Quoth the Raven

Since I’m on Spring Break, I have found the time to watch a few movies that I’ve always wanted to see but have never taken the time to see.  Earlier this week I watched The Raven, a film directed by James McTeigue (The Matrix trilogy, V for Vendetta, Star Wars Episode II) starring John Cusack as Edgar Allen Poe.  In The Raven, a serial killer is using Poe’s literature as inspiration, matching every detail of his gruesome killings to Poe’s horror stories.  Upon the film’s ending, I found myself locked in mental discussion for a good part of the night.

The film’s depiction of Poe is interesting.  He is an underappreciated and misunderstood writer whose genius the audience accepts, but his world renounces.  He is looked down on as a drinker and a troublemaker, although he does have a few admirers.  He is involved in a relationship with a young girl named Emily, though it is behind her father’s back and she pretends to despise him.  That is threatened to change, however, when she wants to marry him.  That revelation could put Poe’s life in danger from her father, but alas, she doesn’t get the chance.  She is kidnapped by the psychotic killer first.  Thus begins a thrilling chase that will drive the maddened poet to the very brinks of his shaky sanity.

SPOILER ALERT

After many twists and turns, Poe faces the killer.  Ironically, the killer is an admirer who considers himself an artist much the same as Poe.  In a desperate search for his beloved Emily, he makes an agreement with the man.  He drinks poison in exchange for being told Emily’s location.  He is able to find her before the poison takes full effect, and later dies on a park bench, but not before giving a concerned man information to give to Detective Fields that leads him to the killer’s identity and subsequent arrest.  Given that this is a take about Edgar Allen Poe, we all knew he was going to die.  That doesn’t stop the ending from leaving us with disappointment.

There’s a lot to be said for this film.  I was hesitant to watch it at first because I don’t want to be somebody that enjoys the suffering of others.  However, after reading some reviews of it, I decided to give it a shot.  The film is bloody at times, one of the killer’s murders is done by a swinging blade that cuts into his abdomen, and another is by a somewhat graphic slitting of the throat.  The real depth of the film, though, comes at the end.

Poe’s discussion with the killer reveals the murder to be a very disturbed individual.  He is a psychopath, and even considers himself to be an artist.  Poe recognizes that, showing that he at least has enough sanity to realize the difference between his stories and the gruesome executions of his adversary.  It is a very scary reality that he faces.  That shows me that we are dealing with danger when we entertain with violence and bloodshed.  The real message, though, comes with Poe’s sacrifice.

Poe recounts the story of his beloved wife’s death.  He speaks of his love for her and his horror when she became sick and started coughing up blood.  He says that after she died his life was left in ruins.  That is, until he met Emily.  When it came down to it, his love for her was selfless.  He was willing to sacrifice himself in order to save her life.  Amidst a culture that professes love as liking that which makes me feel good, this is a refreshing message.  At the end of  the film, I did not find myself basking in the violence.  Rather, I found myself asking the question: would I have made the sacrifice that Edgar Allen Poe made? 

Canadian Pro-Lifers and Freedom of Speech

Yesterday Linda Gibbons, a Canadian who is a Christian and a staunch pro-lifer, was released from prison after five years.  When I first read about her, I was kind of surprised at her circumstances.  She has been in and out of prison for the last ten years due to her stance on abortion and her zealous activism.  That surprised me.  Although Canada does not have as much freedom of speech as the United States, I still didn’t expect someone to be in prison due to speaking out against abortion.  Then I kept reading.

First of all, it is important to understand the differences between Canada and the United States.  Canada also guarantees freedom of speech but not under the exact same terms.  Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of speech as a “fundamental freedom,” but section 1 of the same document allows the government to pass laws that limit freedom of expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified.  As you can see, that “exception” is extremely broad and allows the government a manner of control over their freedom of speech, legitimized by their charter.  One example is that it is illegal to speak out against homosexuality in Canada; it is classified as illegal under the term “hate speech.” 

Canada also differs from the United States when it comes to abortion.  There are no legal restrictions on abortion, so it is considered a valid medical route.  That being said, there are activists in Canada that are fighting against it.  Which brings me back to Linda Gibbons. 

When I first read about Linda Gibbons, it sounded as though she was being imprisoned for being an activist.  Naturally, I was very upset.  However, there is more to the story.  The way that she had been protesting abortion is by protesting outside of abortion clinics.  There are some discrepancies on what all was going on, some reports indicate that she was supposedly harassing people, others indicate that she was peacefully protesting.  Her arrests have been on the basis of harassment, and most recently, violation of an injunction which order her not to come within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. 

The Canadian publication National Post did an interview with her and her responses sound a lot like what Peter and John said to the Jewish elders in Acts 4 and 5.  Others have suggested that her zeal would be better directed in counseling. 

I appreciate Linda Gibbons’s attitude toward the life of the unborn.  However, I want to ask a serious question.  How much good is she doing?  Some of the most encouraging pro-life campaigns I’ve heard of come in the form of pregnancy centers that give frightened and isolated pregnant women a viable alternative.  Those have done a lot of good.  How much good does protesting outside of abortion clinics do?  Let me ask it another way.  Why didn’t the apostles march straight up to the Jewish leaders and protest against them and demand that they repent?  It wouldn’t have done much good.

We ought never to back down from preaching the truth.  We should, however, think about what our actions show and what the wisest approach to take is.  While there is a respectable and legal way to preach the truth, we ought to take it.  It is not until those options are depleted that we ought to act in rebellion to the law.  Let’s avoid acting in such a way that would give someone an excuse to call us loud, self-righteous bigots and do what God told us through Paul in the letter to the Ephesians: Speak the truth in love.  Always remember Colossians 4:6: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”

Dressing Up for Church

I admit that I don’t have a real good grasp on who all is reading this blog.  I know that some of you are Christians like I am.  I’m betting that some of you grew up going to church and so you were raised with certain ideas about church.  If that’s the case, I’m about to challenge one of them, and I hope you can take a minute to clear your head and be open-minded about it, because it is not one that people tend to be very understanding of.

My parents are Christians, so I grew up going to church.  Most of the time I dressed up a little bit.  I didn’t always wear a tie, but I didn’t ever wear jeans on Sunday morning.  My father believes that you ought to dress up for church and my mother believed that it wasn’t as important and should be an individual choice, and since I was fortunate enough to grow up in a home where we discussed these kinds of issues, I got to hear both sides of the argument.

Traditionally, it has been expected that when you attend worship service, you dress up.  That starting to change in our culture.  The belief that you ought to dress up for worship services is now being associated only with older Christians, and not the with the younger generation.  This shift is one worth looking into, because my generation has got a lot of things wrong.  There are many people in my generation would rather be entertained than worship God and would rather be comfortable than hear a challenging lesson.  Unfortunately, that has motivated many churches to make their services and their activities more about entertainment because they are afraid of losing the younger generation.  That pushes them farther and farther until many churches now are so unrecognizable, I have little doubt that Jesus would do a few cleansings of churches were He still on the earth.  I don’t want to contribute to the problem.  So I ask the question: should we dress up for church?

Given the fact that so many people older and wiser than me think that you ought to dress up for church, I would think that there is some scriptural basis for it.  Here’s the honest truth: there isn’t.  The only passages I can find on dress one way or the other is like what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:9: “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” 

The point of 1 Timothy 2:9 in context is that women ought not to dress up in order to draw attention to themselves.  When you read 1 Timothy, you get the impression that the Ephesians (Timothy was at Ephesus) had a big problem with pride, and 1 Timothy 2:9 addresses that.  It gives us an interesting concept, though.  If the Bible says anything about how we ought to dress, it tells us not to dress up! 

The argument that I often hear is that it is a matter of respect.  That you dress up for a funeral, so you ought to dress up for God.  This is a fool’s smokescreen.  We all know that our lives as Christians are to be lived 24/7, not just during services.  So if it really is about respect, why don’t we walk around in suits all of the time?  If we really believe that it is a matter of respect, then doesn’t that mean we are living a double standard?  One measure of respect outside of the building and a greater one inside of the building (where everyone can see us)? 

It is not about respect.  It is about cultural acceptance.  It is not culturally acceptable (generally speaking) to come to a funeral in jeans and a hoodie.  It didn’t used to be culturally acceptable to come to church in jeans and a hoodie either.  Where we have erred is in going to the scripture seeking a way to make a cultural thing that we practice binding on other people.  Is this really any different than the Pharisees, who condemned Jesus’s disciples for breaking the traditions of the elders in Matthew 15?  It is no different.

I am not condemning people who dress up.  If you want to, that’s great.  You should do as your conscience dictates.  I will, however, say this: people often equate dressing casually for church with taking it lightly, as though it is just another part of their life.  I see another interpretation.  After all, if we truly can treat worship service as another part of our lives in that we are serving God so much that worshipping God on Sunday is normal for us since we are serving Him all of the time, is that really such a bad thing?

Trees and Chaff

On Sunday night after services I went to a Bible study that was led by a friend of mine.  It was about the analogy in James 1:23-25 comparing the word of God to a mirror.  He concluded by talking about how we always manage to find time for leisure activities and hobbies, but we somehow find ourselves too busy to devote time to the study of God’s word.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading in the psalms this semester.  There’s a few of them that have jumped out at me as having some particularly applicable messages.  One of those is Psalm 1.  Psalm 1 is interesting.  It is a stark contrast of the wicked and the righteous.  The psalmist starts by saying “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful.”  I have often noticed the progression of that opening: how sin is progressive.  First you walk and talk with sinners, then you stop to check them out, and before you know it you are sitting among them as one of their own.  There’s more to this psalm though.  If you only know what not to do, righteousness can escape you.  This psalm tells what to do: “but his delight is in the law of Yahweh, and on His law he meditates day and night.” 

We put a lot of focus on not sinning.  We look at the world and the things that people do and we say that we must resist those temptations.  This is very true.  We definitely should.  Unfortunately, though, we often neglect to mention how we should go about doing that.  Ephesians 6:10-18 compares our lives as Christians to warfare.  In listing the armor of God, the only weapon that is offensive is the sword of the spirit – the word of God!  In Matthew 4, Jesus used scripture to combat Satan’s attacks.  Given the fact that Jesus was the only person ever to resist temptation every single time without fail, I think it’s safe to say that his strategy is the one we should employ. 

All of this is pretty easy to agree to.  It’s another thing to implement it.  That’s what you tell yourself, isn’t it?  I’m going to suggest something else.  It’s easy to implement.  We just don’t do it.  How hard is it to not play video games for a half hour so that you can read your Bible?  Not read a book for a half hour?  Not watch Netflix for a half hour?  Not hang out with your boyfriend of girlfriend for a half hour?  Get the picture?  The truth is, it is not that hard to pick up the Bible and read it for a little bit every day.  The problem is we don’t do it. 

Why don’t we do it?  I’m going to venture to say that we are self-focused.  It’s true that many of us are busy people.  I’m not denying that.  But ask yourself this: in all of your busyness, is there at least one television show that you keep up with (if it is on Netflix, it still counts)?  Is there a book series that you are reading right now? 

Let’s think about the way that we use our time.  Because if we’re going to be, as Psalm 1 says “a tree planted by streams of water” and not “chaff which the wind blows away,” we’re going to have to spend time in the word.

Should Christians Be Preoccupied with Guns?

Earlier this week, I wrote about Christians and gun control and proposed that a Christian can be pro-gun.  I hold to that and hope that it was thought-provoking for you if you read it.  If you haven’t read it, you may want to scroll down a little bit and read it first, because it is a good disclaimer for some of the things I am about to say.  The question that I ask in the title, though, is a very sincere question.  I know a fairly decent amount of Christians who own guns.  A lot of those Christians really like guns.  They use them for hunting, for recreation, and love to watch movies with a lot of guns and a lot of action.  So I ask an honest question: should we as Christians be so preoccupied with guns?

I believe that Christians have the right to defend themselves and their families.  I do not doubt even for a second that guns can be used in that role.  I won’t take the time to spell out all of my reasons for that because I’ve only got so much room here before you guys take one look at this post and say “Dude, I am not taking a half hour to read this thing.”  If you’re more curious about my reasoning behind that, let me know in a comment and we can discuss it further.  The point is, Christians have a right to defend themselves and their families and guns can fulfill that role.

What is a Christian’s attitude towards violence, though?  I see Jesus telling his disciples to carry a sword in Luke 22, but beyond that what I see is not a preoccupation with violence.  On the contrary, I see violence as a grim reminder that sin exists in the world.  The first act of violence in the Bible is Cain killing Abel in Genesis 4.  Cain’s punishment is severe, showing that violence is not something looked favorably upon by God.  Among the seven things that God hates in Proverbs 6 are hands that shed innocent blood.  On the contrary, the picture of God’s people in Isaiah 2 shows them turning their weapons into agricultural tools. 

Here’s the thing: weapons do have a legitimate use for the Christian.  However, it should absolutely be the last resort and it should pain us to have to hurt another person.  I fear that many of us would rejoice at the opportunity to use a weapon on an evildoer, not mourn that violent action had to be taken upon one of God’s lost children.  Read that last sentence again.  It sounds different when you put it in that light, doesn’t it?

We are to be a people of peace.  People of peace are not obsessed with weapons of war.  I often wonder what Jesus thinks of us in our current circumstances.  It helps me remind myself that it is not that Jesus “was,” Jesus is.  So what does He think of our  preoccupation with guns?  Somehow I can’t see Jesus getting excited about machine gun slaughters in the movies or the precision of an AR-15.  Are we being Christ-like in the things that we pursue?  Or have we so removed our ambitions to be like Christ that he never enters that facet of our life?  Do we remove the thought of him so that we don’t have to feel guilty for having an interest in something that doesn’t fit Him?  If Christ is our all, He must fit into every facet of our lives, not only those that are most convenient.

The Problem with the Pro-Gun Position

After my last post, this title might seem a little odd.  After all, I just spent a lot of time telling all of you that Christians can be pro-gun, right?  Why would I turn around and talk about why that’s a problem?

Well, the two are not entirely contradictory.  I still hold to the belief that a Christian can be pro-gun (can be, not has to be).  However, there’s an issue that I’m seeing in this whole debate.  Gun control has been a debate for a very long time, but more recently it has been a reaction to the tragedy at Sandy Hook.  

Politicians and advocates of gun control have reacted to the violent shooting, and gun owners immediately have reacted in defense of their rights to own guns.  “If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns!” and “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!”  There’s one thing that the pro-gun people are missing though.  If you don’t want guns to be controlled, how do you suggest we stop the violence that results in tragedies like Sandy Hook?

Here’s what I see happening: we don’t want our guns taken away.  I hesitate to say “toys” and I hesitate to say “weapons” because guns are different things to different people.  To the married man with three small kids who lives in a dangerous city, it means protection for his precious children.  To the gun enthusiast who lives in the backwoods of Kentucky, it means recreation.  Regardless, these people have something to lose so they react defensively.  I understand that.  However, we need to grapple with this: SOMETHING needs to be done.

The Washington Post reports that 84 people died in mass shootings in 2012, not including the shooters that killed themselves.  New Republic reports that 45% of the deaths due to mass shootings in the past 30 years have happened in the last 6 years.  There are no signs that the numbers are going to stop increasing anytime soon. 

I’m not saying that this means that the pro-gun position is indefensible.  On the contrary, I hope that we can take care of this problem without strict gun control.  What I am saying, though, is that we cannot spit in the face of Americans concerned about violence, tag them as “mindless liberals” and not offer an alternative solution.  Something needs to be done.

This is normally the part where I offer my solution to the mess.  Unfortunately, at this point, I don’t have a very good one.  I have been inclined to say leave the laws on how many guns and how much ammo you can buy alone and tighten the laws on who can buy guns so that dangerous people can’t get their hands on guns.  However, would that really work?  The man responsible for the shooting at Sandy Hook killed his mother and stole her guns with which he shot the kids at the school.  I don’t have an answer.  I’m looking for one.  This is an unresolved problem with the pro-gun position.  So I ask you, what is the solution?  

The Christian and Gun Control

I debated whether or not I should write this article for a long time.  I put it off for a while because I thought a lot of people were saying and writing things about it, and there were other things that had been neglected that I wanted to address.  However, there is a lack of clear thinking on this issue.  So I’m going to talk about gun control.

I’m going to start by giving you what my politics are on the issue, because that no doubt influences my views somewhat.  I don’t like labels, but if I have to take one, I’d label myself as a conservative.  I break that mold on certain occasions, but in general, I believe that capitalism works and the government should give its people as many freedoms as it can without endangering them.  I believe that the Second Amendment is referring to the rights of the citizen to arm himself or herself and that ought not be infringed.  I do believe that we ought to have better background checks and more strict regulation in terms of who can have guns so that incidents like Sandy Hook don’t happen.  My belief is that the problem is in the killer, not the weapon of choice.  I will probably go more in depth with this at another time, but for now that is all I will say.

That covers my base view of gun control.  My view on it as a Christian becomes more complicated, or at least deeper.  You see, just because the government grants me the right to do something, that doesn’t mean I should do it as a Christian.  When I turn 21 in November, it would be perfectly legal for me to buy all kinds of alcohol and drink until I’m well past drunk.  The command for Christians is to not be drunk.  The question then becomes what the Bible says about what we use guns for.

I think it’s fair to say we can legally use guns for basically three purposes: hunting, recreation (the shooting range, for example), and self-defense.  Since the question is really about violence and not about recreation or hunting, I’m going to take a look at self-defense.  Does a Christian have the right to defend himself or herself with violent or even lethal action?

The passage that is often used with this is Matthew 5:39, the passage that tells us to turn the other cheek.  It’s pretty hard to turn the other cheek when you’re shooting at somebody.  That, I grant, is true.  However, if that is how we are to understand Matthew 5:39, why does Jesus tell his disciples to take up swords when he sends them out (Luke 22:36)?  Doesn’t that seem contradictory?  When you look at the context of Matthew 5, I suggest we ought to understand it in terms of taking mistreatment by those in the world, not when people are trying to kill us or our family members.  It seems pretty clear that Jesus instructed them to take swords to defend themselves.  I doubt they were using them as razors.

Before we leave this topic, there’s one more thing I want to address.  1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  Let’s say I get married and have kids.  One night somebody breaks into the house.  They have a knife.  They go straight for my 3-year old daughter.  If I don’t protect my daughter, am I providing for her?  I will grant that the passage is speaking primarily of financial means in the context, but let’s use our brains.  If I do not defend my daughter, am I providing for her?  I submit to you that I have a God-given responsibility to protect my family.

In closing, I want to offer a caution.  My point is that a Christian can use a weapon in the defense of himself and his family. That does not mean, however, that to be against guns is the anti-Christian position.  I want to make that clear.  It simply means that being pro-gun is a defensible position for a Christian to have.  I also don’t want to leave this topic without including Romans 13:1-2: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” 

We have every right to arm ourselves in defense of ourselves and our families.  We do not have the right as Christians to take up arms in rebellion against our government, no matter what rights they take away.  The principle in Matthew 5 is important here.  When we are mistreated, we are not to retaliate.  That much is clear.  So if you are a Christian and you are pro-gun, that’s great.  Just remember where your boundaries lie, lest we be found to resist what God has appointed.