Write About Now

new to you friday–armed service

In light of Terry Jones‘ recent behavior, today seemed an appropriate time to revisit another arena of congregational nuttiness. When I originally posted this, most people wanted to discuss my (intentionally) hyperbolic statement about the death penalty more than they wanted to comment on the prospect of hundreds of people packed into a church building with guns. If I had a chance to do it again I’d probably tone that sentence down—a bit. Wait, this kind of IS that chance, isn’t it?…………………ah, well.


I think love of God and country are both fine as long as we remember they’re two different things. I think everyone should read Columbine. And if this is a fake and Jones goes through with the Quran burning after all, endangering hundreds or thousands of American soldiers, I might change my mind about the death penalty.

——————————————————————————————————–

openCarryFamilyShopperSmallFirst of all, I’m not questioning your constitutional right to have a gun (although after reading Columbine I’m less convinced than ever that our current system is working—sure, eighteen year olds should be allowed to purchase semi-automatics at a gun show).

What I am questioning is why pastor Ken Pagano recently encouraged his flock at New Bethel Church in Louisville, KY to come to church armed.

This Saturday New Bethel is hosting an “Open Carry Celebration,” featuring videos promoting gun safety, patriotic music, a raffle—and extra security.

“As a Christian pastor I believe that without a deep-seated belief in God and firearms that this country would not be here,” Pagano told ABCNews.com. “I’m not ashamed of that fact. I’m proud of it.”


Evangelical Republicanism, otherwise known as “you can’t kill ‘em but we can” (NO to abortion and stem cell research, YES to capital punishment and war), has many adherents who confuse love of God with love of country. When patriotism = freedom and freedom = guns, you have a conservative who values the 2nd amendment. When patriotism also = Christianity, you get statements like Pagano’s.

And I get heartburn.


For one thing, I know plenty of Christians who have enough crazy already, thank you, and don’t need to be attending pentecostal worship services with handguns.

Second, the whole “permissible but not beneficial” thing comes to mind. Is this really the best way to present the Gospel to lost people? I know churches are questioning the whole seeker-sensitive model, but that doesn’t mean we have to become seeker-scary.

And think about the energy New Bethel’s investing to promote, plan, and defend this event. There really wasn’t anything more Kingdom-building to do in Louisville?


Ironically, this story hit just days after George Tiller was killed for performing late-term abortions. He was shot. In a church.

We may differ on the ideal balance between church and state, but can’t we agree on separation of church and ammo?

September 10, 2010 - Posted by | opinions, people, the church | , , , , , ,

12 Comments »

  1. The Open Carry Celebration was a great event. You appear to have the idea that everyone that owns a gun is a bad person or that the possession of a gun will somehow cause someone to hurt another. Nothing could be further from fact. The vast majority of firearms owners are extremely law abiding citizens.

    But I wonder; can’t you see the difference between killing unborn babies and capital punishment? How can you possibly make that connection? Capital punishment is reserved for some of our most dangerous criminals. These are people that have made a conscious decision to commit a crime. An unborn baby can’t make that decision. (And for the record, I’m pro choice, a multi-gun owner and pretty conservative.)

    Comment by Jeff | September 10, 2010 | Reply

  2. I don’t think people who own guns are “bad” or will automatically cause people to hurt each other. I do think it’s misguided, at best, to combine church/theology/worship with promotion of gun ownership.

    Of course there is a difference between capital punishment and abortion. For me being pro-life means not just a rejection of abortion because of the data demonstrating life begins before birth, but a reluctance to endorse capital punishment because of the data demonstrating innocent lives are also sometimes claimed through this system.

    Comment by Jennifer | September 10, 2010 | Reply

    • Maybe there’s a bigger point to be made here about the inadvisability of endorsing any cause (as a church or its spokesman) that doesn’t flow so directly from our theology that the two sets of thought can’t be separated.
      I have opinions that (hopefully) flow from my Christian worldview. I do not put them in the same category as the essentials. Moreover, I should not divide myself from my brother in Christ based on those opinions.

      Comment by Al | September 10, 2010 | Reply

    • I suspect there is a philosophical or visceral reluctance to endorse capitol punishment or else you would advocate its fair implementation instead of its abolishment.

      Comment by Matt | September 11, 2010 | Reply

      • Well, our first hurdle is defining “fair implementation.” What’s fair, and who gets to decide? The same politicians we like to complain about?

        Comment by Jennifer | September 11, 2010

  3. And I will not approach that hurdle if I suspect there is a brick wall to follow. I still wonder if your problem is with capitol punishment or the unfair implementation of it.

    Comment by Matt | September 11, 2010 | Reply

    • No brick wall. I haven’t planned out this conversation. :)

      Basically, Matt, I think capital punishment gives too much power to too-human people operating in a too-broken system. The poor often get a less fair day in court. DNA evidence that could exonerate them is less often available. Innocent people–as well as many guilty, evil people–have been killed. I don’t think there CAN be a totally fair implementation of it. So I’m uncomfortable with it being used at all.

      Comment by Jennifer | September 11, 2010 | Reply

  4. Understood. But wouldn’t abolishing all executions because of some injustices be throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

    Comment by Matt | September 11, 2010 | Reply

    • Now we’re at the central question: why do we need to execute ANYONE?

      Comment by Jennifer | September 11, 2010 | Reply

      • Genesis 9:6 comes to mind, as does Romans 13:4. It is about justice, not revenge, and not blood-thirst. Man bears the image of God; therefore the willful, malicious destruction of man is an outrage against God (and man), to be punished by execution.

        Comment by Matt | September 11, 2010

      • If we use the Genesis verse then we must kill everyone ever convicted of murder, not just some of them, right? If not, what criteria do we use to determine which ones?

        I’m going to the movies to see the liberal “Avatar” ;) so I won’t be able to continue this conversation for a while. But I like that we’re having it.

        Comment by Jennifer | September 11, 2010

  5. I’m not sure I’m the best person to answer your first question but it seems reasonable (and consistant) to execute everyone who willfully and maliciouly ends the life of another person.

    Enjoy “Dances With Wolves”, I mean “Avatar”.

    Comment by Matt | September 11, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.