I know I have not posted anything much for quite some time. This move and holiday season have been quite busy for us, and we are still getting settled into our new home (which we love!). I know that Christmas and the New Year ought to give me ample springboards for sharing thoughts and experiences, but rather than write about any of that, I am going to skip right to something that has been on my mind lately due to current and not-so-current events.
Several weeks ago there were two shootings at Christian facilities in Colorado. These were on par with some of the school shootings that have taken place over the last decade or so, and from what I understand, these two in Colorado were related. I happen to read the blog of a woman who attends the church that this happened at with her family. I was, of course, relieved to hear that she and her family were safe, and deeply saddened that she and her church family have to deal with such tragic, violent behavior.
That said, I have been wrestling with several factors in these incidents for weeks now. As I understand it, the church had their own armed security guard to protect the pastor, and trained for incidents like this (since it is a high-profile mega-church). This security guard killed the assassin to protect the rest of the members of their church. I have had a very hard time reconciling this with my understanding of what it means to follow Jesus.
It seems to me that the pastor ought to be willing to die for his cause. Having a personal, armed, security guard seems to miss the point of Jesus reprimanding Peter for cutting off the ear of the soldier who came to arrest Jesus.
The bible says we will suffer. Jesus told his followers not to expect different treatment than how the world treated him. We are to go and meet Jesus outside the gate...outside the gate where they crucify.
This was all brought even more to the forefront of my mind as my husband and I recently watched the 1983 "Gandhi". We have been reflecting on how actively he pursued peaceful solutions to aggressive and violent attack. He was always willing to die and be imprisoned, even if it was just to strike a chord in the humanity of a single individual. And so, as I watched the reenactment of one of the massacres that took place because the hoards of people were unwilling to violently protect themselves from a small number of armed English soldiers, I began to think about the life of this young man who was killed in Colorado, by a church member. I began to play a mental game about how he might have responded had the church members all faced into his gun and implored him to stop and consider what he was doing. Even if he continued to shoot them, if they continued to implore him to stop while they walked up to disarm him non-violently. What if they all demonstrated by their action that his salvation was of greater importance than the rest of their lives here on earth.
Of course, they would have to believe that this was the right response to have. They would have to believe that this was the truth of how one human pursuing God ought to respond to another human created by God. They would have to know they were risking their life for the sake of this truth, and to truly be willing to die for truth- and if they did, then they would truly be martyrs.
This brings me to my second difficulty. I have a hard time considering the people who did die to be martyrs. Not that they were not sincere believers, but this man was killing people - random people - because he was upset at how he had been rejected by the church culture around him. Did he really hate Christianity? Or did he just hate the superficiality and rejection he had received from Christians (in which case, were the injured suffering for the offense of the gospel, or just for being offensive - again, not themselves personally, but for many "Christians " who engage in elitism and neglect the message of the gospel that there is no partiality with God.)
He just walked into a church and started shooting. I am not sure that being in a church building makes you a believer. They were not dying for their faith - unless faith is only equivalent with being found in a church on Sunday. He was angry at the superficial and unchristian behavior of many church cultures. So, the people who died, died because he correlated their presence in the church with their allegiance to that sort of church culture. I doubt he was actually persecuting them for their faith. (Note: I do not have all the details to these events, and I do not know his actual motives.)
It seems to me that you have to be
willing to die for your faith, and actually die for your faith, to earn the title of martyr. For example, in one of the aforementioned school shootings the shooter walked into the library, asked any Christians to stand up (which one girl did), and then shot her. I imagine she knew what she was risking, and then she paid the price. I think she was probably a martyr.
Being panicked in a church corridor and accidentally getting shot and killed does not seem the same. It could have been anyone. It could have been an atheist who was visiting to appease his relatives, or a pedophile whose cover was the guise of a good church go-er, or just a normal person who attends church because that is what good Americans do, but has no sincere faith. It seems there was no intentionality in who he shot. The man did not grab people and say - "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the risen son of God sent to save men from their sins? Do you worship and follow him as your King? Are you willing to die for Him?" and then shoot them if they answered yes.
I am struck that the pastor himself was unwilling to risk his life for his beliefs as he had his own armed security guard to protect him. What about the notion that we are to turn the other cheek if struck by our enemy? Does being shot have some alternate significance to being struck? What about thou shall not kill? What about "to die is gain"? What about respecting the dignity of another human life - even when they themselves do not respect that dignity? What about finding another non-violent way of disarming him?
Of course, he was a sinner. So am I. So are you. Of course, he was mentally unstable. Even so, what would it have taken to reach into his humanity and implore him to conqueror himself? Is one individual worth dying for? Not to mention the message this would have sent to everyone who heard of the incident. Talk about martyrs!
Perhaps I am just reacting passionately because of the emotions the movie roused in me. So, once again, I have to ask your pardon if you think I am a little overboard, but is my confusion in this really out of place? Help me work this out.