It’s happened again. This time in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, not far from Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Our hearts are broken at the thought of innocent people gunned down; children! And as with any tragedy like this we ask why?

First of all, there is no single reason for a tragedy like this. The most blame must be placed on the person who perpetrated it, but that begs the question, what wan going on with that person? Mental illness is often involved, but that has its causes too, both inherited and contextual; we have to consider the contextual causes of mental illness, which certainly include an emphasis on peronal success while many of the structures that used to support people have deteriorated and people feel scared and lonely. I think this tragedy warrants a discussion about how we deal with mental illness it this country, or don’t deal with it. I think it is also fair in the wake of this tragedy to talk about guns again.

Guns are not what caused the tragedy, but they are a factor. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” is an empy euphemism and a dodge. “Bombs don’t kill people, suicide bombers kill people,” while true doesn’t stop us from restricting the manufacture of bombs for personal use. This isn’t about blame, but about bringing discussion back to the issue of guns in America. Politicians don’t seem to have the courage to do it.

Neither do I feel inclined to listen to the arguments of the ‘slippery slope’ – the claim that any law restricting guns will gradually lead to guns becoming illegal. Neither is there a conspiracy going on – there is no “agenda” nor a well thought out subterranean plot out there bent on denying Americans guns. These comments are dismissive responses that stop discussion; they are simply not true.

We’ve got to bring the discussion back down to earth. During the primary campaign Newt Gingrich spoke as if the 2nd Amendment was wirtten by God; it is a part of our Christian heritage and those who want to take it away are acting against God’s grand plan for America. There is a missionary zeal to the pronouncements from the Gun Lobby. Gingrich also said that we should take gun rights to the rest of the world, to the United Nations, as we spread democracy we also spread gun rights to all, praise the Lord! (The truth is that the rest of the world thinks we are idiots regarding our love of guns.) One wonders if such rights would also be extended to those living on the moon in the near future? The talk is so irrational and vitriolic that there is no dicussion; we have abandoned critical thinking again.

So I have a reasonable and modest proposal to add to the discussion of guns in America. But first, guns will never be outlawed in America. Personally, I would be in favor of laws such as are in place in Canada, Britain and Japan, but I am practical and willing to dialogue and compromise. Second, I think we have to engage the issue from the standpoint of our faith. It is good to discuss the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, but also important to talk about guns in the Kin-dom of God. It is our responsibility as followers of Jesus Christ to protect the innocent. Anyone who calls him/herself a Christian has to be overwhelmed with sadness thinking of the lives lost in Aurora, Colorado, but then as Christians, what do we do about it? Third, freedom is not the absence of regulation.

My proposal is that all guns be registered, gun owners licensed, and that guns be taxed. Now before anyone gets all “up in arms” this is not unprecedented. Most things that are deemed dangerous have controls and regulations placed upon them and they are taxed. Cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed. Sudafed is strictly regulated to discourage the production of methamphetamines’, but the best precedent to follow is automobiles. Cars are dangerous, and because they are dangerous we place restrictions on them for the safety of all. One has to obtain a license, taking a test, and that license must be renewed every few years. Cars are registered with the government, they all have VIN numbers. In order to drive a car we have to have insurance too. I believe this is a good precedence for dealing with guns in America. It would create jobs, bring in tax revenue and most important, it would increase accountability and safety. One last thing: Assault rifles must be banned. They are simply insane!

I am more than willing to discuss this with anyone, provided, as I said, that we do not talk about the ‘slippery ‘ or a conspiracy, and that we include in our discussion how we are it live as Christians. The Social Principles say nothing about guns, which is a troubling oversight. If we were to add something to our Social Principles about guns, what would we write? That’s where our discussion needs to be -and I challenge us all to think about it critically. Pastor Jim

I have always been interested in how technology affects us – our thinking, our feelings, our habits, our selves. I have never lived without television, and I wonder if my thinking would have been differnt if I had been born earlier; before I had the option to slum it in front of the TV. The automobile has changed us considerably. We grow differently when we travel by train than by car. In the train we are surrounded by others, we feel thier presence and often overhear their conversations, learning a little about their lives; and we do not have control over where we go and when we will arrive. The automobile subliminally encourages independence and isolation. Every new technology affects us in some way, sometimes as it was intended, other times in ways we did not expect. The microwave was supposed to provide us with more time but actually as we came to depend upon it and scheduoled around it, we became more hurried. So, what about the Internet?

Some time ago I read an article in The Atlantic magazine by Nicholas Carr entitled, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” I was inspired to read more about how the Internet might be affecting our thinking. First, we must acknowledge the benefits of the Internet: It has provided easy access to information that used to take days of effort to track down. It has also opened up information more democratically; anyone can access what is on the Net and not just specialists in a field. We can get informatin much faster with the Internet, so it saves us a great deal of time. Finally, the Internet has provided for greater collaboration – that is, people from all over the globe can share and discuss topics from the comfort of thier homes. The gereral sharing of information and ideas is faster and more general, and all of this is good.

But not all is well with the Internet – and it is with the ‘not so good’ thiungs that we have to pay particular attention. Because information can be saved we don’t have to remember anymore. This is really an extension of the printing press – an acceleration. I don’t think I remember well but I sense that I remember better than my children. If they want to know something they go to the Net; I am still old enough to first scan my brain to see what is there. Essentially, our memory is being externalized and as a result we introspect less. The Internet is faster, so why waste time thinking about things.

In addition to the decrease in introspection, and related to it, the Internet promotes shallowness. It is a invitation to distraction. There are so many options for our attention and interruptions are constant. We get an email, or we obsessively check our email; the temptation to check out You Tube for a small break. Our thoughts are swifter but the brevity of messages increases; can we think beyond 140 characters? We feel more edgy, less able to concerntrate. Our minds and our lives become more fragmented, relationsheips less durable. There is so much information to distract us, most of it worthless, so we have to filter through a lot of junk to get to what we need to know – we are so busy filtering we have little time to concentrate and to think more deeply.

This filtering process is a sort of vetting that used to be done by someone else – a publisher or an expert, for instance. Somone who spends time determining that something is bogus, but now we have to do it. How do we know what is true and what is junk? Well, we depend on our ability to think which is dependent on being educated is already compromiesd by spending so much time on the Internet! And unfortunately, education understood as a thinking process is in decline. Anyone can put up anything on the Net, and anyone can believe it. Doonsbury recently cartooned people calling in to”Myfacts.com” where they could purchase the facts they needed to bolster their opinion, no matter how false and wacko it is. The Internet encourages this, and it runs on repetition. The first thing to come up on a Google search is not there because it is the most true but because it has received the most hits. In our world today, if one says something often enough it becomes true; the Internet has fashioned our minds to accept this.

The result of this is an increase in extremism. No one is filtering the facts from the filth, and one can say whatever one wants and repeat it, drilling it into already scattered minds. On top of that, since we all choose the sites we go to, we go to sites that present an idea we are already in agreement with. A newspaper has to reach a wider audience to get circulation, and therefore must be more balanced; on the Internet we can choose to listen only to those who support our views. Tea Partiers spend all day reading extremist conservative rhetoric and then take a break to watch FOX News! It is not only money that is corrupting our politics it is also the Twitter Mind. Nineteen debates in the Republican primaries and most of it has been sound bites.

I am particularly worried about “sound bite theology.” Meaning coming from bits rather than the body politic – from advertising slogans rather than the wealth of tradition. Facebook doesn’t care about the past – a long conversation cannot be sustained. We all post in the present tense and then forget about it. The Bible becomes a collection of sound bites rather than the multivalent, complex and profound story of the relationship of God and God’s people. My greater fear is that since people now find meaning in the bit they will go to “bit churches” with quick witted but shallow theology. Are these the churches that are growing? And if so, do we want to emulate them?

If you have read this far, congratulations. Studies say that this is too long for a blog post – if you skimmed to get here, shame on you! We are advised as preachers not to speak over 15 minutes becasue we will lose people. What is the gospel in 140 characters or less? I am aware of the irony of posting this via the Internet. Alas, the Internet is here to stay, for God’s sake and our own let us be aware of how it affects us, taking responsibility for whom we are, whose we are, and who we want to become. Pastor Jim

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men ae created equal…” These words in the Declaration of Independence are familiar to us, but what do they mean? Is this grounded in a belief that God looks upon all of us equally? Or does it mean to imply that we are all equal when we are born and so we all have an equal chance in life?

The latter is the more common understanding of the meaning of being created equal and it is expressed in the words, “equal opportunity.” Behind the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the belief presented most notably by philosopher John Locke that we are all born as “clean slates.” When each of us in born there are no characteristics that influence or limit who we are able to become; we all have an equal start to write on that slate whatever we want, therefore we have equal opportunity. I am not certain that this is the best way to interpret the words of the Declaration of Independence; it certainly isn’t a Christian one.

The developing understanding of a person/self that we have from science and philosophy today does not concur with Locke’s vision of a clean slate at birth. Darwinism alone throws that out the window. It is not only genetically that we are born differently and not equally, but socially as well – being born in a ghetto is not equal to being born in the suburbs. This does not mean that we are determined; we have the freedom to create ourselves but we all have predispositions that we are born with that will influence who we become. My first son was born with a predisposition for asthma and allergies. As an infant we had to seclude him in order to avoid colds which often resulted in a trip to the ER. I can tell you I did not think that was fair! Nor equal, especially when in the company of parents holding a calm and peaceful child. Put simply, from a rational scientific point of view we are not created equal and therefore do not have equal opportunity.

More than that, this perspective is also at odds with what we hold to be self evident as Christians. “God is love” precludes anything we have to say. God loveing all equally is the basis for how we view this, and it means not only that God loves us equally when we are born but also wants us to be equal throughout our lives – to seek equality with intention.

A Christian understanding of freedom is irreconcilable with the common understanding of freedom which is, I believe, the power to do as I please. We mistake freedom as an end rather than a means. Martin Buber called freedom empty, a stepping stone rather than a dwelling place. Can you imgine a politician in American saying that freedom is empty?! Freedom is necessary for there to be transformation; by saying that freedom is empty does not devalue it. But by saying that freedom is necessary for transformation is to acknowledge that transformation is a more substantive value. Freedom is necessary as a means but dangerous as an end; as an end freedom leads to either totalitarianism or anarchy. For the Apostle Paul freedom was definetely a means and not an end. Specifically, freedom was a means for one to become a “slave of Christ.” Excuse me?! Freedom is a means for a greater good which is to choose to be a disciple of Jesus Christ so that the Kin-dom of God may come.

I would love to feel the freedom to pursue happiness – create my own life, write my slate, but I got married and that put an end to that. Then I was careless enough to have children. But even with these formitable constraints that are shared by many I also have this Jesus thing to deal with; and what is self evident to me is not that we are created equal but that God loves us equally.

Not only did I get married and have children, I became a pastor, and to make matters even worse I became a United Methodist pastor who is required to hand over my personal freedom to a bishop who has the power to tell me where to go…. I am a slave to the Church! Let it be so with me and likewise for many. Pastor Jim

While watching commercials my children and I play a game to overcme the tedium – what is this advertising? Sometimes it is clear from the start, advertisments for detergents tend not to mess around, but often one doesn’t know what is being hawked until the end. It’s a contest of course, and when I have absoltuely no idea I usually guess ‘cars’. More than most products, cars sell image more than content; style more than engineering

Recently I saw an ad for an Acura during a sporting event. it started with a football player undressing and then redressing into a suit. A voice then said, “we can do it with people, why not with cars?” which even now makes little sense to me. Then came the line that has troubled me. “The new Acura, aggression at its most elegant.”

What is that? What is elegant about aggression? Is that punching someone but with good form? Tearing into someone but with style? Waterboarding with Perrier? Advertisers don’t casually come up with this stuff. People are paid much more than I am to weedle out such amazing combinations of words. The audience is men and you know that some big bucks reasearch went into discerning that men are filled with latent aggression, so why not capitalize on it. Do you see why this troubles me?

I remember in the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller when the crews went up over Italy to bomb the Nazis; the Major didn’t care about what was destroyed – the actual success of the mission – he just wanted to see a good and even bomb pattern becasue that’s what his superiors wanted. Now I have a name for that – elegant aggression. I am also reminded of smart bombs and drones.

There is nothing elegant about aggression and violence. It hurts people. The last thing we need our young men hearing subliminally is that aggression is cool if you can do it with style.

One of the tasks of the church with young people is to offer a different vision of the world and what it can be. In order to do that we have to be very discerning about what the wrong message is – to point it out and rage against it. If we aren’t doing this, who will? Pastor Jim