Tuesday, October 27, 2015

God, Guns, and Worship



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

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Spiritual Pride and Prejudice

After intense and difficult negotiations the United States and her allies have reached an agreement with Iran aimed at eliminating all possibilities for Iran to build a nuclear weapon anytime soon.  This Iranian Nuclear Agreement is being heralded as a landmark achievement by some while being blasted as reckless and naïve by others. 



This issue is of vital concern to the world community and demands to be addressed.  The goal of restricting Iran’s nuclear capabilities is universally shared in the Western World.  The means to achieve this, however, is hotly debated.  I intended to address this issue today, but I would like to do a little Bible study first on what I feel is at the heart of the contention involved in ratifying the Iranian Nuclear Agreement.  Specifically, I want to consider the problem of Spiritual Pride & Prejudice.



There is an ever-increasing problem these days with a lack of respect for authority.  It can be found in nearly every aspect of life.

  • In our homes, there is a mutual disrespect between children & parents;
  • In our schools there is constant tension;
  • On the street we see violent confrontations between police and civilians;
  • The Church no longer holds the respect of society - or even of its own members, in many cases;
  • And then there is Politics!

I am sure the political world has always been contentious.  But just in the last 25 years or so it seems like it has been taken to extremes.  For that matter, just in the last 6 months things have become pretty wild, with one Presidential candidate calling several of his challengers “losers”.   In sports they call it “trash talking”;  in politics its known as “mud-slinging”.  But at the heart of it all is an over-inflated ego that leads one to be convinced he is just too good, too important, and too correct to share the same space with others.



While this kind of thinking has permeated our society, I have to say that it really is nothing new!  Since the beginning of time man has thought far more of himself than reality would indicate.  We could go all the way back to the Garden of Eden where Adam & Eve allowed their egos to convince them they could “be like God”, and thus they brought sin into the world.  It was evident in their son Cain, who elevated pride to the level of homicide.  And its been all downhill since then!



This spiritual Pride & Prejudice takes on an international dimension in 2 Kings 5, where we read the story of Elisha, the Hebrew Prophet, & Naaman, the Commander of the Aramean Army.



The Hebrew nation of Israel and their next door neighbor to the North & East, the Kingdom of Aram, were bitter enemies.  Not much new here, is there?  The Capitol of Aram was Damascus.  So you see, Ancient Aram is the same as modern day Syria.  The descendants of the Arameans and the descendants of the Hebrews STILL do not like each other and remain, to this day, bitter enemies.



That is important to remember as we get into this story. 



2 Kings 5:1 (NIV)
1  Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy.



So right from the get-go we learn that this highly respected man, this important & successful military leader, a man of great power & influence, had a major personal problem:  leprosy!



We don’t hear much about leprosy these days.  That’s because it was so serious that the medical profession dedicated itself to understanding and controlling it.  But in the days of the OT, some 2,500 years ago, it was a different story.  Leprosy was one of the most feared and fatal diseases known to man.  Typically a person with leprosy would be quarantined and isolated from society.  Other people could not get too close to them because the disease was highly contagious.



And like so many fatal diseases, leprosy was no respecter of persons.  It attacked anyone and everyone in its path - -

  • Male/female
  • Young/old
  • Rich/poor
  • Hebrew/Gentile

It did not matter.



So here was Naaman, this great General, stricken with leprosy.  In all the vastness of the Kingdom of Aram there was no cure for this man.



Then one day a servant girl - of all people - a slave captured in warfare, a nobody if ever there was one in Aramean society - - this poor & powerless young woman tells Naaman that there is a prophet in Israel who can heal him.



In ISRAEL!



That hated place.  Why does it have to be Israel?



Well, all I can say is that God has strange ways of revealing himself to the Proud & the Arrogant.



At first Naaman hesitates, but out of desperation, he decides to go.  He approaches his King in Damascus and asks for permission.  The King, wanting his General to be healthy, says “Sure!  Go!  And I will send a letter of recommendation along with you, plus take all this gold & silver & expensive clothing to pay for the treatment.”  And so Naaman the Leper travels to Samaria, the Capital of Israel, in search of a cure.

            Let’s pick up the story in verse 7….



2 Kings 5:7 (NIV)
7  As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, "Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!"



Here we can immediately see how tense relations were between Aram & Israel.  The King of Israel, Joram, was certain this was a trick.  He was convinced the Arameans were setting him up to fail so they could have an excuse to attack him.



            Let’s continue:

2 Kings 5:8-12 (NIV)
8  When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: "Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel."
9  So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha's house.
10  Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, "Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed."
11  But Naaman went away angry and said, "I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy.
12  Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than any of the waters of Israel? Couldn't I wash in them and be cleansed?" So he turned and went off in a rage.



Wow.



The very thing we talked about just a moment ago is again evident here in Naaman’s heart.  It is a simple matter of his stubborn Pride & Prejudice that prevents him from receiving God’s miraculous healing.



1.  Naaman is first of all DISAPPOINTED that Elisha the Prophet did not come out to meet him personally. 

He wanted attention.

He wanted fanfare!

He was NAAMAN the Great Military hero! 

He did NOT want to be received by a servant.  That was insulting!



Proverbs 16:18 (NIV)
18  Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.



Naaman was guilty of pride and was thus about to lose his blessing.



2.  He expected to get something for nothing.

Oh, he would pay his money, to be sure.  But he had no intention of DOING anything to earn his healing.  Instead, he expected Elisha to do all the work while he - Naaman - held his hand out, so to speak, and simply received the miracle.



But Elisha had other plans.  Perhaps he knew that Naaman needed a lesson in humility.  Or maybe Elisha was too much of a patriot and wanted to prove a point.  We are not told WHY, but we ARE told that Elisha instructs this Aramean to wash himself in the Jordan River - - in Israel’s river!  & not just once, but 7 times!



3.  Now, Notice the Prejudice!

Naaman says “No way, Jose!  I’m not washing in no muddy little Israelite stream!  Forget this!  This guy is just trying to embarrass me!”



“So he turned and went off in a rage,”  verse 12 says.



Pride.

Prejudice.

Distrust

& the lack of spiritual faith.



The walls of our sins are many & formidable.



Because of these very things Naaman nearly missed his opportunity to be healed.  He would have rather gone home a leper than submit to God’s terms and receive the miracle of healing.

Oh how often we spit in God’s eye and defiantly go our own way all because we do NOT want to be told what to do!



You don’t like the 10 Commandments?  Don’t worry about it.  They are not really “commandments”, they are just suggestions & they are all relative.  They only apply when we want them to apply!



That’s the prevailing attitude these days.



2,500 years of human history and we haven’t learned a thing.  We STILL refuse to wash ourselves in the Jordan River, if that’s what God requires of us, because it is degrading; insulting; humiliating.  The Cocalico Creek in my home town of Ephrata is just as wet & probably cleaner.  We will go there instead!  And so we, like Naaman, fail to receive God’s Blessing.



Fortunately, it does not end there.   Listen:



2 Kings 5:13-15 (NIV)
13  Naaman's servants went to him and said, "My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, 'Wash and be cleansed'!"
14  So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.
15  Then Naaman and all his attendants went back to the man of God. He stood before him and said, "Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel. Please accept now a gift from your servant."



Let it to the little guys in the world to get through to those puffed up with pride.  Again it is a servant who gets through to tough guy Naaman and convinces him to follow the instructions he was given, that is, follow the Word of God.  He does, and he is healed.  The leprosy is miraculously removed.  And Naaman, the Aramean soldier, becomes a believer.



As Dwight L. Moody once about Naaman:

"He lost his temper; then he lost his pride; then he lost his leprosy; that is generally the order in which proud rebellious sinners are converted."
Bible Exposition Commentary (BE Series) - Old Testament



And so it is with us.



Let’s return to the issue of the Iranian Nuclear Agreement.  Many people in this country are acting like King Joram of Israel who was certain Naaman was deceiving him.  They are convinced the Iranians cannot be trusted.  They are terrorists.  They are plotting world domination.  They are evil.



I agree the Iranian government cannot be trusted.  That is why there are extreme measures of inspections built into the Agreement.  But I have to pause for a moment and consider this.  As troublesome as the Tehran government is let us stop and think about who the aggressor is in this picture.  Was it not the United States that invaded Iraq twice in the past 14 years, finally overthrowing their government?  And it was the United States that invaded Afghanistan, not Iran.  In fact, we have a long and shameful history of unprovoked invasions throughout the world:  Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo.  There is enough cause for distrust to be shared by both sides here.



Naaman had to overcome his pride and his prejudice to go into Israel and accept the terms offered to him by Elisha.  Both Joram and Elisha had to overcome their pride and prejudice to accept Naaman at his word.  It could not have been easy for either of them.  But they did it.  Naaman acted out of desperation;  Elisha acted on faith.  The result was success.  Naaman was healed and he became a believer in God.



Like Naaman, Iran is desperate.  Years of sanctions have shredded the Iranian economy and forced them to the bargaining table.  They don’t want to give up their nuclear program but the must reestablish the economy and feed their people.  The sanctions did exactly what they were intended to do: they forced the Iranians to make concessions in order to survive.  They could not go on endlessly the way they were.



The United States, like Elisha, has to look at the larger picture here.  If the nuclear Agreement would not have been reached things would remain the same.  For Elisha that meant Naaman would return to Damascus angry, disappointed, and perhaps vengeful.  That is to say he likely would have attacked his neighbor to the South (Israel).  That could have very dire consequences for Israel.



For the United States the larger picture means realizing if things remain the same Iran continues to strive towards acquiring nuclear weapons without any oversight or restrictions from the rest of the world.  This would greatly increase the threat of war with Israel, the United States, or both.  That is not a good deal for us.



I am sure many in Israel criticized Elisha for alleviating the suffering of this alien terrorist.  It violates all principles.  He represents all that is evil in the world.  We (Israel) represent all that is holy and good.  And holy cannot associate with evil. 



Such a small and narrow view leaves no room for God’s Grace.  Fortunately, Elisha recognized this and was willing to negotiate, as it were.  Though he did not meet personally with the Aramean, he nonetheless gave him the relief he needed in exchange for a pledge of peace.  Sound familiar?



Today we have a choice.  We can continue in our stubborn prejudice and tell ourselves Iran cannot be trusted.  They will get relief from the sanctions and still manage to somehow deceive the international community by continuing to advance their quest for a nuclear weapon.  And even if they do obey the terms of this deal in ten years they can begin to build their bombs anyway.  Therefore we cannot ratify this Agreement.



On the other hand, if we do ratify this Agreement we just might have ten years of some resemblance of peace, at least with Iran.  Do we know that for sure?  No.  But again, the alternative will most likely lead to war in much less time.  From where I sit it makes perfect sense to ratify the Iranian Nuclear Agreement.  If the terms are followed the world comes out the winner.  And let us never rule out the possibility of God’s Grace breaking through all the human rhetoric and hatred and distrust to heal the wickedness of our collective ways and bring healing that goes beyond skin deep to touch the very heart of man.





G. D. Gehr

August 11, 2015

Saturday, March 21, 2015

An Open Letter To Senator Toomey re: Letter to Iran

Note:  I recently sent Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) the following open letter in response to his signing of Sen. Cotton's "Open Letter To Iran".  Toomey was on of 46 Republican Senators who endorsed Cotton's letter by signing it.  He is also one of my Senators representing me in Washington.


"Dear Senator Pat Toomey,


I would respectfully request an explanation from you detailing why you cosigned Senator Cotton's Open Letter To Iran.
This action was foolish and dangerous from the beginning.  I wish to point out a few of the ways in which this reckless act serves to put our country at risk.


1.  It send the message that the United States cannot be trusted.  The letter specifically announces that every treaty we sign is now revocable at the whim of future leadership.


2.  It plays right into the hands of the Iranian extremists who, like you and your fellow Republican Senators, want to see nuclear nonproliferation talks fail.  How does it feel, Senator Toomey, to be on the side of the enemies of the United States?


3.  By Mr. Cotton's own confession the letter was intended to embarrass our Commander In Chief in the eyes of the international community.  Please explain why this is not an act of treason.


4.  While the Senate has the Constitutional authority to debate, approve or disapprove of any treaties signed by our President it does NOT have the right to negotiate such treaties nor interfere with any negotiations.


5.  Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon.  Negotiations are underway toward this end.  Why, oh why, would you now want to destroy those negotiations and in turn allow Iran to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon?  This defies all logic.  The letter you signed can only increase the likelihood of Iran's obtaining a nuclear weapon.  It certainly does nothing to restrict it.


I suppose Senator Cotton could be excused for his immature and thoughtless actions because of his complete lack of experience in politics and especially in the United States Senate.  You, however, have at least some experience in office.  I expected better things of you, to be honest.  You are a good man, Senator, and I respect you highly.  But in this we strongly disagree.  The Open Letter To Iran was a tragic mistake and I would hope that you are man enough to admit this and take steps to revoke your support of it.


Thank You, and God Bless you."

George Douglas Gehr
March 21, 2015