The Faithful Skeptic

Some people have recommended that if students had been armed at Virginia Tech, maybe the massacre would have been stopped sooner.  Aside from the idiocy of appearing to blame the victims, I think there are some other factors to consider.

We know that college students drink too much, use drugs, are prone to mental illness, and frequently consider suicide.  Given that risk profile, maybe the best option for campus security isn’t arming them to the teeth?

In all seriousness, this is a tough call.  I’ve worked with a number of police officers, and one of the things I’ve learned is that even with the advanced training that officers receive, the fact that they carry guns everyday, and that they go into the profession understanding that they’ll probably be faced with difficult, if not life threatening, situations, it can be hard for them to respond effectively in chaotic situations.  I can’t imagine the stress that would be put on ordinary citizens who might be expected in the middle of a massacre to accurately assess the situation, draw their weapon, and shoot and kill the right person. 

One of the things I’ve heard is that police officers in gun fights often miss their targets despite their frequent practice shooting.  It is difficult to anticipate the stress that those sorts of situations will have on people.  Another factor to consider - how will police officers responding to the situation know who the good guys are?

All in all, a bad idea in my book.   I don’t think there is a guaranteed way to stop someone who is intent on killing other people and not concerned about their own life.  The better question is why does our society seem to be so good at creating these sorts of people?  But that’s an uncomfortable question.  It is a lot easier to argue about guns.

When I was in school (which wasn’t very long ago), if we had lock down plans, I didn’t know about them.  We certainly didn’t practice lock down drills.  Life is different now.

There are times when I wonder why in the world I helped bring new life into the world.  Times like this remind me of how utterly incapable I am of actually protecting my children.  What guarantees can I offer them?

But then I remember that 99% of my interactions with my neighbors, friends, family and coworkers are great.  I’m amazed by the capacity of people to love and care for each other. 

It is a sunny April day in Oregon.  This afternoon it will be in the 60s.  It’s hard to be very down on sunny spring days in Oregon.

We have an interim pastor right now and apparently we’re going have someone new appointed in July.  I approached the last change with a lot of anticipation.  As a Gen X’er, I kind of enjoy change, even if it is only change for the sake of change.  But our church experienced such turmoil and pain as a result of that change that I’m kind of nervous about this one.  I’m also afraid that our annual conference is watching us closely.  We’ve had trouble paying apportionments and we are a small church.  I’m afraid that if we run into any difficulties they’ll use it as an excuse to take away our full-time pastor.  We want to pay our apportionments and we want to grow.  It just seems like every time we start to make some progress we get hit with something.  I hope they’ll give us some time.  I think we have a lot of promise.

Why Lord?

Lord, have mercy

Why is there evil like this in the world?

Lord, have mercy

Why would you take these kids?

Lord, have mercy

Why can’t you stop it?

Lord, have mercy

Why can’t we stop it?

Lord, have mercy

Why didn’t he ask for help?

Lord, have mercy

Why didn’t you listen to their screams?

Lord, have mercy

Why don’t we?

Lord, have mercy

Why doesn’t the world stop turning?

Lord, have mercy

Why do we look for answers when we barely know the questions?

Lord, have mercy

Over the weekend some protesters dumped red dye in the Willamette River to protest the human cost of the war in the Iraq.  They had a large sign that said something like, “No Blood for Oil!”  Now I used to be a card-carrying socialist (I never actually had a card, but that’s beside the point) so I think I had some street cred as a totally whacked-out liberal.  But can I just say that the blood for oil argument seems really silly to me?

If the war in Iraq were really just about oil, why are we bothering to try to setup a democracy?  Not that I think that particular process is going very well, but it would be hard to argue that the Bushies aren’t trying.  If all we wanted was oil, we’d setup some sham dictator and get him to sign contracts to sell us oil at ridiculously low prices.

Also, if we really just wanted oil, there are countries with more it than Iraq.  Like Saudi Arabia.  Now obviously I understand that conspiracy theorists will say that Iraq was the only option because we could make a “good” argument for invading them.  No one would believe we needed to invade Saudi Arabia. 

But seriously, what would the motivation be if we really only cared about oil?  The oil and gas industry is making record profits.  From what I’ve read, there are a couple of reasons for the increase in oil prices.  One is clearly the OPEC cartel.  But another, and probably more important reason, is the growing demand for oil in India and China.  They are industrializing like crazy and need oil to fuel their economic growth.  If we really wanted to reduce the short term price of oil, we’d nuke China and India back to the stone age.  Except of course we’d lose a huge part of our manufacturing capacity, information technology expertise, and market for our products.

I also don’t honestly believe that Bush is that petty or stupid.  I think that Bush and the people around him believed that a democratic Iraq could be a cornerstone to a new middle east.  I do believe that they used the war on terror as an excuse, but their motivation was not evil.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be working out too well for them.  I believe they made some critical errors in planning and execution, but I can’t believe this is all about oil.  If it is, they’re way dumber than I thought.

There was an interesting article in our local paper over the weekend.  John Schwiebert, a retired UM pastor, and his wife Pat are in the middle of a dispute with the IRS.  They have withheld all or part of their income tax from the federal government since 1977 in a protest against US military policy.  They’ve been able to do that by earning below the minimum required to pay federal income tax.  They don’t oppose paying taxes generally, and in fact have paid what they believe to be their income tax obligation to a local county government.  Now however, Rev. Schwiebert’s pension is enough that they are required to pay taxes.  The IRS is asking the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits to pay an income tax levy against his pension.

The Schwiebert’s have asked the Board to deny the IRS’ request, but also don’t want the church to get into trouble.  They consider themselves conscientious objectors and thus object to paying federal income tax that would fund activities contrary to their religious beliefs.  I admire their devotion to their cause, but part of me wonders too…  What if conservatives could decide that they didn’t want any of their tax dollars going to anything but abstinence only education?  What if libertarians decided they didn’t pay any taxes at all?

It also puts the church in an interesting position as well.  What are the church’s legal obligations?  Can the church support laws that are contrary to its beliefs?  But at the same time, if it doesn’t follow the laws, it will lose some degree of effectiveness.  What’s the balance?

I think part of being in a democracy is accepting that the government is going to do some stuff that we personally disagree with.  But again, there’s a line.  But what happens when the government does something evil (like start of policy of genocide)?  There has to be some middle ground between on participating in the parts of government we like and agreeing to everything the government does without any critical thought.

Of course not, but the Methodist tradition makes it an interesting question to consider.  My wife and I joined a Methodist church after we were married.  Prior to that she’d been involved with a couple of other churches (not Methodist) that were driven by the pastors.  One of the things she commented on after we’d been members for a while was that you realize the strength and core of the church isn’t the pastor, but rather the community.  That is something we both like about the church.

But then our church went through a very difficult pastoral change.  I don’t want to talk about it in detail out of respect for the congregation and our former pastor.  Suffice it to say, it was painful for everyone involved.  Eventually we decided that we needed to change churches for a while.  So are we hypocrites?  Did the pastor become more important than the community? 

Clearly pastors are not irrelevant.  But how important should the pastor be in an itinerant system?  I’m not sure there’s one right answer.  I suppose there are probably some congregations out there that need strong leadership.  Others might need more gentle guidance.  In our situation I think there was a mismatch between what we needed and what the pastor offered.

I was talking with a coworker that had been a member of a Methodist church.  They decided to leave and join a non-denominational mega church.  They had several reasons, but one of the major ones was the pastor.  He commented that yes the community was really important, but you still have to listen to the pastor every week. 

It is amazing how much burden we put on pastors.  We treat teachers the same way, to a great extent.  It’s a tremendous burden to bear and I’m glad that there are people willing to do it.  I’m not sure I could handle that part.

For those that haven’t met her, our daughter Claire is very outgoing.  She’s three, but talks like she’s older than that.  At church on Sunday we let her stay with us rather than go to the nursery.  The reason she still goes to the nursery is that she loves the nursery attendant.  This woman is one of Claire’s many surrogate grandmothers.  But anyway, she was with us and thus able to go up for the Children’s moment.  There were a lot of kids at church on Sunday, but Claire was not bashful about finding a spot to sit directly in front of our pastor.  Our Pastor talked about why Jesus rode a donkey instead of a horse (and Claire asked the pastor if she rode a horse to church).  As she finished up her talk she said something about finding out what happened to Jesus.  As the pastor stood up, so did Claire.  Claire looked up at her and said (loudly), “What happened to Jesus?”  The pastor said something about how we’ll find that out later and started to move back up to the pulpit.  Claire followed her up to the pulpit and asked a couple of more times, “What happened to Jesus?”  At that point my wife went up to fetch Claire and let the pastor get on with the service.

Our pastor said to me later that Claire’s question set the stage perfectly for Easter.  I think it is a great question to ponder in this week leading up to Easter.

What happened to Jesus?

Thanks Claire!