In Oklahoma, HB2988 has passed out of committee and is on its way to the House floor. HB2988 will add places of worship to Oklahoma's Castle Doctrine. This means that parishioners will be protected from legal ramifications if they use deadly force against someone that may attempt to commit an act of violence at a place of worship.
Here is a link to a news article concerning the bill.
Here is a link to the introduction of the Bill along with some excerpts:
The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or, places of business, or places of worship.
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business, or a place of worship is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
Theological Reflection:
I like peace. I like peace so much that I never want to perpetrate an act of violence. I love peace so much that I follow the example of a man I describe as the Prince of Peace. A man who taught us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, not to walk away, but as an offering. This man taught in word and deed, going to the cross willingly, never crying out for justice or defense. I don't believe that violence solves problems, but I do believe in the solutions that come about through peace.
Of course, I am reminded of when Jesus tore through the temple with a whip, turning over tables and driving out the money changers and animals. It doesn't say if he threatened any one's life, but I don't think Jesus would last long with that type of behavior in an Oklahoma church after HB2988.
And what would the headline read if a gun-man was killed by a parishioner in self-defense? 'Church Parishioner Kills Mentally Ill Man Under The Cross.' That's a contradiction. At least, it should be.
We are not called to defend ourselves, but to follow a man who healed even those that threatened his life. We are a light to the world, not simply people pointing to a light, but people being a light. It's sad to think that this light may become deadly.
The Amish:
In 2007, the LDS leader, James E. Faust gave a talk that I will always remember. It came before I had made a commitment to non-violence, but I think it was a message that moved me towards that commitment. The talk was titled, "The Healing Power of Forgiveness." In this talk Faust describes the tragedy that occurred in an Amish community when a man stormed into an Amish school, took 10 girls hostage, and shot them before taking his own life. Faust goes on to describe the Amish people's reaction:
This shocking violence caused great anguish among the Amish but no anger. There was hurt but no hate. Their forgiveness was immediate. Collectively they began to reach out to the milkman's suffering family. As the milkman's family gathered in his home the day after the shootings, an Amish neighbor cam over, wrapped his arms around the father of the dead gunman, and said, "We will forgive you." Amish leaders visited the milkman's wife and children to extend their sympathy, their forgiveness, their help, and their love. About half of the mourners at the milkman's funeral were Amish. In turn, the Amish invited the milkman's family to attend the funeral services of the girls who had been killed. A remarkable peace settled on the Amish as their faith sustained them during this crisis.
This form of tragedy has happened all too often. I remember the news of a California LDS Bishop who was shot in his church office. The threat is real. There are a lot of hurt, angry, sick people that somehow justify this butchery to themselves. Tragically, some have invaded defenseless churches, temples, synagogues and mosques to only commit violence and create pain. In a nation that values religious freedom, a culture of religious diversity struggles against the threat of blood shed.
So I wonder what the Amish have done? They experienced a tragedy, so do they now have a security guard at the school? No. I believe the source of the forgiveness that came from the Amish is fueled not by a mere resolve to forgive, but I think it is the product of a deep commitment, even covenant, to walk as Jesus taught us to walk. Loving our enemies, even those that would hurt us. The Amish have a commitment to non-violence. Did they retaliate? Did they demand justice? No. They grieved with the family of the perpetrator. They sought out for healing through peace. They rebuilt.
I think the Amish have taught us about forgiveness in an incredibly powerful way. Maybe they have something else to teach us about our commitment to peace; our commitment to walk the path of Jesus; our commitment to non-violence. HB2988 may pass, but for Christianity, it has no need. At least, it shouldn't.
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Fine post. I'm not in the loop as far as Oklahoma politics and policy is concerned, but I would think that HB2988 would be redundant. Aren't Oklahomans already permitted to act in self-defense, as well as defense of the life of others, without legal ramifications? And why are only three locations specified (places of residence, business and worship). What if someone starts unloading a Saturday night special into a movie theatre? Are people going to stand by and say, "Well, according to HB2988, if this were happening at church I could take this dude out, but since it's a place of entertainment and not of worship, I'd better just sit on my thumbs." It seems that HB2988 might create more confusion by creating questions as to when and where how much force can be met with how much force. People know that they can legally defend theirs and others' lives without legal ramifications. Busybody legislators aren't solving any problems by relegislating settled legal issues.
ReplyDeleteYour own pacifism is a fine personal choice. I too loved the resilience and forgiveness demonstrated by the Amish community so sorely hurt by the actions of an emotionally, mentally damaged man. But self-defense is an almost ageless, protected freedom. I commend you for your pacifism, but you cannot legislate others adhere to your understanding of Christian principles no matter how strongly you hold such views.
What a great post, Travis! I feel the same way. While I am not a pacifist in the purest Amish sense, I, too, have adopted a Christ-like stance when it comes to violence. Forgiveness, and allowing God to judge the outcomes of circumstances, works for me better than having a vigilantistic attitude when it comes to justice. Jesus Christ is the author of salvation, and can balance perfectly justice and mercy. Whichever side of the fence one is on the issue, I will leave it to Him to decide.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Ben, that the freedom to protect oneself is a right under the Constitution, I have personally decided that I will not own a firearm. No need for me to. I don't hunt. I don't target practice, etc., so I really don't feel that having one would have a purpose. I'm surely not going to go buy one because a new law says I can to protect myself at church (funny side note: maybe that is why kids and teens are always praying for safety as they go to and from church?)I, too, feel that such a law is not necessary, especially in houses of worship, where it is supposed to be a place of sanctuary. I want to have a place that will remain a place of sanctuary. I have no problem if a criminal runs into a house of worship, fleeing police, claiming sanctuary. I don't want the police or any government agent to be able to storm a house of worship at will because of this new law. I just see it as a bad precedent for future justification, and an erosion of liberties. Heaven help us if Houses of Worship, of any kind, should feel the need to have metal detectors to go through before entering. I personally wouldn't be able to feel at peace, in a manner of worship, set apart from the world, if...well, see how safe it has made inner-city kids feel at school.
By the way, Ben, the law mentions "Places of Business", so don't worry, Movie Theaters are covered. You can bust a cap in someone (in self defense, of course) in the movie theater or mall, or movie theater mall. The gangbangers will be happy about that one.
As far as the law goes, I agree with the points made by others. As far as the law for churches, I understand the sentiment behind Travis' post.
ReplyDeleteAs for pacifism, I've never really worked out my thoughts on it before this post. I have always leaned toward sacrificial peace, but have also always been aware of a limit that I would have to think about at some point. So here it goes.
It takes two to tango and actions have their degrees of severity. So first, the easiest situation is someone attacking "you" in that they are trying to rob you of your things. For Christians this should be a no brainer. Our stuff should be given freely at all times, even to our "enemies", let alone when the life and limb of one's self or another is at risk. I remember a guy on Oprah (take only a moment to laugh) who lost an eye and suffered massive scarring to his face because he went after a man who stole something from his shop (the theif took a broken bottle to his face in an alley). This is obviously foolish. Your life, and your limb, is more valuable than your stuff.
So then, the next level is to consider where the attacker is risking or threatening your life or limb. Here we have the real you and the attacker tangoing but now the severity of action to consider. My sacrificial pacifist side says that it is right to endure some violence without response - even if it is done to another - even a child. The attacker's life is more valuable than the child's pristine skin. (However hard that is to say.) But it is difficult to come up with a realistic scenario for this, except torture.
Now, we get closer to the real issue - it's you, the attacker, and the risk/threat to your life. But I actually want to skip to the real issue - what do you do when you are able to do something and someone else is being attacked? Because, some people may immediately say that if they are the only victim then it's ok to not respond even unto death. But I'll come back to this assertion in a bit.
If you are able to do something, should your choice of pacifism mean that the other victim should go defenseless? The example of the Amish doesn't work for this real issue. Then, the violence was over, the attacker had even already been killed. The only option left to the surviving Amish was whether or not to retaliate violently, physically or emotionally. They chose neither - and they were correct. They chose forgiveness and even grace - God-empowered righteousness.
But what if it had been different? What if you had been in that school when he was yet to shoot any of the children? What would Jesus have done?
And this is where we take into account the severity of your response. We've dealt with the two who are tangoing. We have dealt with the severity of the attack. Now we must look at the severity of the response - the other half of the dance. Pacifists, rightly, do not want to kill. But, is it against pacifism to act physically in such a way as to eliminate the threat with the minimum violence required to end or prevent the original violence? I know this is specific, but if you were trained in hand-to-hand combat and could disable the attacker in 1 or 2 deft moves (without or even with risking the victims), is this not compatible with pacifism? I find it reasonable that the attacker would understand that they are not being counter-attacked (the obvious prohibition of pacifism) but rather disabled, even if it did cause some temporary pain. There is no malice, no vengeance, simply the cessation of the attack. It's possible the attacker could eventually become grateful to the intervenor for keeping them from what they would have regretted later.
...
...
ReplyDeleteSo a question forms, if an attack risks "life or limb" of yourself or another, is it wrong to "simply end the attack"? Granted, not many people have the ability to "simply end the attack". So, like the torture example above, it is difficult to use this example for everyone, who isn't so trained. So we come to the pragmatic pacifist question - Is it wrong to risk life/limb of the attacker in order to prevent the attack?
I suppose there at least two main responses from pacifists for all of these questions - all violence is wrong (which would be self-refuting) or rely on God always. The former is self-refuting because if all violence is wrong, then allowing the original violence (when you could have stopped it, even with limited violence) would be wrong always too. The latter is still difficult because God tends to work through humans. I remember the story of the man in the flood who denies a truck, boat, and helicopter escape because "God will save me", but upon death and asking God why He didn't, God informs him he sent a truck, boat, and helicopter. So in a situation where children are risked, the adults may be there to act out God's will - the defense of the children.
And this kind of brings me back to the question if the violence was simply against you and you thought that was ok. The problem with this stance is that an attack against you, life or limb, is never just against you. No man is an island. An attack against a father is an attack against his children. An attack against a husband is an attack against his wife.
So the REAL question is - what is pacifism? or what is the best response for the lover of peace?
If you love peace, and hate violence, then is it ok to allow violence against others? Against others through "just" you? If you hate violence, then, just as in the case with wars between governments, everything should be done to prevent it in the first place. But if the time comes, should violence be given its way simply because you do not want to be violent? If you could be efficiently and unemotionally responsive to physically intervene to end the violence - even if that intervention requires a shot to the leg, or even the stomach (with immediate medical assistance), or an open-hand hit to the jugular - is this not the efficient means to ending the violence? Could one not then continue with the goal and means of peace by then forgiving and caring for the "enemy" until their internal violence (whose overflow you have recently hedged) can be healed?
Even if you are not sufficiently trained for this (though everyone can make an open-hand hit to the jugular or kick a knee), do you stand by and watch the children be slaughtered?
This is the critical situation, not the example given by Travis. For sure admirable, the response of the Amish, had they been in the classroom when he was going to shoot, is the real quandry.
Jesus did not stand by but sacrificed Himself for us. He left no children, no spouse. He left a Church to His Spirit. In that classroom, would He just standy by? No. Would He want us to? I don't think so.
God tends to choose to work through humans. If He has placed us there, it is to act in action.
So, like I said, what kind of pacifism are we considering? I mean no offense to anyone here who espouses some form of pacifism. I suspect Travis' is a bit of a hybrid as I am tending toward here. However, it seems almost selfish (all about my actions), cold (not about who else is victimized), and proud (I know what to do even if God has put me in a place to do otherwise) to be a completely non-active pacifist.
hmm, what type of pacifism are we considering? That is a wonderful question. I first consider Jesus and think that there must be some time and place where complete pacifism - no relatiation at all- is valid. But, it seems to me that it would have to be a pacifisim that mimicked the outcome of Jesus' complete pacifism in submitting to a self-sacrifice. It is doubtful that under the situation to which HB2988 pertains there will be such a situation. In other words, I doubt a gun-man will ask for one sacrifice for the salvation of the congregation.
DeleteI think that a commitment to pacifism is an active lifestyle of being a peacemaker. So, it's not about being a pacifist but about creating pacifism; creating peace. If force is used it is used to subdue, not harm. I speak in the context of HB2988, a sanctuary under threat.
Wow, very good discussion guys. Personally, I am a fond admirer of Ghandi. I believe that there is so much power in non-violence, especially when protesting injustice, etc.
DeleteYet, like spartacus, the idea of me being helpless while a third party is harmed (especially my wife and kids) is my personal exception with violence. Each of us has to be very careful and thoughtful when using violence. There was that pharmacist in OKC, who was simply defending himself by returning fire during a robbery. Yet, after the kid was on the ground and defenseless, he decided to fire more bullets and he died. To me, that's murder. The threat had been neutralized. That's my moral conviction.
Legally, though, isn't the robber is actually responsible for his own death? Didn't he set in motion the events? Tough question. They convicted the pharmacist and put him in jail for life. Google Jerome Ersland.
The second paragraph specifically places 1 single requirement to use deadly force in those named places: forced entry. If a man forces his way in (or commits another crime like robbery), then even though he doesn't have a gun, the person is within his rights to kill the intruder. But there has to be good evidence of the forced entry/crime/etc.
I think that this new law is a reaction to the Ersland case and others like it. Many feel that he was unjustly convicted. So, this law would extend immunity in similar circumstances.
The take home for me is, while each of us should think long and hard about this question, the law is a good one. You cannot legislate a Christ-like standard of conduct. People have the natural right to choose to protect or not protect their bodies and their property. Whether or not it meets Christ's standard is a personal decision.
And just because churches are specifically listed in the law, I don't think that most people will carry guns to church. Each church has the right to make it's own rules as to whether arms would be permitted. I suspect that the vast majority will object to an armed congregation.
Travis,
DeleteOver the past few years I have spent some time in Amish country on PA. One night at the hotel the family and I were staying at an Amish lady came to share about growing up Amish and so forth. She told a powerful story of forgiveness. She told how a few years ago a drunk young man has hit a buggy carrying a young Amish family. In a accedent a few month old baby was killed. The Amish lady told her story of forgiveness. She did not want to forgive. She did not forget what the young man had done. She was angry at God becasue she did not understand why something like happened. Yet, in the end she made the choice - by following the command - to forgive. To not pick revenge which is our human way of saying God you are not acting fast enough so I will deliever your justice for you. Peacemaking is not easy. In fact following Jesus is not for whimps. Following Jesus is freaking hard it is just not loney. I truly hope/wish that Churches do not become a place to "stand your ground" and instead offer a place of peace or wholeness.
"Peacemaking is not easy. In fact following Jesus is not for whimps."
DeleteI appreciate your whole comment but this part stood out to me. This conviction of non-violence and unconditional forgiveness is indeed a difficult position to hold. On paper it is easy to write about, but when having to live it out, like the Amish woman you mentioned, it is so taxing. It's even scary and counter intuitive. At least, I think it seems that way. Thanks, Brian.
Adam, Wow, interesting example and I'm glad you brought it up. The Pharmacist in OKC getting life. The question you ask is tough. So the young man who broke into the Pharmacy could be responsible for his own death in that he was the one that broke in. On the other hand, it was the Pharmacist who pulled the trigger after the young man was no longer a threat. But if the young man hadn't broken into the pharmacy none of this would have happened. And if this young man was not motivated by family members to perpetrate the crime he wouldn't have been there, so does that make his family culpable? This is tough.
DeleteYou mentioned your family and I must admit to myself that I too would protect my family. My commitment to non-violence is just as flawed as all my commitments, meaning that they will be weakened by my imperfections. So I make a commitment to non-violence knowing full well that perfect adherence is outside my ability. Yet, I still make the commitment and actively promote it. I can't legislate a Christ-like code of conduct, but it is what we strive for.
Thanks