A Christian Frame On Gun Control

It is popular among gun control advocates to claim that the gun in the mind of the second amendment's authors was the muzzle-loaded musket. As such, this is the weapon citizens are constitutionally allowed to keep and bear within a well ordered militia. This is a particularly inane argument. At issue was not the type of weapon, but the use to which the weapons would be put.

The authors wanted to keep the size and cost of the military down so as to keep the populace as free of taxation as possible. This also provided people with protection from an overbearing government, which would otherwise hold a monopoly on military power. If the musket was the only gun in the minds of the authors of the amendment this was because it was the most technologically advanced weapon carried by soldiers the world over. There were also bayonets, swords, horses and artillery in those armies.

The citizen soldiers envisioned in the second amendment would have been similarly armed because they owned all of these weapons. The exception to this would be artillery, which was cost prohibitive for most individuals to possess. Cannon would be held by the militia in its armory. Because of this, they would have been the match of any army in the world.

The authors of the second amendment might be appalled by the size of our standing military and would probably advocate for a return to the militia model to decrease the size and cost of government. Undoubtedly, however, they would not advocate that the populace only be armed with muskets. The overwhelming firepower held by foreign nations, or even by our own government would quickly relegate the people to a state of submission and servitude. This would be completely unacceptable to men like Jefferson, Washington, and etc. As such, they would argue that individuals must be allowed to own modern firearms.

What the framers of the constitution and its amendments would undoubtedly decry are the heinous uses to which these weapons are put. They would also lament the lack of civil responsibility in our society. They believed the freedoms fought for and enshrined in the founding documents must be upheld by citizens serving the best interests of the nation. Their thought was that life and freedom within the United States must ultimately serve the perpetuation of those freedoms. Such an attitude of service seems to be missing, because we serve our individual needs and wants above all others.

The fundamental disagreement Christians should have with all of this is one of lordship. If Christ is Lord, our ultimate service must be to him, instead of the state, our families, or ourselves. Christian actions are to help the Body of Christ advance, irrespective of the needs of the state, or any other organization that claims our loyalty. It is from this perspective that a Christian should approach the question of gun ownership and control.

Evidence of Sin

The variety of responses to the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut all seem to advocate a change in the place guns have in our society. On one side are those who advocate the removal of guns and gun ownership. Or at least the moderation of the type of gun and the ease with which they can be procured. On the other side are those who advocate for gun access to remain the same, or in fact for guns to be more readily available.

Lying behind both arguments is a desire to stop horrendous tragedies like these. The difference is in the way one feels it is best to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our property. This gives a clue as to what actually lies at the heart of both responses. Lurking behind the value or revulsion Americans have for guns is the desire to protect our idols.

Judges 17 & 18 tell the story of Micah and the Danites. Micah creates household gods for himself and hires a levite to be a priest. The priest is there to protect and serve the idols on Micah's behalf, to intercede with the gods on Micah's behalf, and to provide for himself an income. The Danites trying to establish a home for themselves eventually steal the idols, the supporting religious paraphernalia and the priest. They want the priest to do the same for them as he was doing for Micah. And the priest goes along with it. In response, Micah calls out warriors to attack the thieves and get his idols back. Violence ensues among kinfolk because of their lust for these things. Their responses are the natural outcomes of idolatry.

Americans -- and perhaps all people -- believe in the myth of security. We live in the hope that we might be secure and safe from tragedy, misfortune and death. This is one of the reasons we gather things around us. The more we have, the more able we are to keep the forces of evil and chaos away. Of course, all we have really done is re-placed our fears, moving them further away from ourselves. What used to be a fear right up next to us is now outside of our homes. It is as if we are the wealthy fool who says to himself, "You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry" only to learn that his life was to be lost that very night (Luke 12:16-21).

It is a sign of sin in our lives whenever Christians are ruled by and live in fear. Fear represents a heart ruled by avarice, greed, lust and idolatry. Fear demonstrates that we do not actually believe the promises of our redeemer God who says that he will open paradise to us in the afterlife. It tells us that we do not believe that "to live is Christ, to die is gain" (Phil 1:21). It tells us that we hold our things, our attachments, and our own lives as idols ahead of God.

The reality is that no amount of stuff and no amount of weaponry will protect us from the end that is coming for us all. We may delay it for a while, but it is coming. This is not to say that we should simply and fatalistically accept what is coming. Instead, we should look at everything we have as a gift from our gracious God. There is nothing that we have which we did not receive, including our very lives (1 Cor 4:7).

The attitude of the Christian in America should be to acknowledge that we have it good, that we have been blessed, and to use the blessings we have received as a means to bless others. We should work for justice, righteousness, peace, and love. We should strive for health and wholeness for all people: physical, mental, and spiritual health. And we should strive to cast down our idols and all of the things with which we try to protect them.

I apologized, but...

Further to my post from yesterday, I did apologize. What I apologized for was my lack of civility in interrupting my host. There is no precedent for theological debate or discussion in the group, let alone when someone is sharing a devotion. Whether the speaker's thoughts were mindless drivel, erudite scholarship, or something in between, challenging him at that point was tactless. 

I believe his hermeneutical starting point is fatuous, if not dangerous. The future well-being of individual believers generally and that of the Church in North America specifically are jeopardized by teachings that start from a position which lacks knowledge. 

This is not to say people who hold such positions are stupid. Young Earth advocates simply lack information and refuse to accept it because their faith cannot accommodate what God has given humans the ability to learn about the universe that He created. They do not have room within their faith constructs for such a large God. Yet scripture is full of encouragement to gain knowledge and understanding. All truth is God's truth and we need not fear it. 

The Young Earth hermeneutical starting point creates a barrier to spreading the Gospel. People who are knowledgable about the scientific realities humanity has uncovered will never be interested in joining an apparently mindless organization. The Church becomes nothing more than a backward sub-culture, along the lines of the Amish communities that have a negligible impact upon society, rather than the world-changing counter-culture Jesus left in the care of his disciples. I admire such faith for its apparent strength, yet pity it for its calcified, dogmatic outlook.

I know better....

Yesterday I attended a minister’s gathering and was rude to my host. Once most of us had gathered around a table, he opened the proceedings with a devotional thought. He started by lamenting America’s social, political and spiritual atmosphere. He felt that failure to acknowledge that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, based foundationally on the failure to acknowledge that God created the world in seven days not millions or billions of years as evidenced by Genesis 1-15, was leading to the nation’s moral decline.

“How do you know?” I asked. Spurred on by his surprised “How do I know?” I asked, “How do you know that God created the world in seven literal days instead of millions, or billions of years?”

I know I should have bit my tongue. Since the context was “devotional” not intellectual, it was tantamount to biting the hand that was about to feed me – especially since after the meeting he was feeding the gathered ministers. I created an uncomfortable and awkward period in the proceedings and knew what I had done even as I pressed on. Quite frankly, my back was up so I engaged in debate for a few minutes until others weighed in with calming effect. The train of the devotion derailed, we moved on to other business.

Today an email went out to everyone from the ministerial gathering president:

Hey Gang, I'm going to ask that, in the future, when the host of our meetings presents a devotion, that we respect that devotion.  I'm not saying that you have to agree with what is said, but it isn't an appropriate setting to turn it into a theological debate, nor is it polite considering that we are their guests. At the same time, when planning the devotion, please don't use it as a way to deliberately push an agenda.  Not saying that it needs to be politically correct, but please consider your intentions.

My impression is that the Gospel is an invitation to join the counter-cultural body of Christ. When Church leaders elevate faithful ignorance over informed belief we are not promoting an invitation to an exciting counter-culture where knowledge and intelligence are welcome, but are promoting a sub-culture in which thoughtfulness is unwelcome. Bad theology, informed by illogical hermeneutics, should not go unchallenged if we want to see the Church advance – especially among church leaders.

I find it distasteful to sit through a devotion that is supposed to be edifying to my spirit when it elevates bad information, hermeneutics and theology, and presents it as Gospel. That said, the spirit of the email is correct and I am sorry for my actions. That was neither the time, nor the place for such a debate. Would that Christ really dwelt in me.

Information Silos

Except for the time in which the human population was so small that there were no divergent opinions (think Adam all alone in the Garden of Eden), there has never been an era in which there has not been some semblance of information siloing. In ages past, information silos existed because the barriers to sharing ideas were geographic.

As webs of interaction grew and geographic barriers fell, opportunities to share information and ideas grew. The silos remained because the interactions were infrequent. As interactions became more frequent, the hope was that information could be shared more frequently, people could learn the same things, and come to the same conclusions. However, lots of different people with different ideas were all working with the same thought on those different ideas. As a result, enclaves and groups with different philosophies grew up and were maintained within their information silos. 

In the present, information silos exist because there is too much information available. People have the ability to filter out and exclude information. Indeed they must do so in order to not become paralyzed through information overload. Observers & commentators frequently lament the existence of these information silos because they reinforce differences. But they also lament the fact that their competitors hold sway in their information silo, so do not have that audience over which to exercise influence, through which to gain more influence, and potentially make more money. And whatever you do, don't let them kid you. It's about the money.

Work Together

Reviled Chaff-

            Pestilence informs me that his patient is feeling particularly bitter toward your minister. Were you aware of this? If you were, why didn’t you include it in your last report? If not, why not? Aren’t you communicating with your coworkers? You must all work together in order to have the greatest effect on your situation.

            I know what I am about to tell you cuts against every fiber of your being, but you must trust me. When I was a tempter, I was very successful. I know more about how to effectively thwart our enemy and torment souls than you do. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be a manager. And I had a manager over me then, too. He wasn’t as gifted as me, but he was useful. He did for me what I am trying to do for you. I am here to give you ideas for how to proceed that you might not have considered. I can tell you based upon my experience the best method of attack. Another mind working on the problem from a distance gives some objectivity and is able to draw on experiences you do not have. In the unlikely event we run into a big problem that I cannot handle, I can talk with other managers and even go to the superintendent for advice.

            As your superior I could order you to tell me everything that happens, but that would make your reports very tedious. Besides, you should be able to differentiate between what is useful to our cause and what is not. If you demonstrate that you cannot I will have to request a different tempter take your place so that you can return to your last job in the pit. Your file says you were very effective there, which is what allowed you to move up. Still, you would not be the first who was promoted beyond his ability.

            Regardless, I believe you are capable and I assure you that I seek nothing more than your success. So be sure to communicate with your fellows, include useful information in your reports, and remember that you need not fear me. I am here to support you and help you succeed.

            Now, about your minister. Pestilence’s patient believes she finds nothing wrong with homosexuality. Is it true? Does she believe homosexuals are worthy of full inclusion in the church, just as heterosexuals are? This could be dangerous to us. As I told Pestilence, do not proceed with any attack on this issue until we are certain where your charge stands. We must let the animosity and confusion rest for now so that it can do its work.

            This could be very beneficial for us down the road, of course. Human sexuality is one of the great mysteries and is so easily perverted. Fortunately the humans do not understand sexuality either. Even our most experienced investigators have been unable to understand it. What would motivate the enemy to create anything that forces you to give up what is yours? Why would anyone share power? Why would he have filled such a puerile action with sensations that give humans such pleasure? And why were these pleasures given to these lower creatures and not to us as well? Do we not also seek pleasure? I believe this may be a sign that the enemy does not care for the things he made, just as the Evil One says. Why else would he withhold the things that we want from us?

            Regardless, human sexuality has always been something we can use to our advantage. We can pervert it into pain, shame, guilt, fear and inferiority to name just a few of the useful emotions it can bring out. And as our lord tells us, he is the one who twisted the world so that at least some people would disdain members of the opposite sex in favor of the same sex, preventing the birth of more children. How the humans respond to one another on this issue is very entertaining. Sex has done more to ensure we receive souls than any other temptation. In more ways that one! It is probably our enemy’s greatest mistake.

            For now, though, it is best if your minister does not mention sexuality at all. Give Pestilence some time to further harden his charge’s position while beginning to form a faction of people who can oppose the minister openly. As I said before, your operating principle must be to keep them from communicating with one another openly. The longer these divisive feelings are hidden from your minister and the embittered pew-sitter, the greater the effect that can result. So give it time. But do be sure to find out what she believes.

In agony,

Dross

Gender and Loneliness

Reviled Chaff,

            You are half right. That your minister is female can be an advantage to our cause, but it can also be a tremendous danger. Humans have always valued men over women, so for her to be a success, she must be more talented, more disciplined, and more determined than a man.

            They talk about the equality of the sexes, but women invariably work against barriers men don’t face. As though plumbing were so important. Any weak body possessed by one of our own has tremendous strength. Should this minister stay in contact with our enemy, she can be tremendously dangerous. You could lose the entire population if you are not careful.

            Use the minister’s gender against her. Tell her that the only reason she got this church is because it is a backwater. Remind her that had any man wanted the post, the congregation would undoubtedly have preferred him. And while we are on the subject of “him” remind her that she is a single woman. If she were desirable, attractive, witty enough, etc., etc., she would have a man of her own. Insinuate that she would also have a child of her own if our enemy cared about her. But clearly he doesn’t love her because if he did, she would not be so lonely.

            Be careful to not let this engender pity for the girl. Pity can lead to compassion, a detestable emotion, which promotes sharing and giving. But if she does start to seem pitiable, push her to being pitiful. As she becomes maudlin and overly dramatic the people will withdraw from her. The weaker the relationships she has with the community, the less effect she will have on it. Eventually she will despair and you will have won. Your congregation will realize they are beyond help, that our enemy will never provide them with a competent minister because they are unworthy.

            Here is the plan you should follow. Instill in her a desire to be a savior. Create the illusion that this is the expectation that the congregation has for her. If this is the expectation the congregation has of her, so much the better. Just don’t let them name it. Keep it under the surface. Let it be expressed in statements of comparison with prior pastors from ages ago. Encourage looks of disappointment, but again, don’t let them talk about these things. The moment they start discussing these things, you will have lost your advantage.

            As these expectations work on her, your minister will feel as though she must study more so as to provide better instruction, give the proper answer, etc. Encourage her in this. The more she is shut away in her study, the less likely she is to create relationships. Somehow they gain strength by pouring energy into another person. Such an abnormal activity, and truly frightening! Far more natural to suck energy out of another.

            Regardless, you must also be careful with what she studies. Get her into psychology, politics, economics, or any other work. Keep her as far from the unnameable book as you can. If she must look in it, encourage her to look for proof texts so as to prove her point. Don’t let her draw a point from the text. That will be deadly. Be strong in your efforts, but again, be cunning and subtle.

In agony,

Dross