.