Approximately fourteen years ago my family and I traveled to
Houston, Texas, to visit my wife’s sister, Dorothy. On Sunday morning we went to church with
her. It was a huge (by Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania standards) Presbyterian congregation located somewhere in that
concrete mess. It was a very different
experience for this country preacher.
Before I even entered the building I was taken by surprise
when I saw a Hispanic woman sweeping the pavement. I’m not referring to a church member lending
a volunteer hand with a little spontaneous cleanup. This lady was an employee dressed in a work
uniform who was there for the exclusive reason of housekeeping. On a Sunday morning. As we walked past her to enter the building I
offered a friendly greeting, which seemingly took her by surprise.
As we entered the building I thought we were in the wrong
place. I was certain we had entered some
corporate headquarters by mistake. There
was a very large, commercial-looking welcome center complete with security
monitors, an elaborate phone system, loads of buttons and lights and gizmos - -
all very impressive and expensive looking.
Behind the panels that separated the lobby from the administrative area
sat an attractive middle-aged woman finely dressed and looking very
professional. I correctly guessed she
was the receptionist. She greeted us and
offered to help us navigate the facilities, apparently oblivious to the fact
that we had our own guide with us who was a member of the church. I suppose the rest of us looked so lost and
overwhelmed that she assumed we were all “foreigners”.
All of this seemed so commercial; so cold. It was not my idea of “church”. I had to remind myself that I was in Houston. This was Texas. Yes, I told myself, that explains a lot. Even this, however, could not prepare me for
what I saw next. The woman behind the barrier
was not alone. Coming out of a doorway
and walking behind her was a gentleman whom I mistook as a police officer. He was dressed in a neatly pressed dark blue
uniform with some kind of patch on his shoulder. There was an assortment of equipment attached
to his body including some kind of walkie-talkie-something-or-other and a
polished leather holster neatly tucked on his right hip. I caught myself staring in disbelief as I
realized that the handle protruding from that holster was attached to a
handgun. My jaw must have dropped so low
I nearly tripped over it as we turned and walked down the long corridor. Our two sons, then young teenagers, were as
excited as they were scared. My wife -
even more stunned than I - struggled to ask her sister if that man back there
had a gun on his belt. Dorothy calmly
assured her that yes, they had armed security guards in the Church building at
all times. This was not Lancaster
County, Dorothy explained. We were in
the city and churches were not immune to crime.
I found it difficult to engage in worship that morning. Somehow the thought of an armed security
officer watching the door offered no security to me at all. In fact, it made me insecure - - no, check
that, it made me angry. Yes I was angry
that Houston Texas was so alien to the rest of the country that it never could
get over the Wild West mentality, even in church.
But then again, we are talking about Texas. This is a State that always did march to its
own beat. First it rebelled against
Mexico and formed its own country. Then
it became part of the United States for a few years until it again rebelled
against authority and joined the Confederate States. Dorothy was right, this is not Lancaster
County. I might add, this was not a
Church of the Brethren congregation, either.
Within a few days I returned home and over the course of
time managed to shove that image back into the crevices of my mind. Most of the time. Every now and again, as I prepared a sermon
on nonviolence, I would be reminded of the Presbyterian Church in Houston. For the most part, however, it remained a
thing of the past. That is, until
recently.
On April 5, 2015 In Altoona PA’s Cathedral of the Blessed
Sacrament, a worshipper stood for the closing hymn at the end of the Easter
Vigil and as he did, a handgun in his pants accidentally fired. The man ended up grazing himself but
fortunately not harming anyone else. The
event does, however, raise the question why anyone would bring a firearm to
Church. Not surprisingly it did set off
a series of comments, debates, interviews and other sources of local discussion.
I learned of this event through a “friend” on Facebook. Like me, he is a Pastor in the Church of the
Brethren. Our denomination is an
historic Peace Church that has consistently taught the doctrine of nonviolence
and peacemaking as instructed in the New Testament. Unlike me, my Pastor Friend is an avid gun
rights advocate. He was interviewed by
the Altoona Mirror newspaper for his response to the Altoona incident. I was saddened to read his comments supporting
the right and even the need for firearms in church. His comments stirred many like-minded remarks
from various people. One person said, “I
will always be a sheep dog…NEVER a sheep!”
(Just for the record this is contradictory to the New Testament image of
the Church.) Apparently he sees himself
as the guardian of the congregation. Another
commenter wrote, “ISIS would gladly bust into any church with an AK47 killing
all they can…Do guns belong in church?
Absolutely!”
More recently I learned of another Church of the Brethren
congregation that had a major dispute over whether or not to pass a gun policy
with regards to the presence of guns on Church property. The dispute arose when it was learned that
one member of the Church regularly has a concealed hand gun on his person every
Sunday morning. The issue was so hot the
congregation eventually decided not to pass any policy at all - neither for nor
against guns in Church. I guess it was
the only way they could keep from tearing apart at the seams.
Of course, all of this is heightened by the events in the
Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. I am sure you know the story all too
well: a lone gunman enters the church
and joins in an evening Bible Study. At
the end of the evening he pulls out a firearm and proceeds to kill eight people,
including the Pastor, before leaving.
The drama is intensified because the Pastor who died was
also a State Senator who voted in favor of the law that made it illegal to have
guns in church. That measure did pass
and became law prior to the tragic shooting.
Charles Cotton, a Board member at the National Rifle
Association, placed the blame for these deaths on Pastor/Senator Clementa
Pickney, saying “eight of his church
members might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in
church.”
I am appalled that anyone could be so calloused and cruel to
make such a statement even before the victims were buried. Not only is it highly insensitive and thoughtless
but it also is completely irrelevant.
That doesn’t stop people from saying such things, however. Again, my Brethren Pastor friend near Altoona
suggested the same thing when he wrote: “…just
pointing out, it is NOT legal to carry a gun in a church in South Carolina. So,
once again the killer could confidently approach a soft target.” The implication here is that Pastor Pickney
got what he deserved because he successfully pushed for a law that made it
illegal to have handguns on Church property, thus he and his church members had
no defense against this deranged killer.
Others declare that the only way to overcome a bad guy with a gun is to
allow some good guys to have guns. I
will respond to that crazy logic in a moment.
First, let us examine the larger picture.
Since the Charleston shooting the question of guns-in-church
is becoming a hot topic. I predict it will
continue to intensify as time moves forward.
Gun rights advocates claim their Second Amendment rights, saying to
restrict their ability to bring a gun to Church is to create a hardship for
them. It places them at risk, they
say. And it gives free reign to the bad
guys. But do their arguments hold up
under examination? Let’s take a look.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The very people who clamor for the separation of church and
state can be quite selective in their application of it. Those who want religion to stay out of
politics must also agree to keep politics out of religion if they wish to be
consistent. That is, the “right to bear
arms” ends at the door to the Church because the government has no jurisdiction
within the ecclesiastical walls. Many
Conservatives had argued that religious institutions should not have to comply
with all the conditions of the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, they objected to being forced
to include coverage for such things as contraceptives, including the so-called
“morning after pill” which is viewed by some as another form of abortion. Because these issues are deeply affected by
closely-held religious beliefs the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, saying
such corporations need not be forced to include these benefits.
Let’s consider another issue: Same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court recently ruled that
same-sex marriages are legal and must be recognized in all 50 States. However, it also allowed that ordained ministers
cannot be forced to perform weddings for same-sex couples if the minister is
opposed to doing so on his or her religious convictions. Here again, a gay couple has the right to be
married but an ordained minister has the right to refuse to be a part of the
wedding or to allow the wedding to take place within the Church building.
In both of these scenarios the Church is granted the right
to claim religious freedom to opt out of obedience to a civil law. Conservatives love this, at times like the
above mentioned examples. I would
submit, therefore, that they must also concede that the Church has every right
to request that all guns be checked at the door, so to speak, and not be
brought onto their campuses. Schools
have this right. Airports have this
right. Courthouses and other government
facilities have the right to refuse firearms on their premises. I do not hear anyone complaining about not
being permitted to bring their semi-automatic rifle into a courtroom. Why, then, does it seem so odd for a Church
to do the same?
This is not unlike anti-smoking laws that prohibit the use
of tobacco in restaurants and other public places. Additionally, many property owners, such as
hospitals and schools to name a few, are granted the right to declare their
premises smoke-free. What is the
difference between a smoke-free property and a gun-free property? I would argue that there is no difference.
Having said all this I must confess that while I like the
South Carolina law prohibiting firearms in a Church building, I am forced to
concede that it has inherent complications as well. I would prefer if every congregation would
declare their property gun-free rather than remaining quiet on the issue and
letting it to the secular government to pass civil legislation governing
religious matters. That is not a healthy
precedent. As I said before the dagger
of Separation of Church and State must cut in both directions.
THE DETENTE ARGUMENT
So, back to the argument that claims the only way to stop a
bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Historically, this does not seem to hold true. Bad guys are by nature bad. They do not become good just because someone
else has a gun. In fact, one could argue
that the bad guys love it when the stakes are raised and someone challenges
them, dares them to just try it. From
where I sit it would appear that these people who want to kill other people do
not live in a realm of logic. They are
incapable of reasoning that they are not the only one in a room with a gun and therefore
should change their plans and peacefully walk away rather than risk getting
hurt or killed. If that were the case we
would not have cop killers; there would not be any home break-ins because the
homeowner might also own a gun. I could
be wrong but I do not think a murderer’s mind works that way.
The Détente argument would bring about world peace, if it
worked. Virtually every nation has more
weapons than they know what to do with. If
détente worked effectively this should translate into international peace. Yet from the dawn of civilization there have
been wars and rumors of war. The United
States has been in a constant state of war for the past 65 years, directly or
indirectly. Korea; Cuba; Lebanon; Viet
Nam; Granada; Panama; Dominican Republic; El Salvador; Bosnia; Serbia; Libya;
Pakistan; Iraq; Afghanistan. This is the
short list of U.S. armed conflicts since 1950, according to Encyclopedia
Britannica and Ask.com. The mighty
weapons of the American military did not deter these violent scenes any more
than they were able to cause the terrorists in Oklahoma, New York, or Boston to
change their destructive plans.
Détente is no deterrent.
THE JESUS FACTOR
For the Christian, the strongest argument against the use of
guns is found in the teachings and example
of Jesus Christ. If in fact Jesus
is our Lord, our Master, the One to whom we have pledge our love and devotion
to, it follows that we ought to strive to be like him in every way. Can you honestly see Jesus pulling a gun on
somebody? Seriously. Not the Jesus I know and serve! It is far beyond my comprehension. The New Testament is exceptionally clear that
Jesus was a man of peace, not violence.
To be sure he could be stern, but even in his sternest moments Jesus
never once made any effort to harm another human being.
The closest event that some have tried to use as an example
of a demonstration of violence by Jesus was the cleaning of the Temple. This event was recorded by all four of the
Gospel authors. (See Matthew 21:12-15;
Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:13-17.)
But even in these passages it is very clear that Jesus drove the
livestock and the moneychangers out of the Temple without harming anyone. The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark &
Luke) simply reports that he “drove out” all who were buying and selling
animals, along with the animals themselves.
He also overturned the tables of the men who were exchanging money,
though Mark does not mention this.
Some argue that Jesus used a whip to clear the men from the
Temple. However, it should be noted that
the whip was only mentioned in John’s Gospel and was only used to drive the
sheep and the cattle from the sacred grounds (John 2:15).
It is also important to ask why Jesus did this. It was the time of the Jewish Passover, one
of three pilgrimage holy days when every male Jew was expected to worship at
the Temple in Jerusalem no matter where they lived. Because the Jews were so scattered it was not
practical for many to bring their own animal to offer as a sacrifice. Therefore, ever quick to seize an opportunity
to make money, numerous merchants set up a temporary market where they sold the
sheep, cattle, and doves required by the Law.
Sadly, this market was established within the walls of the Temple. It does not require much imagination to
understand that hundreds of animals confined to tight quarters will create a
natural mess! This was not an atmosphere
conducive for worship. Furthermore, the
merchants routinely sold their goods at inflated prices because they knew they
had a captive audience. The travelers
had to purchase a sacrifice, thus the sellers could charge anything they
wanted. In many cases they had to
exchange foreign currency for the local variety which led to greater
abuse. It is this kind of reckless,
dishonest and unclean environment that Jesus was reacting against. Yet even under these circumstances Jesus
refused to use violence.
The ultimate example of Jesus is demonstrated at the
Cross. Our Savior rebuked all efforts at
retaliation for the injustices done to him.
In fact, he did not even resist his attackers. Instead, he prayed for them and expressed
forgiveness to them even as he was dying.
This is the way of Christ. This
is therefore the way of the Christian, too.
Jesus could not stand the thought of turning God’s house
into a market or a stock yard. It was
intended to be holy, separate, pure, honest, sincere, a symbol of the beauty
and perfection of God the Father. The
world in which we live is broken and violent.
We know that all too well. Our
houses of worship, however, are to be the antithesis of that. It is where we go to be made whole and to
find peace.
David was a mighty King and a devout worshiper of God. In his zeal for the Lord he desired to build
a Temple, a permanent building to replace the Tabernacle as the centralized
place of worship for Israel. But God
refused to grant David the honor of building the Temple. Why?
Because David was a warrior and had shed much blood (1 Chronicles 22:8).
For me the worship of God is a holy and sacred event. It demands all that I am, all that I
have. I want as little distraction as
possible so I may give my total concentration and loyalty to Jesus. To have a gun on my person and to give my
fullest concentration and attention to God would make me an irresponsible gun
owner, because possessing a lethal weapon demands being alert to it. Furthermore, in my opinion carrying a gun
denies my total dependence upon God. I
am now placing my trust, my security on a manmade object, a piece of metal
designed specifically to take human life.
For me, this becomes an idol taking the place of God.
Do guns belong in our churches? Absolutely not! Such a practice is an abomination to our God,
for it denies the power of the saving, sacrificial death of Jesus the Son of
God. In him we live and yes, in him we
die. But let the blood not be on our
hands, lest we be defiled.
George Douglas Gehr
PeaceAbility
October 26, 2017