God, guns, and church violence
I don’t want this to be just another blog ranting about gun control, so let me state my bona fides up front: I come from a hard-hunting, gun-toting family. Long-haired, dope-smoking, anti-government Harley riders on one side and country club-lunching, single malt-drinking duck hunters on the other, but gun owners all around.
Having grown up around guns and knowing lots of good people who not only own them but love them, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that I would have to write an opinion piece stating my opposition to bringing guns to church. I thought this might have been self-evidently a bad idea.
But then I read this article about a pastor in Kentucky who is encouraging people to bring guns to church tomorrow, June 27. According to the Associated Press, Pastor Ken Pagano of the New Bethel Church is “inviting people to bring their guns to church to celebrate the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment.”
I’ll be honest that I’m a little zealous about gun control. Years ago, I proudly took my baby with me to Washington, D.C. to be a part of the first Million Mom March and I have donated more of my personal lost-but-worthy cause money to gun control than to any other single issue. I have read and heard all the arguments anyone can muster (pun intended) about the Second Amendment and slipper slopes and individual rights and responsible gun ownership and what the Founding Fathers meant by a militia. And I believe that the government can and should put some limits on what kind of guns can be owned by individuals, including on where, when, how and by whom they can be purchased, and especially on how and where they can be carried and used. Which honestly is not code for anything, in spite of what the NRA says. I’m not trying to wipe all guns off the face of the earth.
Maybe you don’t agree with the gun-control agenda. But isn’t bringing guns to church over the line even for most pro-gun folks?
The pastor’s assertion that “recent church shootings make it necessary to promote safe gun ownership” makes absolutely no sense to me. Recent church shootings and safe gun ownership are unrelated issues unless what he really wants is for people to bring guns into church every Sunday, in an ostensible effort to make it a safe place. Responsible gun owners who leave their guns at home when they go to worship will be no more or less able to respond to or prevent church shootings than you or I or Billy the Kid will.
One might argue that people can arm themselves to the teeth and still be good Christians. Maybe. But parading guns around in church in this way strikes me as an act of idolatry, a refusal to let God be God, to put our selves in His hands and to trust in His providence.
And I’m not just picking on this particular pastor in Kentucky, who might very well be a great guy. What bothers me is that this whole “bringing guns to church” thing appears to be something of a trend. According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, churches around the country are holding “church safety” seminars that sometimes include encouraging people to show up armed on Sunday. “As more shootings at houses of worship make headlines,” it states,
churches around the country are stepping up security, training their staff on how to detect and confront violent assailants, and asking congregants with licenses to carry guns during services.
I won’t even get into the fact that the pastor this article interviews is a pretty far-out, the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh character. Whatever your theology, church should be the place where we set aside all earthly defenses, physical and psychological, and give our whole selves over to God. Can you really do that while packing heat?
Pamela Dolan is on staff at Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Webster Groves and is a Candidate for Holy Orders. After high school in Hawaii and college in California, she earned a master's degree in theology from Harvard before spending several years in New York studying medieval religion and literature. Pamela is married with two children. 
I agree, the discussion is not about gun control. Several conversants characterize the Kentucky minister as crazy. Maybe, maybe not. I agree that people have a right to bear arms (guns, knives, what have you). I must admit why the average person would need an uzi or other automatic weapon escapes me, but certainly a pistol or rifle seems appropriate for protection or if you hunt. While I believe a church should be a sanctuary, I must admit that I really would have no idea if a person were carrying a weapon if it were concealed.
I do believe that churches do have a duty to lead their congregations in doing the right thing. I do not believe that it is wrong to defend our second amendment rights (or any of our rights for that matter) in church. I think ministers should assist congregations in grappling with the issues that keep us free men and women in this country, especially since many of us have allowed our government to erode these rights because of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt exploited after the attacks on the World Trade Center. So while the Kentucky minister’s method may not be to someone’s liking, I would not say that he is being as irresponsible as many would like to make him. These are tough times and tough questions. The minister told people to bring their weapons to church, but they were not loaded weapons, no bullets allowed (and actually it’s the bullets that are violent, not the gun unless you hit someone with the gun). Just because you bring them does not mean they intend to worship them like idols, I believe the idolatry comments are misplaced. The motive seems to be to encourage people who own guns to use them responsibly, but to defend their right to own them.
Too oftent now, groups in our country are successfully pushing their agenda against all sorts of things that encroach upon our rights and Americans are not speaking up(not you Pam, that was clearly not you intent here). Just like the Patriot Act has us being unreasonably searched at airports and having our property (toiletries) taken without compensation, too many of us are willing to give up too much because we are afraid.
The event at the Kentucky church seemed to be handled responsibly and was an educationa event as well. Gun owners should not be afraid of being reviled just because they own guns. And while I do believe in the church as sanctuary for the body, I also believe the church as sanctuary for the soul. Our churches frequently seem to be the sole institutions in this country that seems to be sanctuary for people grappling with the difficult issues and not giving in to pressure from the majority. Like our Constitution, I believe that churches should protect the individual from the will of the majority when that individual has a right to their actions and behaves responsibly. I think the minister was just trying to reinforce that with those responsible gun owners in his community.
Well said, and without bringing handguns into church.
I would make an exception to the bullets vs. guns as a distinction without a difference.
I will also repeat a powerful comment already made, that Jesus’ faith was his power in this world, not a weapon. Knowing it is too much to ask of us to do the same, we honor this, less we forget, by not bringing them into his house.
I do not agree that it was handled responsibly.
Thanks for the favor of your reply with post#1, page#5 at 9:24pm June 28.
You have (perhaps unwittingly) revealed more evidence that “God” is imaginary. First, by revealing that “God” is not a physical creature, you suggest that “God” is not real. Real things, including creatures, possess observable, measurable, and predictable qualities. That “God” is not physical makes it less likely that “God” is a real creature, and more likely that “God” is merely an imaginary one. In addition, imaginary creatures are described solely by definition, stories, and thought processes; in my experience, all that anyone has every provided about “God”.
Second, you contradict the Bible Literalists who claim the entire bible is the inerrant and perfect transcription of “God’s Word”. Your “God”, then, is materially different from theirs because yours did not write the Bible, and this sets up at least two competing “Gods”. (And of course we know there are many, many more). Which is the real one, if any? (To be honest, I accept them all! They are all products of human invention; none of them is real!) Yet out of all the possible gods, you seem to reject all but one. How is it that you select and demonstrate that your definition is the correct one? Surely at some time(s) you faced the same quandary as everyone else deciding among the choices which “God” to “believe in”. How did you pick? Also, I wonder if your “God” is still undergoing refinement as you collect new “evidence”, such as by studying Calvin’s ideas, for instance?
Even if there is no real “book”, as indicated by Psalms 139:16, does your “God” know the day of your death? Does it truly matter whether god sees both the day of your birth and death simultaneously or in some other non-sequential time-line? If so, then how? The fact is, if you believe that all of your definitions about “God” are correct and you believe that “God” is real, then “God” knows the last day of your life, right?
I know, I know, you prefer to avoid this discussion and offer a convenient justification: this thread is about “guns in church”, not “the nature of God’s existence.” Nonetheless, these points subtend the points I made to Ms. Dolan regarding the uselessness of guns in church. Specifically, if “God” is real, and if “God” knows the day of our death, and if “God” is infallible, then it follows that carrying a gun to church (or anywhere, for that matter) can not possibly forestall your demise on the accorded day. That is “God” knows the day, time, and manner of your death, and you are powerless to avoid any of it.
Carrying guns for personal defense makes sense only for those don’t believe in “God”, or at least not the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, not-physical creature inhabiting your imagination.
STP: I presume your comment posted at 12:12 pm on July 4 was directed at me, even though you failed to name me in your header, as you quoted me extensively in your following comments.
I have only one question for you: you find it quite pleasing, apparently, to comment extensively on the “Imaginary” nature of God, and so on, and to continually demand some form of proof for the existence of God.
I’d like to pose this question then: What DO you believe? After all, I could most likely assume that you are a Hobbesian existentialist, who could have a lot of interest in the philosophical argument that states that the only things that exist are those things you can determine with your 5 senses. If you cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell it, it’s not real.
Is this an accurate assessment of what you believe? After all, if one is going to continually challenge the beliefs of others, one should be prepared to clearly state and defend one’s own beliefs, no?
I am always uncomfortable with any ministers of any faith using the pulpit for political agendas. No doubt God’s children on both sides of the issue have good reasons for their positions on gun control. I believe there are forums other than church for making statements.
Hello ‘hs’,
Thanks for the favor of your reply with post#4, page#5 at 9:51pm July 4.
Oops, pardon my omission of a salutation in an earlier post (as you identified, post#3, page#6 at 12:12pm July 4). I am glad that you recognized yourself as the subject of my remarks and am honored that you favor me with a reply.
“What DO [I] believe?” While you ask in parg#3 of your post, you demonstrated that you already know what I believe in parg#2. I believe that “God” is an imaginary creature, and invented and perpetuated by primitive human intellects. Furthermore, I hold this belief as a result of an abundance of evidence. Actually, I would not characterize my conviction as “belief”, but closer to “verified knowledge”, sort of like how you (probably) possess verified knowledge that “Zeus” is not a real “God”, just an imaginary, mythical one.
However, as imaginary creatures are generally unable or unwilling to announce their imaginary existence, alternate tests are necessary to demonstrate that they are imaginary: contradiction, inconsistency, ambiguity, unfulfilled promises, lack of artifacts… the list goes on. None of these, it appears, are convincing to people who cling to religion by reason of faith. Of course, it is possible that there is a real “God”, or god-like creature(s) inhabiting our universe, or galaxy, or solar system, and is currently hiding from us for some reason. Speculative evidence suggests that other intelligent beings (or societies of beings) inhabit the universe. Could this be the “God” in whom you believe? I suppose the answer to that question must wait until such a being is revealed. My guess is that if visitors ever arrive from outer space and even if they unequivocally demonstrate that they created life on earth, that Believers will still deny them. That is because, they might explain, “God would never reveal Himself and destroy our precious faith!”
Regarding your assertion that I “continually demand some form of proof for the existence of God”, I must say “shame upon you”! I have never ever “demanded”, only “asked”, and never ever asked for “proof”, only asked for “evidence”. Furthermore, I have never ever denied the “existence” of “God”, I characterize “God’s” existence as imaginary. And, you know this already, or should, because you have asked before, and I have answered unambiguously before. Do you want links and citations? I can provide several. Here’s one just to prove it: line#3, parg#2, post#9, page#7 at 6:04pm February 8, 2009,
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/islam/2009/01/you-are-borrowing-the-body-you-are-currently-in/comment-page-7/#comments “I pointed out that “God is imaginary”. “God” exists in our individual and collective imaginations.” And here’s another (Hey! It’s just two posts earlier!): line#5, parg#3, post#3, page#6 at 12:12pm July 4, “To be honest, I accept [the existence of all gods]! They are all products of human invention; none of them is real!
No need to “propose” or “assume” that I embrace some form of “Hobbesian existentialism”. Use evidence, and make conclusions; if in doubt, ask questions! As it turns out, I know that plenty of things exist (and are real) despite lack of sensory verification. I also know that plenty of “things” exist only in people’s individual and collective imaginations. Usually there is some form of evidence (and not necessarily direct, sensory evidence, either) that helps distinguish between them (that is, the things that are real versus the things that are imaginary). Surely you don’t believe every thing you hear described is real? I know you do not, therefore, you are using some form of evidence to discriminate, right? Regarding your “God”, I continually ask what evidence you possess and employ.
Did you notice what happened here in this dialogue? First, I asked some questions and you ignored them. Then you asked me a question and I gave you a plain answer. In fact, you asked a question that you have asked before, and received the same answer!
You, on the other hand, seem skilled at little more than avoiding straight answers. It’s OK that you avoid. I am sure you have rational motivations for doing so. My guess is that you don’t have a firm grasp on your beliefs. Or perhaps you lack good evidence to support them?. Maybe your beliefs are shallow and deep questions can not be answered? Possibly you are unwilling to answer until you understand my point of view, and thus tailor you reply accordingly? (Yikes! In this case I fear receipt of an improperly tuned reply since even after several months and dialogs over several threads, you still misrepresent and misunderstand my clearly and repeatedly stated positions!)
Nonetheless, I am more than willing to share my evidence and conclusions about where it leads. However, I would sure enjoy some reciprocity, and an honest interpretation of my positions.
How about it? Does “God” know the last day of your life (of everyone’s lives)? Is it possible for you (any of us) to change it? If so, then how (and do defensive weapons ever work)? Do believe this by “faith” alone, or do you employ genuine evidence? What is your evidence, if you use any? How do you / did you decide that your version of “God” is the correct one? Are you refining your “God” as you collect fresh evidence? How do you decide which evidence to assimilate and which to reject?
STP: I erred last night: Hobbes was a determinist, not an existentialist. The existentialists didn’t show up for a couple hundred years after Hobbes.
STP: I will attempt to respond to your last post. However, due to circumstances beyond my control, I was up all night, and my brain is more than a little foggy. After I get some rest I will respond.
STP:
Having rested (a little) I will attempt to answer some of your specific questions, and will probably also insert some more general observations about the long, tangled conversation we’ve been having….
First, pardon me for conflating “ask and demand” and “proof and evidence”. For the first, when the same thing gets repeatedly asked, in different ways, while taking exception with every response, that tends to move the request to the level of a demand in my mind.
As far as the difference between proof and evidence…I suppose I’m failing there as well. Oh well, I’ll make another attempt.
At a core level, I recognize that there is quite probably no “evidence” that I could enunciate that would meet your standard as evidence for the existence of God. After all, we’re talking about faith here, and faith by definition is about things unseen. I try to avoid quoting Biblical text, but in this case the Biblical definition of faith is one of the better ones in existence in the english translation from the Greek: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) Another translation uses “assurance” instead of “substance” in the first clause and “conviction” for “evidence” in the second clause. We could get into a discussion of the merits of various translations, but I think that misses the point.
Second, more to the subject at hand, as I have stated many times before, I detest proof-texting and I am most assuredly NOT a biblical literalist. So, challenging me by use of proof texts and requests that I justify a literalist reading of a text are both acts that will not get you a reasonable response. I am well aware that through the centuries, many people HAVE taken these texts and come to a fatalist conclusion. A notable example is the belief by many soldiers in combat that “there is a bullet out there with my name on it” which leads occasionally to great acts of seemingly stupid bravery.
My belief would be that yes, God knows the hour of our death, BUT God does not DETERMINE it. God does not direct us along the path that leads there. To believe otherwise would be a violation of free will. To use an extreme example, I am FREE to go base jumping off the Eads Bridge, and if I die in the effort, it’s because I made the choices that led to that. God had nothing to do with it.
Last, I must ask you, Mr (I presume it is Mr?) Stirring the Pot: do you maintain an archive of all your blog posts, cross referenced as to dates, subject matter, etc? I have no intention of setting up such a system, I’m just curious.
know - to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty.
God knows our death as we know our death. It is with certainty. God does not take our choice in this from us. God honors this. We have the grace and honor to choose the way which we spend our life to its end. It is the gift from God.
“your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.”
This is what it is. There is no prediction of the day of our death in this, other than we know it is certain, as it is certain that God gave us life before we were. It is written, as it is spoken.
God knows when we sit or stand, God knows our thoughts before we speak them, God saw us before we were born. These are all ways of a parent and a child.
God has odained our lives and all their days, not our death. God is certain in our death as we are certain in it. It is of our choosing and our way.
God’s gift is eternal life, and it is still present in the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life, and in the way of Jesus.