As you may have seen, I received an e-mail last week that bothered me a bit about gun control. I shared my response here on my blog.
I’ve received a couple good responses to the blog post via Facebook and on another blog.
From Facebook:
Thanks for posting that Jonathan! Whole article in Evernote for future reference!
Jonathan – We may not agree completely on this issue as I do believe in the right to own a gun (although I do believe in many of the gun control laws) but I do believe in embracing non-violence, honesty, simplicity, community, humility etc. and I thought your response was excellent. Thank you so much for sharing this and for your spirit of love and kindness.
Michael shared some of his own thoughts on his blog and we’ve started a discussion there as well.
I also received this response via e-mail:
I think you’ve missed the point of the email entirely. Praise God that there are people who are willing to defend your choice to live as a pacifist and have died so you could do so in peace.
I thought I’d share my response to the e-mail for those interested ::
You may be right, I might have missed the point of the email entirely. The things I shared in my e-mail were in fact my response – based on my understanding of the original e-mail. Perhaps my response did not clearly demonstrate my own understanding of the e-mail, or perhaps I was incorrect in understanding the message and intent of the forwarded e-mail.
I quickly gathered that the e-mail you sent was from another author, so its entirely possible that without knowing the author I may have misunderstood his point and purpose in writing and like many things we may have both come to different conclusions about the e-mail.
I’ll try and explain a few things I understood from the e-mail and would be glad to know where I may have misunderstood the email and/or your intent in sending it to me.
Initially, I did to try and figure out what your intent was in sending the e-mail to me. I figured that either a) You thought I’d agree with the e-mail and send it on to many in my own contact list; b) You thought I disagreed with you and you wanted to try to sway my opinion differently; or c) You wanted to share your thoughts and open the conversation to get my feedback.
I took a chance and assumed that C was correct (although A or B seemed quite likely as well). After all, I too love sharing my opinions. I try to share my opinions online — in public forums like Twitter, Facebook, my blog or my podcast — where people can choose to read (or listen) and respond with their own opinions as well.
I’ve personally chosen to take this route as opposed to sending my opinions to people via unsolicited e-mail, unless I’m specifically requesting their input on a matter. Of course, if they offer up their opinion or open up a discussion (as I assumed you were doing via the e-mail), I’ll gladly share my thoughts on the situation or issue.
As I read the e-mail I was first struck by a number of things. I’ll try and recall each of them as best as I can.
Of course the first graphic grabbed my attention (as I’m sure it was meant to). It seems to suggest that President Obama received special treatment on his inauguration day — treatment that the average American citizen does not receive. I’d say that’s pretty correct. And probably not too different than any other presidential inauguration — especially in a time of war.
But then the statement, “no one is assigned to protect my family” struck me as a bit incorrect.
Here in Red Oak, we have a fine police department, a Sheriff’s department and a local constable’s department who are assigned to protect the citizens of Ellis County — including Laurie and I. And of course as a Texan I should probably add the Texas State Troopers and the Texas National Guard to that list.
I’m also protected by the largest military in the world. A military so large that when we rank all the nations in order by their defense budgets, the US defense budget is greater than the next 25 countries on the list — combined! A military that will not hesitate to air-drop expert snipers onto a US Navy vessel, in the middle of the ocean, to kill Somalian Pirates because one US Citizen has been kidnapped. A military full of men and women who will risk their own lives to uphold policies enacted by a president that they may not even personally agree with.
I believe we have an amazing military and I’m greatly appreciative of the sacrifice they make day in and day out for people like me. That includes my own family members who have served our country bravely and without hesitation.
Scripture reminds me that “Greater love has no man than this – that he lay down his life for his brother.” So for those who choose to do so — for me and my way of living — I’m thankful.
Add to that the fact that I have chosen to put my faith in the One who created me and who holds the sun, moon and stars in the sky — and I sleep quite soundly at night without any fear.
Now granted, I realize I’m not getting the 24/7 personal watch and care of the Secret Service like President Obama (and numerous other presidents who came before him) but in my mind, that doesn’t justify the need for me to own a gun. Yet I accept that for others it may.
The next part of the e-mail listed a number of reasons as to why the author decided to own a gun. It seemed to me that the author was trying to suggest that by owning a gun you’re doing what’s best for your family and you’re a “real man” or a “cowboy” for doing so. I may be incorrect in that assumption, but that also leads me to believe that the author would also suggest that men who don’t own a gun aren’t real men and aren’t doing what’s best for their family. It also seems that the author is suggesting it’s far more dignified to die an old man in bed, (even if you’ve had to take another man’s life at some point — for whatever reason), than to risk dying because you were shot, unarmed, on a sidewalk.
I was reminded recently that ALL creation has been created to glorify God. If I choose to believe that, that means that the mountaintops, the valleys, the rivers, the thunder and lightening all glorify God. If I choose to believe that, it also means that my mom and dad, my sisters, Laurie, my pastor, my neighbor, Billy Graham, President Bush, President Obama and Osama bin Laden, were all created to glorify God. I think it also means that even tragedy can glorify God. Even Amy’s death can glorify God. Even the shootings at Columbine High School can glorify God. Even the death of Steven Curtis Chapman’s daughter, who was run over accidentally by her older brother, can glorify God. Even my death, if I were to be gunned down, unarmed, in my house can glorify God.
And if all of creation has been created to glorify God – would any follower of Jesus of Nazareth want to live with the guilt of knowing they kept God from getting all his due glory because they chose violence or revenge and took another human being’s life?
Perhaps that may seem as an extreme way of looking at things and I don’t expect everyone to feel the same way as I do — but for me it’s a risk I don’t want to take.
The list of “Why I own a gun” also reminds me of “I’m gotta get mine before they do.” Or, I’m gonna protect my life, my loved ones, my stuff no matter what the cost – and having a gun helps me do that.
I can understand that point of view. There are many times I find myself thinking that way. It’s human nature. But as my response suggested, perhaps as followers of The Way, there’s another option, a better way. “My flesh tends to lie – so I must embrace the cross and honesty.” “My flesh wants revenge – so I must embrace forgiveness and trust.” “I’m a pacifist because I’m a violent son of a bitch.”
I don’t think those are easy things to embrace and I don’t know of anyone who’s figured out how to do that entirely — but just because only one man has done it before, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aim to do likewise.
Following the list of “Why I own a gun” there were a number of facts given about gun control in other countries. I’m not denying the facts and I can understand how they would lead someone to seeing the need for owning a gun. However, I choose to believe that there were and are other options available as well.
I think of people like the Bulgarian priest who chose to stand up to the Nazis not with a gun, but simply as a respected man of God.
I think of Oskar Schindler who saved the lives of over 1200 Jews, not with a gun, but with transforming, creative solutions.
I think of the Amish community who chose to love and forgive the family of the man who killed five of their daughters in their school room. Rather than pointing fingers and casting the shooter’s family out, they went to them immediately and cared for them in the midst of the tragedy.
On the day of the shooting, a grandfather of one of the murdered Amish girls was heard warning some young relatives not to hate the killer, saying, “We must not think evil of this man.” Another Amish father noted, “He had a mother and a wife and a soul and now he’s standing before a just God.”
They had set forgiveness in their hearts long before the shooting occured and forgave as they believed Christ and the cross compelled them to forgive.
I think of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. when men and women decided to protest peacefully even though their own lives were threatened, even though many were attacked by dogs, police, mobs and the like. Even after they witnessed their own family members attacked, beaten and killed, they chose non-violence.
“The black freedom struggle is the best example of bringing together the quest for unarmed truth and unconditional love in the face of American Terrorism for 400 years. Instead of a Black al-Qaeda you get Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther.” – Cornel West
I also think of Lt. Colonel Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg who decided to take matters into his own hands and tried to assasinate Hitler himself. The foiled assasination attempt only strengthened Hitler’s resolve and likely stretched the war on much further than it might have gone otherwise (http://www.casadeblundell.com/jonathan/politics/saviors-for-hire/).
There were several other things that bothered me about the e-mail but I can see that this response is turning out to be long enough.
All this to say, that I believe the intent of the forwarded e-mail was to say that guns are a right and a necessity in this day and age and men everywhere should be allowed to own them in order to protect their own lives, the lives of their families and their property. I could probably assume even more about what the e-mail’s message – but I’ll stick with that basic idea.
My response was and is about offering up transforming, creative alternatives to the meta-narrative offered in the e-mail and elsewhere.
As I’ve said previously, I believe that as a follower of The Way, I’m called to live out my life differently than those around me. I’m called to embrace purity, love, forgiveness, grace and community.
I also believe that as a follower of Christ, I’m called to be an encouragement to others who claim to be followers of Christ. I often find that sharing stories of others who are offering alternatives to the world’s way of doing things is most helpful.
It’s hard to argue with someone’s personal story.
And so a large part of my response was to do just that – tell the story of people who chose not to live by the world’s meta-narrative but what they feel God called them to do.
Again, my response was not meant as disrespect to anyone who chooses to own a gun. It was not meant as a disrespect to anyone who chooses to serve in the military. I would say it’s safe to assume that every man on my dad’s side of the family either owns a gun now, or has owned one or more in the past. While I myself have not and do not – it doesn’t change my opinion of them one bit.
Finally, I welcome your thoughts and comments, especially if I have misunderstood anything that was put forth in the forwarded e-mail. It’s likely that we simply disagree on this issue and I’m OK with that. I still welcome the conversation.
