In Which My Old Man Calls Me Out...

I got an email from my dad this morning:

Tim-
So, the Colorado church shootings deal: Was one of the big questions for you- Why was there an armed guard at the church...what does the church need an armed guard that considers killing as OK- and where are you in this non-violent discussion?
DAD

Some of you may recall the non-violence discussion my dad was referencing from a blog I posted last month. It's a good question, and I definitely appreciate that my dad is trying to keep me honest to the real world as I work through the issue of the Christian's duty to be nonviolent in a violent world. So, a few thoughts on this issue.

First, it should be said that this was a terrible situation for all involved. We lament the passing of all the deceased, including the antagonist in this situation.

Second, I would love to hear some more background (as my dad alluded to in his email)--what led to the decision to have a guard on the church's campus? What led to having an ARMED guard on the church's campus? Etc., etc., etc. I want to hear a full explanation of the church's rationale for feeling that they needed that kind of protection. Then, I would be interested to find out if these issues arose as a product of managing a church as large as New Life. After all, I've never heard of a church of 200 - 500 people having an armed guard. My suspicion is that the factors leading to the church having an armed guard were not directly related to the gospel of Christ or the Kingdom of God but had a lot to do with managing the realities of a church of 10,000 people. It's just a hunch.

Third, in terms of a discussion about nonviolence as a Christian norm, we must not allow this issue to be framed as a 'lesser of two evils' quandary. Our only options here should not have been 1) Shoot the gunman so that he doesn't kill any more church members; or 2) Refrain from a violent response and allow the gunman to kill more church members. Such binary reductionist thinking does not take into consideration any of the questions listed above. Such thinking is also fatalistic in the extreme because it does not consider what could have been done to prevent such a situation in the first place. It's a bit like three men getting lost in the wilderness because they didn't bring a map for their journey, burning all of their food to stay warm and then having the audacity to assume that their only options are 1) to starve; or 2) to draw straws to see which of them will be killed and eaten. The decisions made further upstream must occupy the thrust of our attention with regard to the ethics of the situation.

So, with all of these things in mind, I think it's wise to turn to scripture. Two passages came to mind immediately. First, Luke 19: 41 - 44:

41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

I could spend ten pages on the exegesis of these verses, but I think only a few things bear specific mention. First, Jesus is clearly referring to the impending destruction of both the temple and Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. He wept because he knew that the Zealots would incite violence against the Romans, trusting that God would protect them and His holy city. However, their confidence was sorely misplaced, as both Jesus' prophecy and history clearly show. Second, Jesus weeps not because of the judgment about to fall on Jerusalem, but because she had ample opportunity to embrace 'the things that make for peace' but instead chose her own way and trusted God to bless that way instead of the way that truly brought His kingdom on earth.

The application is obvious--there were very likely things that could have led to peace in the situation at New Life Church, but they instead chose the false either/or of 1) helplessness against an armed assailant or 2) violence as a constant, ever-ready option to be used. I think Jesus wept over the meeting in which New Life church leadership discussed this absurd duo of violence-laden choices.

The second passage that came to mind was Matthew 26: 47 - 52:

47While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him." 49Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him.

50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." [italics mine]

Again, much to be said. First, we must not deny the particularity of this passage. Obviously Jesus was speaking a specific message to a specific person and was not giving some sort of timeless truth in verse 52. Also, although all four gospels record this account, only Matthew preserved the saying in this verse. That being said, I think Jesus was speaking (in some regard) about the cyclical nature of violence. As both past history and current events illustrate, violence tends to beget violence...which, in turn, begets further violence. This is why 'just war' theory (or a 'just violence' theory) never quite rings true for me--it is not on a trajectory toward the good future God has in mind in which (Isaiah 2: 4),

He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Even if the disturbed young man from Colorado took aim at New Life members because he loathed their genuine love and faithful adherence to the gospel (which I doubt), I still don't think the armed guard's violent response was the right answer. For, then the church's duty should have been to, with the New Testament apostles, consider suffering for the name of Christ to be an honor and a delight.

Of course, I'm not under the illusion that such a course of action is easy. Nor do I recall our Lord claiming it would be. Quite the opposite, in fact. Yet, the difficult, imaginative, humbling, frustrating and wrath-absorbing way of non-violence is the way of Jesus to which each of us has been called. The path that leads to violence is wide and easy. May we all seek the more narrow way.