Guns and Religion

This past week, Georgia passed a gun law that is the most universal: guns are allowed in almost any setting... provided the setting accepts people to carry guns.  That's right: schools, bars, and churches just to name a few of the more controversial places.  So I thought we might take a little trip down the history of the church:

In the Old Testament, it seemed that weapons were not only welcomed in the Temple, but arguably a part of the service.  Sure, these weapons weren't guns, and they were holy instruments that would be used to slaughter the sacrificial animal on the altar (and not people) but I'm sure some could point out that a weapon is a weapon no matter where it has been used.

However, there were also places of sanctuary in the Old Testament (safe places to go to for those who were considered criminals before due process).  These places didn't allow for those who were victims of a crime to seek out their own vengeance if the supposed criminal was within the walls of the city.  While the Bible clearly states "an eye for an eye" justice (or in an extreme case: a life for a life), I would argue that these towns of refuge (from Joshua 20) were the start of sanctuary in the Christian church, although I must admit, I haven't done much research on the matter.

In the Christian church history, it wasn't long before those who were being persecuted fled to the church for safety (this was once the church became an acceptable religion).  The church was considered holy ground in which bloodshed would not be tolerated.  However, in more recent history, we have stories every few months of people walled in the church begging for mercy and people on the outside setting fire to the church walls or brazenly walking in with weapons of any type, killing people on church property.  It was only a few years ago a Lutheran Church in Pennsylvania laid witness to a congregation member killing the secretary of the church with a gun.

Should a similar legislation pass in New York state, our Council would immediately be called to decide our stance upon the matter.  In all honesty, I don't see this happening any time in the near future.  But it doesn't hurt to get a conversation started: would you allow for guns to be permitted on church property and if so, would there be any conditions you would put on the user of the gun(s)?  Or if you are on the other side of the fence, on what basis do you defend your claim for no guns on church property?  Would you consider other weapons permissible on church property and if so, which ones?

A New Day

Welcome to the Easter season!  What a busy week the church had last week, with vigils, long devotional walks, sacred rituals, a plethora of worship services, and finally, the arrival to Easter Sunday.  While Lent is over, along with the fasting, it's a shame that in this new day, the church doesn't have a similar practice for the 50 days of Easter leading to Pentecost.  It's almost like you're preparing yourself for Holy Week, but shouldn't there be a promise to better yourself in the new day?  Even if its simple (like repeating "Jesus died for me", "God loves me so much", or making sure you pray each day), what would you do in this new day while Christ visits and remains with you?

The Paradox of Palm Sunday

Palm Sunday is often seen as joyous over against the 40 days of Lent and the rest of Holy Week.  It includes upbeat hymns, a church-wide procession, and palm-branch waving.  Fun times!

But Palm Sunday is also juxtaposed (or in paradox to) the overall sediment of where all our journeys are leading: to the cross.  The worship service itself takes on a very real feel once the Gospel (which includes the whole narrative from Maundy Thursday to the cross) is read.  And Holy Communion becomes something other than the lively knowledge that our sins are forgiven.

We venture to the cross.  Let us not forget the very reality of our faith.

A Word About Conversation and Cyber-Bullies

Given the activity of a recent open blog I wrote, I wanted to assure the congregation that I am absolutely ok with the comments given.  There's a difference between conversation and cyber-bullying; the former I love, the latter I ignore.  A conversation allows for disagreement and ongoing dialogue.  While there might be some hard feelings in conversation, the intent is not in harm but rather in getting a point across.

Cyber-bullying is something different.  Cyber-bullying often is quickly dismissive, trying to end dialogue before it can even begin.  Often, it doesn't allow someone to voice an opinion that is different than the one doing the cyber-bullying.  Cyber-bullies usually use pseudonyms, and can have several accounts, acting like different people when it really is one person under several screen names.  Cyber-bullies often threaten with suing, defamation of character, and unlawful censorship to intimidate the other side into silence and inactivity.  Also, cyber-bullies have a great way of distorting the conversation; for example, if someone commented, "Pastor Kevin has done a lot of research on this topic and I really appreciate and agree with what he says", a cyber-bully might ask, "And I haven't done my homework too?" taking the complement comment that really has nothing to do with the cyber-bully and making it an insult.  Lastly, cyber-bullies love sarcasm, a style of writing that is not easy to pick up on through the internet, especially in one sentence comments.

Personally, I don't trust cyber-bullies, not only because I really don't care what they have to say, but also because they are fake personae.  The real person/people behind the screen name(s) can be radically different people than the personae, and according to some experts, these people often are insecure in real life so they lash out on the internet--the only place they feel they can.  They look to promote anger, and quite frankly, life is too short to allow them to anger me.

When responding to a post, I always ask: does this contribute to the conversation?  If so, I will probably respond.  However, I also ask a second question: does this end the conversation?  If so, it's probably not a good idea to post, as more than most, this may call into question someone's character.  I also usually don't try to respond more than once to any specific person unless I feel the conversation is developing; if it's a cyber-bully, I make sure I respond only once, if even at all.  If someone is cyber-bullying, if you invite them to see you face-to-face (not something I recommend using unless you have a buddy you can be with during the meeting and even then, you should alert authorities of the meeting and your feelings about the person), they often will not take you on the offer, for whatever you put in writing they can use against you but anything verbal is not as highly prized (as spoken words often reflect perception over literalness).  They also won't want to meet because of their own insecurities, if the experts are correct.

Overall, please know, I do understand the full scope every time I post and I don't let it get to me, and you shouldn't let it get to you either.  Let people post what they want to post.  Learn from Jesus to turn the other cheek and show the love that you would like back... even if you know it won't come across/back that way.  If you worry about how your post might be interpreted, don't feel like you need to post, at least to my blogs.  My sites are more secure than Patchogue Patch and I can delete comments that are irrelevant to the conversation.  Interestingly enough, I feel the blog I posted on Patchogue Patch was highly successful as this post got the attention of the company who owns the site and I couldn't have hoped for better.

God's blessing to you all.

Part 2: Miracle is Not Supernatural

If miracles aren't about morality (people going against common human qualities like hoarding and self-preservation) because God isn't directly the source of the miracle (it's about the human need in that case), then it isn't about a supernatural force coming either every so often..  Granted, this is the most common assumption about miracles today: a stage four terminal cancer patient hears the news that the cancer isn't just in remission, it's completely gone; a tornado touches down in a suburban town and decimates the town except for this one particular house; a teenager runs away from home only to return 14 years later willing to rebuild a shattered relationship.  These are wonderful moments in time, but are they miracles?

The easiest answer: it all depends.  God isn't behind acts of violence, like when evangelicals said that God sent a hurricane to New Orleans to disinfect the town of its sin or an earthquake to Haiti because they made a pact with the devil.  As the Bible states, God is not a God of the dead but rather of the living.  The miracle itself, God's direct intervention, is about life.  Healing and new starts are miracles of God, but they don't happen just once in a blue moon when the prayers of the people are all in a line, they happen every day.

Our bodies heal themselves every day from abrasions, viruses, and broken bones.  We're given a new start every day to overcome the sin that has driven us the day before.  We're reminded that no matter what happens to us in these earthly, limited forms, we are forever united with the God of the living, whether here or on the other side.  These are the miracles of how God intervenes every day on our behalf, and not from an outside force but directly to us from the Holy Spirit which is in us, guiding us.  It may seem that some miracles, then, might be bigger than others, but it is often the small miracles that go overlooked, and even more so, all miracles lead back to God.

As the Gospel of John states, the seven "miracles" within its pages are described as signs, ones that point to the glory of God.  May you see signs of God's glory in your own life--every day.