|
The following is my article for the upcoming Interchange. It seemed timely to send it out now, given our Presiding Bishop's call for action:
As we approach an early Lent, our hearts are still heavy from the deaths of children and teachers in Newtown, and our nation is embroiled in an emotional and divisive debate about gun control. We have no recent history of dialogue about this issue in our diocese, so I would like to suggest one way in which our own tradition can help us think this matter through.
But first, a few words about another tragedy involving a gun, which occurred almost a year ago in Florida. On the night of February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American boy, was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old Latino man who suspected him of suspicious behavior and confronted him. It is difficult to know what transpired in that encounter. Zimmerman claims he was acting in self-defense, and is appealing to Florida's so-called "Stand Your Ground" law, which offers legal protection to gun-owners who shoot assailants. A trial is pending.
I bring this up, not only because it pertains to the matter of gun legislation, but because it has sparked an important and fascinating research project in this diocese around racial profiling. Following Trayvon's death I happened to be preaching at the cathedral, and remarked that racism is still alive and well in our society and even in our church. Dr. Merelyn Bates-Mims, a sociolinguist and member of the cathedral, heard the sermon and asked me if I would lend my official support to an exploration of the experience of racial profiling, particularly among teenagers and young adults in our own diocese, both in our church and in our immediate surroundings. I readily agreed.
What emerged was a multi-faceted study, including professional, institutionally-sanctioned surveys of students at The Ohio State University and other college campuses, listening sessions at the University of Cincinnati and Elementz (a Cincinnati non-profit agency serving primarily African-American teenagers), where we heard personal stories of racial profiling.
The study is far from over, however. It is now time to hear specifically from the people of this diocese, whatever your race or ethnicity, wherever you stand on the spectrum of those who have been profiled or those who have found themselves profiling others. I would be very grateful if you would participate in a brief, anonymous survey, which you can access at this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VP7K8RW. You can read through the survey before choosing to complete it, so I encourage you to take a look. And now to the question of gun violence in general. As I said earlier, we have yet to have a diocesan conversation about this, at least not in recent years. I would like to see such a conversation take place, and would hope that in engaging this highly-charged topic, we might model the spiritual disciplines of mutual respect, relentless self-questioning, and acknowledgment of what is of value in the arguments of those with whom we may ultimately disagree. With that in mind, I invite us to think through the issue of gun control, using the classic Christian method of reasoning through a moral question.
The method is straight-forward. We begin by determining to what extent a given action or practice --in this case, owning and carrying a gun -- is right or wrong in itself. There has been disagreement about weapons among followers of Jesus from early times. In the first few centuries there was universal agreement that Christians should imitate Jesus by not engaging in any kind of combat, even in self-defense. By the fourth century, when Christians began assuming governmental and military leadership, it became the rule that the use of force was permissible to defend those for whom one was responsible, but was still not permissible in self-defense. By the Middle Ages, self-defense became permissible, but only as a last resort. This remains the Christian ideal: we strive to stay as close as we can to Jesus under difficult circumstances, although often the best we can do is not to demonize our enemies or make assumptions based on appearances ( e.g., no profiling).
Based on this complex history, it is hard to argue for any absolute Christian prohibition against carrying a gun for the purpose of self-defense. Whether this translates into a right to bear arms is another question. But, on the face of it, the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court (McDonald vs. Chicago, 2012) is not incompatible with Christian faith.
This brings us to the more particular question of multiple-magazine assault weapons, which seem to have little to do with personal self-defense against single assailants. These are guns clearly meant for warfare or police action. So it is reasonable to apply to their use the same principles that make up the traditional Christian theory of Just War, which emerged in the fourth century when, for the first time, Christians found themselves in positions of authority which required required the exercise of force.
That theory begins by questioning whether the cause for war is just (i.e., national defense or defense of a foreign population needing help), and then, if that test is passed, goes on to consider whether the means used to win the war are just. Two basic principles come into play here: proportionality and discrimination. The use of force is proportional if it does not, as it were, use a hammer to kill a fly. It is discriminate if it does not produce collateral damage or harm innocent bystanders.
Let's apply these principles to the possession of assault weapons for personal self-defense. We have already determined that self-defense is permissible within the Christian tradition. So justice is not an issue. But what about proportionality and discrimination? It is hard to see how the use of an assault weapon in self-defense can measure up to these principles. It could be argued that it would be proportional to respond to an assault weapon attack with an attack in kind -- but even then, it is the nature of such weapons to kill multiple victims indiscriminately. On this basis, classical Anglican moral theology would conclude that there is no way in which assault weapons can serve justice in the private realm. That is, even if the right to bear arms is grounded in a right of self-defense, this right does not extend to the possession of assault weapons, since these weapons far exceed the normal parameters of personal or household self-defense. Hence the imperative to regulate possession.
At any rate, that is how I reason myself through this issue. Christian moral theology is all about developing principles that stay as close as possible to the teachings and example of Jesus, while addressing the real challenges that face us in our own time. Historically, Just War theory has sought to draw the use of force into the force-field of Jesus' pacifism, and thus to contain it and subjugate it to the demands of love. Our task as mature Christian citizens is to do the same thing with gun legislation. May God give us grace and courage to meet the challenge.
|
