The Church is Failing the Gun Debate—and Young Men

The church is failing the gun debate.

More to the point: the church is failing its men—especially young men.

There are a many young men who are aimless, uncertain and who feel something is lacking. They are looking for meaning and purpose in life. They may not even know they are searching. Doesn't this describe each of us at some point in our lives?

Our communities, congregations and families are fragmented. Everywhere these young men look, people and institutions have little meaning to offer and even question whether there is meaning at all—at least, nothing worth finding.

One day, a young man holds a gun. Suddenly, he feels powerful—important-—impressive.

He never forgets that feeling.

Of course, limiting access to weapons of mass destruction is common sense. Random individuals walking around with loaded assault rifles and zero accountability to anyone or anything was never the intent of the 2nd amendment. If you need proof, just look at the thousands of weapons the military already has off limits to the general public. This should be obvious to anyone.

But all the well-reasoned arguments in the world won't compete with that feeling of meaning and power that an adrift young man suddenly stumbles upon when he holds a gun. There are great arguments here about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. But those arguments fall on deaf ears when many feel like their very life is at stake if they were to lose access to certain guns—and they are right, but not in the way they think: They sense they would lose their identity and that feeling of meaning and power they have unfortunately never felt anywhere else. So they fight for gun rights with intensity.

These people, mostly men, have never felt meaning and power anywhere else in their lives—THIS is where we are failing as a society. The church especially is failing because it has a message that far surpasses what guns or gun culture could ever hope to offer.

What the Church offers

Unfortunately, the church often enters the gun debate in the same ways as the secular culture—either arguing for or against gun control. But that's not where the church can be most effective in this debate.

There are lots of ways—and much better, more edifying ways—to find meaning, power and stature in life than through gun ownership. There are other place to take risks, rise up to challenges and be brave. There are other ways to make a difference in the world—and I would argue, far better and more satisfying in so many ways. But we are failing as a society for neglecting to introduce these to young men.

Reaching out to the poor, the needy and lost can take more bravery than anything you could ever use a gun for. It takes more creativity and is more of a challenge, too. I've seen it and felt it. And I will never forget that feeling. The excitement of church missions—to build, to serve, to preach the good news—takes all the guts you could ever hope to muster and leaves you with a deeper sense of fulfillment than possibly anything else—but we aren't inviting young men into this!

Think of how Abraham followed God's call and led his family from the wilderness to the Promised Land. Or how Noah built the ark against all odds and against public scorning. Or how Joseph guided a pregnant Mary to a safe place to give birth, and then shepherded them all to Egypt as refugees to escape Herod's wrath. Think of men in mission today, such as Rev. Gregory Boyle who has befriended many of the nation's most dangerous gangs. Or those bringing medical supplies to war zones—or water to remote, parched areas—or education to impoverished children. Good fathers, husbands and workers. The list goes on and on. There is more excitement, challenge, belonging and meaning there than anything else you could imagine!

The excitement that comes from gun ownership is merely about power, and power is never as meaningful or satisfying as the mission that Jesus calls us into through the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-10) or the Parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46), for example.

Even more fundamentally, the church teaches that every person has dignity and worth. Every person has the image of God and shows us something of God.

It's one thing to own or use a gun for self-defense or for hunting. However, a line is crossed when that gun becomes enmeshed with a person's identity—when that gun is necessary for a person to feel good about themselves. In this case, gun idolatry has set in.

We Can Do Better

We can do better as a society. We can't simply neglect our men and boys as a society and then be surprised when society starts to crumble—and mass shootings are a very good indicator of that crumbling. Catholic priest Fr. Richard Rohr has a great video series about this. He argues that just about every traditional society had rites of passage and a system of mentorship for the young, especially for young men. We don't have that today and the results are disastrous. 

I walked by a gun store the other day. There were a few guys in there perusing guns, holding them. You could see how that very environment—that access—that privilege—that ritual... changes their posture, it changes their energy. It gives them a sense of importance, power and meaning. You could just see it radiating off of them. Having all that power at their disposal gives a sense of awe and responsibility. In this way, gun stewardship is a kind of a rite of passage for some men. Maybe for some guys that sense of responsibility can be a good thing—good training, mentorship and a culture that supports these goals about guns can help people manage that great responsibility and rise to the occasion (but this goes back to being "well-regulated"—the example of Switzerland shows how a well-regulated gun culture could work). But for so many others this power does not come with an equal share of responsibility, and innocent people are paying the price with their lives and well-being.

The Plight of Young Men

Young men are under a lot of pressure:

1.  They are expected to achieve and to provide for their families. Yet, society has made it increasingly difficult for this to happen.

2.  Hollywood tells them that they must lead and dominate at all times. Yet, real life doesn't work that way.

3.  On top of that, these men are also fed a message that success is solely determined by one's individual efforts. They are told you can't point to any societal factors but only your own hard work and enterprise (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this myth persists).

4.  Even further, there are fewer and fewer places where men gather for camaraderie, support and private conversation. My barber used to tell me what his shop used to be like a generation ago: Men would gather on a weekend morning for far more than a haircut and shave. They played pool, smoked cigars and talked about family, sports and the nation. This was once common and is now rare.

5.  Then on top of all this, society tells them that they are over-privileged! Make no mistake: White, male, hetero, Christian privilege is real. But people who assign those labels rarely give witness to the whole story, and this only makes it more difficult to talk about and address the real problems of privilege.

So what do these men do?  They try to boost themselves to make up for it. They carry guns. Some take steroids or drive big trucks. Then many in society make fun of them for that. It's a no win situation. Many young men respond by isolating themselves with their own friends and tune out the rest of society, since the rest of society clearly doesn't understand them. They are trying to live up to the impossible standards that society and Hollywood have set, without having much of a stabilizing influence of older men in their lives offering a better vision and a chance to be part of something good and decent.

We are failing males in our society, including—maybe especially—the ones we call "over-privileged." Yes, their privilege is real, but underneath it is a more complex story. They don't have good mentors, they don't know where else to find meaning—and more importantly, they don't seem to have a sense of their own value and dignity without needing a gun (or wanting to overpower others) to feel good about themselves. Whether or not they discern a gun can be useful for self-defense isn't the issue... the issue is they shouldn't need a gun to feel complete or whole as a human being. We can complain about them and talk about the dangers of fragile, insecure men—and that danger is real. But I actually feel for guys in this situation. We don't know how to raise men, how to talk about men and how to support men. And we see the results.

Is it any wonder why so many young men, especially white men, fall through the cracks and find meaning and belonging in gun culture and in internet chat rooms where this unspoken rage finds an outlet? All this pressure, and a poor understanding by the rest of society of what it means to be male today, leads to stress. They carry a profound internal rage and don't know how to manage it. Some cope with their rage by finding another group to pick on—immigrants, other races, the disabled, lgbtq+, etc. Add in the experience of being bullied or unpopular and many simply reach the breaking point. There are so many young men who are just one mentor away from succumbing to this.

The feminist movement has created space to talk about what it means to be female and what it means to be a woman. Unfortunately, we have made the tragic mistake of assuming that men do not need the same kind of conversation about what it means to be male and what it means to be a man.

Whether or not people discern a gun can be useful for self-defense isn't the issue... 

the issue is they shouldn't need a gun to feel complete or whole as a human being.

Christians: Are your issues with immigrants really about the law?

I want to ask Christians a very serious question. I ask for your sincere prayer on this. Many Christians say they have no problem with immigrants as long as they come here legally. They cite Romans 13 to support this. They demand that immigrants "respect our laws." They say it's just that simple.

I have heard thousands of complaints about undocumented immigrants over the last several years. However, I have very rarely heard any public outcry over the business owners who knowingly hire them--an act which is often a much more serious illegal offense than simply being here without proper documents, as this article points out (see comments for article).

If you say that the business owners are just caught in a difficult circumstance where the market forces them to hire undocumented workers or go out of business... then perhaps it is also easy to believe that the people coming here without papers are also being forced to do so due the very same market forces.

This is what makes it so difficult to believe objections over undocumented immigrants are really about the law. Because if it is about the integrity--or even as some say, the sanctity of the law (in light of their interpretation of Romans 13)--then that judgment would be applied more consistently to all. In fact, the native-born citizen business owners no doubt have a team of lawyers to make sure they know the law whereas an undocumented immigrant from another country would most likely not have those kinds of resources. But few decry the whole system that illegally exploits and benefits from the labor of undocumented immigrants... virtually all complaints are about the immigrants themselves.

People get offended when they are accused of being "racist" or having prejudices against another culture, language, race or ethnicity or just a general unwelcoming of "outsiders" or people who look or seem "different" (it wouldn't be a religious objection, because the immigrants from Central America are almost all Evangelical, Pentecostal or Catholic Christians--you would think the common religious tradition would form a bond between people but in this case not so much). I don't enjoy making those accusations, either, if for no other reason than it tends to interrupt the possibility for a discussion and puts people on the defensive. However, I hope you understand that inconsistencies like those pointed out above lead people wonder what the REAL reason is for the hard hardheartedness when it comes to immigrants. It really does not seem like the stated reason (the law) is the real reason.

Further, many immigrants (such as asylum seekers) are NOT even doing anything illegal but the negative outcry is the same. Many who are speaking out against immigrants do not even bother to hear directly from the immigrants themselves as to why they do what they do and the difficult circumstances they are in and the hard choices they have had to make. Quick, harsh judgments are made about them without a sincere, thoughtful, personal inquiry.

There are people so upset over immigration they want a wall almost 2,000 miles long to keep "them" out. Some are so upset they demand armed militia "protect" the border--a ridiculous idea but I mention it here to illustrate a point: I don't hear any proposed ideas to discourage business owners or hold them accountable for their illegal practices. I don't see protests outside of the HQ of these businesses nor do I hear a desire for these business owners to be subjected to the same dehumanizing and abusive conditions which immigrants are subject to in our immigrant detention facilities (just for the record, I don't support that either, but I mention it to illustrate a point). Usually Christians don't see themselves as enforcers of the law of the state, and it's rarely the business of the church what relationship people have with the secular law. But in the case of immigration, I hear so much seething moral condemnation. The only factors that correlate to the outrage seem to be race, religion and ethnicity.

My neighbors set off illegal fireworks all year. Many hunt outside of season without a license. Speeding and other traffic offenses are just a way of life. People buy and sell "under the table" to avoid taxes. What about respect for these laws? I don't hear much outrage over this, at least nothing that compares to the utter moral disgust that people claim they have for immigrants--and just to be clear, only immigrants from south of the border. There are actually many undocumented immigrants from Europe and Canada, but again... I don't hear much outrage. But LEGAL immigrants who are refugees from Africa--or who are Muslim--or LEGAL asylum seekers from Central America--and there's all sorts of outrage.

So is it REALLY about the law? I sincerely ask you to take some time and bring this question to prayer. Where is the outrage really coming from, and is it fair? is the outrage proportional to the actual offense you have identified, and are you equally offended by all parties according to the metric (i.e. the law) that you are using to base this judgment? If not, are you willing to do better? Are you willing to repent, seek forgiveness and "sin no more" (John 8:11)?

Pray about it.

Sensible Weapons Regulations: A Longstanding Tradition

When talking about gun violence, gun enthusiasts often act like any regulations on firearms would be some kind of radical, unprecedented break with our fundamental rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Lions, tigers and bears, oh my!

However, this is not true at all.

I always remind these folks that the vast majority of weapons are off limits to the public and only the military has access to them. We have a longstanding tradition of banning weapons from public use and always have. Loaded tanks, missiles, grenades, machine guns... the list goes on and on. It's NOT a radical break in the 2nd amendment to suggest that assault-style guns and rifles should be included in the list "for military access only." 

There are thousands and thousands of weapons restricted from civilian use. Further, these regulations are very effective at keeping them out of public access.  Adding a couple more (like the AR-15 and its class of weapons) would only move the needle slightly but studies indicate it would have a significant impact on public health. There are some weapons so heinous even the military won't use them, but it is still the only group authorized to research them or keep them in any way. Sure, you can buy some stripped-down, neutralized versions at a surplus store, but that's not the same, of course.

Just for the record, I don't know which weapons are included on which list or which ones specifically need to be banned, so before you respond with "But what about the XYZ semiautomatic which falls in between categories??" that misses the point: CLEARLY the line between civilian and military weapons needs to be re-evaluated significantly in light of new technologies and in light of public risk. If someone is willing to shoot up a shopping mall and doesn't seem to mind getting killed in the process or spending the rest of their lives in prison, you simply don't give them easy access to firearms, especially those of mass destruction. Arguing semantics about gun categories is fine when it comes time for an official committee to set proper parameters, but we in the general public do not need that to make an informed decision NOW.

It's the same rationale why bombs, nukes and related items are severely restricted from civilian use. If your neighbor wants to blow up a city with a nuke, whether or not you retaliate with a nuke of your own is not going to matter a whole lot. Prevention works better than cure here. Something clearly has to be done in our culture and arming more people won't fix this.

The same reason we don't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons capabilities is the same reason I don't want my neighbor to have access to an AR-15.

Look at the recent Dayton shooting: I believe the gunman was shot by security within seconds of opening fire. It's hard to imagine a better response time. Nevertheless, it didn't stop the shooting, it didn't stop the deaths, and it didn't seem to deter the killer in any way. Many were dead in that short time. We can't arm our way out of this. A whole room full of people fully armed will not stop a mass shooting. The shooter can fire off an AR-15 and kill several before anyone could respond.

The US military confirms this:  In their words, you can't defend an infinite number of targets. You can successfully defend specific individual people or buildings. For example, you can guard a building, like the Capitol or a museum. You can have protection around a president and defend him effectively—well, sometimes this doesn't work, as Ronald Reagan was shot despite being surrounded by Secret Service guards. So even this is debatable, but in theory it can be done. But when the potential targets are literally anybody, anywhere, anytime, you have to address this on the supply side of prevention, not cure. It's the same problem the military had with suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arming the population or having more checkpoints isn't going to stop it. It has to be addressed further back in the supply chain of access to materials, in addressing systemic injustices and root causes of violence. It won't be successfully addressed by having more security, by more people employing "open carry" or by arming teachers.

You might say: "They'll use knives! They'll make their own homemade bombs!" However, as tragic as that might be, in both instances, the scale would be substantially smaller and the startup effort required would be significantly higher, which would reduce bloodshed exponentially and perhaps even prevent some tragedies from happening at all. Of course we have to look at root causes of violence and seriously revamp our society on may levels, and I would be thrilled to have that conversation. I would love to do everything to create a society based in peace and nonviolent conflict resolution which builds up its members. Let's do it! I wonder if gun enthusiasts really know what they are asking for when they talk about addressing root causes of violence outside of guns! Peace and love is the way!

But in the meantime—and for all times—we don't give easy access to weapons of mass destruction to people who want to commit mass destruction on the public! Simple. It's the guns. If you look at the example of how we limit weapons to the military only, we are not even following our own logic and policies here. We've always limited them. We've always had regulations. Adding a couple extra models of weapons to the list of thousands and thousands and thousands which are off limits to civilians is not a radical departure from what we've always done. The only radical departure is that our regulations have not kept pace with the increasing technology of weapons.

Adding a couple extra models to the list of thousands and thousands and thousands of weapons which are off limits to civilians is not a radical departure from what we've always done.

We have to remember that both the Constitution (5th and 7th amendments of the Bill of Rights) and the Declaration of Independence guarantees the rights to life, liberty and property IN THAT ORDER (rendered slightly differently as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence). We forget that last part: In that order. It may not be written in the text but it has always been understood and interpreted that way. There are reasonable limits to all of the rights enshrined in our founding documents as a result. When one person's pursuit of happiness interferes with other person's life, we choose life. Period. When we live together in an ordered society, one person's behavior can and will impact another person, and this is why we have a hierarchy of rights and liberties to assure the best for all. This is especially true when the liberty of carrying a gun is NOT associated with any increased safety for the gun owner or anyone else—in fact, it is only correlated with increased risk to life, liberty and happiness. 

When someone walks into a Starbucks with an AR-15, my pursuit of happiness is over, my liberty to spend time there is effectively limited, and I'm worried about my life. I'm planning my exit immediately and so is everyone else. I don't know what the person's intentions are or what their training has been. Besides, accidents happen even with trained people. Even armed security could not stop a person from shooting up a crowd with an AR-15. That is why even just brandishing the weapon—and not using it—is already an act of aggression—even unused it causes a disturbance and it inflicts trauma—and this is why they must be banned immediately and effectively.

Root Causes of Gun Violence

My ears perk up when gun enthusiasts say we need to address root causes of violence and not look at regulating guns. 

Do they really know what they are asking for? 

You mean... you want to create a society that fundamentally reshapes the way we approach and manage stress, which trains in nonviolent conflict resolution (like MLK showed us), and which blossoms in peace and love everywhere? 

That our whole society would band together to continuously work on this openly and enthusiastically? 

To love the lost, to tend the wounded, to make sure no one is isolated, bullied or forgotten? 

To breathe in peace and breathe out pain as an all around way of life? 

I say, bring it on!

To Trust in God's abundance and not make false idols out of weapons?

To learn how to share the earth with one another and to cooperate? To create mutually beneficial relationships rather than exploit vulnerabilities for profit?

Yes! Yes! Yes!

God created all that we know out of love.

God redeemed the world through the cross out of love. 

God has continued to sanctify the world through Pentecost and beyond out of love.

All of Scripture has to be read through the lens of this continual outpouring of love.

Violence only begets more violence, as Scripture also shows quite well. Violent revolutions seem at first to fix one problem only to create another violent society in its place. Oppressive empires are replaced by another evil empire. The king of the hill who bullies others is knocked off the top only to be replaced by another king of the hill doing much of the same. Violence is a chain reaction that only leads to move violence. In the movies, violence seems to puts people in their place and allows goodness to flow, but in reality it just doesn't work that way. Hollywood movies speak to the simple solutions that we all long for on some level, but they shouldn't be taken as a script for real life.

Nonviolent movements for social change have been wildly successful (but woefully under-reported).

The only reasons nonviolence is hard is because it involves mutual change to resolve a conflict. Both parties have to take risks, be vulnerable and be open to transformation.

Yes, part of human nature we struggle with is to be competitive. But we forget that an equal part of human nature is to be cooperative. Humans have always lived in tight-knit villages, clans and families where work and its rewards are shared. People work according to their ability and are given according to their need.

Modern civilization has advanced so rapidly that we have forgotten so many longstanding traditions. Most tribal societies have brilliant, compassionate and very human ways of addressing wrongdoings of members. Mennonite scholar Howard Zehr has lead the movement for restorative justice which resembles much of what human cultures have always done but which we in the modern world have forgotten.

I leave you with this absolutely brilliant video series by Catholic spiritual leader Richard Rohr who talks about the need for "male initiation." Male initiation is something virtually every traditional culture does but our modern one does not. The results are catastrophic—violence, spousal abuse, substance abuse, mental health problems and suicide. In most cultures, young men are groomed through a system of mentoring, challenging adventures such as vision quests and interaction with proper role models. This link is part 1 of a 4 part series, well worth watching for the full hour all together (Parts 2, 3 and 4 should follow automatically). There is much to be said about how we are neglecting men and boys in our society which may be at the root of the violence we are seeing today.