In wake of another horrific massacre, this one in Carthage, North Carolina at a nursing home, I want to ask for some consistency regarding gun control.
Norman Jameson, the editor of the North Carolina Baptist Newspaper, The Biblical Recorder, took heat when he suggested that lawmakers who allowed Arkansas church-goers should receive the Darwin Award (for stupidity). Those who objected to Jameson's article suggested that civilian hand-gun possession actually deterred millions of crimes in comparison to 30,000 who were killed accidentally by hand-guns in one year. Therefore, gun control is not something that we should pursue.
Consider the "Liquor by the Drink" referendum in Taylorsville last summer. Of course I am thankful that alcohol is not readily available in the county. Having come from Birmingham and seeing the numerous amounts of damage done by alcohol, I am thankful to live in a county that limits sales and consumption of alcohol. I guess that since I don't drink, I don't feel deprived of anything significant either.
However, the logic of the opposition to the referendum argued that limiting alcohol availability might save lives. It was worth opposing, even if establishments able to serve alcohol could bring needed revenue to the county, if one life was saved.
Yet, the outrage over availability of fire arms is noticeably missing. What about: "If it could save one life, then it would be worth it?"
Today, I just talked to a family whose daughter was shot through the head as she was riding in a car on the interstate. This happened five years ago. After surgeries and years of rehab, she is doing better, but not fully recovered. The shooter was an unsupervised teenager who got a hold of a gun. How did he get a gun? How are so many available that people acquire them illegally? What about legal possession? What are the limits?
What if this Robert Stewart was unable to get his hand on the several firearms he carried into the Carthage nursing home? Or what if the man who shot Fred Winters, the pastor of FBC, Maryville, IL, had been screened prior to sales? What if we worked so hard to save just one life? What if we, like Jesus, laid down our rights to take up our responsibilities to our brothers and sisters?
What if we were consistent in the application of our moral logic?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Violence, Self-Defense and Matthew 5:38-48
Recent events in the news raises a question that I have struggled with for some time - violence in defense of justice.
First, a pastor, Fred Winter, was murdered in cold blood Sunday Morning during his church's 8 AM worship service in Maryville, Illinois. Second, a shooter went on a rampage in South Alabama towns, killing ten people, mostly family but some were random victims, before taking his own life. Third, general thoughts about inherent evil in the regimes of North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sudan have raised questions for me. Furthermore, fundamentalist Islam, along with various sects of Mormonism, white-supremiscist Christianity and many other religious organizations that promote domination and violence cannot be ignored. Evil is all around. Violence is the weapon of choice (a cowardly means of coercion). Death is the creator of fear.
However, in response to this, the Bible teaches these things:
1. God is in control and is all powerful.
2. God loves the whole world and has demonstrated his love in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for the benefit of all who would trust in Him.
3. God is a God who defeats evil through death and resurrection. As Revelation 5 indicates, when John turned to see the Lion of Judah, instead of a magnificent figure, he saw a Lamb, having been slaughtered.
4. God has the power and capacity to raise the dead. He has done this in Jesus and will do this for all who believe.
5. Jesus taught his followers, trusting these things above, to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies.
However, does this preclude defense of the other who is in need? I raise this issue in response to an article in the Biblical Recorder in which the editor, Norman Jameson, wrote that it would be crazy to allow concealed weapons in churches. I symapthize with this position. What message are we communicating to allow concealed weapons in a house of worship in which we profess to believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God? However, can we stand idly by when another is attacked and endangered by an assailent?
Critics of Jameson's editorial called Jameson's article and position "idiotic." (Interestingly enough, that violates Matt. 5:21-26). We should be thankful that only 30,694 people died in the United States to gun-related accidents as opposed to the 4 million estimated crimes foiled by fire arms. But what is the Christian to do?
One extreme is the position of the pacifist. A pacificist says that there is no room in the teachings of Jesus for violence in defense of justice. Matthew 5:38-48 is the primary scripture for such a teaching. Because a follower of Jesus is commanded to turn the other cheak in the face of injustice and to love one's enemies, violence is automatically eliminated as an option of retaliation for the Christian. This includes violence for self-defense, defense of another, and participation in war.
Regarding war, most Christians have held to a theory of just war. For a war to be just, there must be just cause for the war and justice in strategy and practice of war. These practices include negotiating surrender, limiting civilian casualties, etc. While many wars could fit under the heading of just cause (World War II is a prime example), no war in the history of the world has ever been practiced under completely just means. (I do not make this statement to criticize military. I appreciate their sacrifice and would never dishonor their legacy.) However, reading the criteria of a just war is like reading the rules for a basketball game. Just get an open field, a couple of referees, and make sure that everyone is nice and respectful as they are killing one another. And, by the way, make sure none of the innocent bystanders are hit with a bullet or sword. It really has more of a "pie in the sky" outlook than pacificism. It is unrealistic not only in the modern world, but in the pre-modern eras as well.
Matthew 5:38-48 at the very least calls Christ-followers to expect opposition and embrace suffering. It discourages self-defense and the right to retaliate. However, does it discourage using force to come to the aid of one who is in danger? I am not so sure. How can a Christian say that refusing to defend the life of an innocent victim is an act of love? Yet, how can killing the enemy fulfill this passage of scripture?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who wrote The Cost of Discipleship as a convinced pacificist later became involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. As Hitler continued to incarcerate Christians and commit genocide against the Jews, and as he continued to invade neighboring nations in Europe, Bonhoeffer felt that the only thing that he could do as a Christian was to work for the eventual defeat of his country. Bonhoeffer's change of heart resulted in his arrest in 1943 and death two years later. His change of heart also demonstrated that pacificism as a rule is a difficult position to maintain in a world full of evil perpetraitors and innocent victims.
If life has taught me one thing, then it is the observation that it is easier to suffer than to watch someone else suffer and feel unable to help.
As a Christian, I believe at the very least:
1. Churches should use available means of security, including locking the doors during office hours, and silent alarms for after hours.
2. Churches should use security volunteers to patrol during services.
3. Churches should take whatever means of precaution necessary to ensure that potential criminals realize that the church is aware of potential threat.
As a Christian, I believe at our very best:
1. We should prepare ourselves to demonstrate love to our enemies, whoever they are and whatever their intentions might be. We must pray for them and be prepared to serve them.
2. We should not be so anxious to protect ourselves that we feel the need to bring concealed weapons into church. With the increasing technology for "stun" guns and tasers, we ought to consider these as alternatives to handguns.
3. Realize that we are at risk for violence. Violence happens. We can do things to deter it, to defend against it, but we will never eliminate it.
4. Pray for the end of war and work to reduce violence in the world.
5. Trust in the core values of our faith, that God's kingdom is imminent, and we will be a part of God's future regardless of the present.
6. Defend the innocent.
7. Pray for forgiveness for our inability to find the right answer to every situation. God loves us and knows whether or not we faced a moral dilemma, or that we were just trigger happy for our rights.
I would appreciate any feedback on any of these thoughts.
Tim
First, a pastor, Fred Winter, was murdered in cold blood Sunday Morning during his church's 8 AM worship service in Maryville, Illinois. Second, a shooter went on a rampage in South Alabama towns, killing ten people, mostly family but some were random victims, before taking his own life. Third, general thoughts about inherent evil in the regimes of North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sudan have raised questions for me. Furthermore, fundamentalist Islam, along with various sects of Mormonism, white-supremiscist Christianity and many other religious organizations that promote domination and violence cannot be ignored. Evil is all around. Violence is the weapon of choice (a cowardly means of coercion). Death is the creator of fear.
However, in response to this, the Bible teaches these things:
1. God is in control and is all powerful.
2. God loves the whole world and has demonstrated his love in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for the benefit of all who would trust in Him.
3. God is a God who defeats evil through death and resurrection. As Revelation 5 indicates, when John turned to see the Lion of Judah, instead of a magnificent figure, he saw a Lamb, having been slaughtered.
4. God has the power and capacity to raise the dead. He has done this in Jesus and will do this for all who believe.
5. Jesus taught his followers, trusting these things above, to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies.
However, does this preclude defense of the other who is in need? I raise this issue in response to an article in the Biblical Recorder in which the editor, Norman Jameson, wrote that it would be crazy to allow concealed weapons in churches. I symapthize with this position. What message are we communicating to allow concealed weapons in a house of worship in which we profess to believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God? However, can we stand idly by when another is attacked and endangered by an assailent?
Critics of Jameson's editorial called Jameson's article and position "idiotic." (Interestingly enough, that violates Matt. 5:21-26). We should be thankful that only 30,694 people died in the United States to gun-related accidents as opposed to the 4 million estimated crimes foiled by fire arms. But what is the Christian to do?
One extreme is the position of the pacifist. A pacificist says that there is no room in the teachings of Jesus for violence in defense of justice. Matthew 5:38-48 is the primary scripture for such a teaching. Because a follower of Jesus is commanded to turn the other cheak in the face of injustice and to love one's enemies, violence is automatically eliminated as an option of retaliation for the Christian. This includes violence for self-defense, defense of another, and participation in war.
Regarding war, most Christians have held to a theory of just war. For a war to be just, there must be just cause for the war and justice in strategy and practice of war. These practices include negotiating surrender, limiting civilian casualties, etc. While many wars could fit under the heading of just cause (World War II is a prime example), no war in the history of the world has ever been practiced under completely just means. (I do not make this statement to criticize military. I appreciate their sacrifice and would never dishonor their legacy.) However, reading the criteria of a just war is like reading the rules for a basketball game. Just get an open field, a couple of referees, and make sure that everyone is nice and respectful as they are killing one another. And, by the way, make sure none of the innocent bystanders are hit with a bullet or sword. It really has more of a "pie in the sky" outlook than pacificism. It is unrealistic not only in the modern world, but in the pre-modern eras as well.
Matthew 5:38-48 at the very least calls Christ-followers to expect opposition and embrace suffering. It discourages self-defense and the right to retaliate. However, does it discourage using force to come to the aid of one who is in danger? I am not so sure. How can a Christian say that refusing to defend the life of an innocent victim is an act of love? Yet, how can killing the enemy fulfill this passage of scripture?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who wrote The Cost of Discipleship as a convinced pacificist later became involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. As Hitler continued to incarcerate Christians and commit genocide against the Jews, and as he continued to invade neighboring nations in Europe, Bonhoeffer felt that the only thing that he could do as a Christian was to work for the eventual defeat of his country. Bonhoeffer's change of heart resulted in his arrest in 1943 and death two years later. His change of heart also demonstrated that pacificism as a rule is a difficult position to maintain in a world full of evil perpetraitors and innocent victims.
If life has taught me one thing, then it is the observation that it is easier to suffer than to watch someone else suffer and feel unable to help.
As a Christian, I believe at the very least:
1. Churches should use available means of security, including locking the doors during office hours, and silent alarms for after hours.
2. Churches should use security volunteers to patrol during services.
3. Churches should take whatever means of precaution necessary to ensure that potential criminals realize that the church is aware of potential threat.
As a Christian, I believe at our very best:
1. We should prepare ourselves to demonstrate love to our enemies, whoever they are and whatever their intentions might be. We must pray for them and be prepared to serve them.
2. We should not be so anxious to protect ourselves that we feel the need to bring concealed weapons into church. With the increasing technology for "stun" guns and tasers, we ought to consider these as alternatives to handguns.
3. Realize that we are at risk for violence. Violence happens. We can do things to deter it, to defend against it, but we will never eliminate it.
4. Pray for the end of war and work to reduce violence in the world.
5. Trust in the core values of our faith, that God's kingdom is imminent, and we will be a part of God's future regardless of the present.
6. Defend the innocent.
7. Pray for forgiveness for our inability to find the right answer to every situation. God loves us and knows whether or not we faced a moral dilemma, or that we were just trigger happy for our rights.
I would appreciate any feedback on any of these thoughts.
Tim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)