“Forget About His Will For Your Life!”

A couple of weeks ago I read through both Crazy Love and Forgotten God by Francis Chan. Both of these books were deeply convicting and resulted in me attempting to adopt a new mindset and to desire to love God more. I found these books to be so convicting, but also so helpful, that I’ve decided to host a bible study based on one or both books. Out of the two of these books, one chapter in particular stuck out at me a bit more than most: Chapter 6 in Forgotten God titled “Forget about His will for your life!”

In a book centered on modern [Western] Christianity’s “tragic neglect of the Holy Spirit” and His leading, it seems somewhat out of place that the author would urge his readers to “Forget about His will for your life”. But what he has to say makes a lot of sense. Francis Chan makes the point that very rarely in the bible does God present anyone with a roadmap to their life. The individuals in the bible are largely told “Go” and they either do or they don’t. God is concerned about what we do in these times. Abraham didn’t know where he was going to wind up when God instructed him to pick up and move, and it certainly doesn’t seem reasonable that we should expect anymore from God than what He provided to Abraham, or Joseph, or David.

Chan also makes a point that he “believe[s] part of the desire to ‘know God’s will for my life’ is birthed in fear and results in paralysis. We are scared to make mistakes, so we fret over figuring out God’s will. We wonder what living according to His will would actually look and feel like, and we are scared to find out”. I certainly have seen the effects of this in my own life. I’ve been paralyzed in fear of making the wrong choice in location, occupation, etc. for so long because I haven’t felt any particular leading in any particular direction. I’ve almost felt as if I was being lead one way one day and in a completely different direction the next. Chan even makes the point that using the phrase “God’s will for my life” is “an excuse for inaction or even disobedience”. What is far more important to God is what we are doing right now.

We are not going to go wrong if we listen to what the Spirit is telling us to do right now. And despite my desire to listen much more closely I know that it is not easy. In fact, I have a confession to make. I’m fairly certain that I ignored his leading just as recently as this morning. I stopped at Speedway on the way into work to pick up a pop and a snack. There was a woman there who seemed to have a coolant leak or an overheating engine and she was struggling to find something to add water to her radiator. I thought about buying her a jug of antifreeze, but I was already heading out the door and I really needed to go drop some thing in the mail and get to work. Well, at least that’s what I told myself as I tried to justify not dropping the couple of bucks and spending that extra two minutes at the register to pay for some coolant. Was this a big deal? Maybe, maybe not. I’ll never know what God would have used that act for had I decided to do what I genuinely feel I was being led to do, and for that I’m sorry.

Francis Chan’s point is not that God doesn’t have purposes or plans for your life, but rather, that we should not be so concerned with the long term plan that He has never promised to give us that we neglect the Spirit’s leading in the “small” things here and now. While I’m still struggling at finding something that I want to do with my life I’m starting to pay more attention to the “little” things that the Spirit is leading me to do now.

This is one of those times when the concept for the note was better in my head than I seem to have been able to translate into text. But I guess the gist is that I would encourage you to begin paying more attention to those things you are being led to do by the Spirit in your day to day life than attempt to discern where the Spirit is leading you 20 years from now. Additionally, I would recommend you read those two books that I mentioned in my introduction. There’s a lot of good stuff in them. And don’t expect to be happy about how you’re living right now when you’re done.

Crazy Love

Most people don’t know this, but I keep a journal/diary/whatever-you-want-to-call-it on my computer. It’s a place for me to hash out exactly what’s going on in my life privately, to put my thoughts into words, make plans, build resolve, and the like. Sometimes it helps me to form coherent thoughts out of a stream of consciousness or to see how ridiculous some of my concerns really seem from an objective viewpoint. I don’t write in it often, it only seems to be times when something bad has happened, when I’m feeling low,  when something exciting has occurred, or when I’m trying to work something out spiritually. Today’s entry belongs to that last category. I was reading Crazy Love by Francis Chan earlier today while it was calm at work and it inspired some thoughts.

After I had finished the entry I decided that I wanted to share it with others in case they are in a similar spot. Not all of these thoughts are original, and I’m sure that many echo much of what I’ve read so far in the book, but the sentiments are mine.

October 19, 2011

Yesterday, when I was finally able to leave the house after Connor's mom picked him up after school and after the dogs had been fed and walked I went to Barnes & Noble to pick up a couple of books. I picked up Crazy Love and Forgotten God by Francis Chan. Right now I've read through the first two chapters [since I've finished the third chapter] of Crazy Love and it appears that this is a book that I really need to read and ponder. The purpose of the book is to assist readers in fostering a high view of God with the accompanying love for Him that should ensue. I know that lately, perhaps for my whole life even, I've had a very difficult time with loving God. Actually loving Him. I hope that this book combined with more time in Scripture will assist me in changing that. I know that God is “holy, holy, holy” to use the Hebrew repetition reflecting perfection, but I've always had a difficult time translating that knowledge into action and love. At the very least this book isn't going to hurt anything. It has already helped me to get into a better frame of mind by reminding me of things that I already know. Sometimes that's not such a bad thing.

Sometimes it is a good thing to be reminded how weak and fragile we are; that our lives are really nothing more than a vapor; that the only purpose to our existence is to glorify God. As the Jesus says: “Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?” (Matthew 6:27). Worry and stress are symptoms of selfishness. They are sinful. And they are two sins that I have a great deal of difficulty with. I seem to be a natural worrier. I have difficulty seeing beyond the difficulties of life that I am presently facing. I forget that everything is in God's hands and nothing will happen to me that is outside of God's plan and sovereign will. Everything I do in my life should be designed to point others to God. The only way that I can do that is if I rejoice in everything and show others the peace I have because of my faith in Christ.

I know that this is not a problem that is going to be easily solved. I know that it will be something that I struggle with perhaps for the rest of my life. But this reminder is essential. It reminds me of my proper place in this world. As Francis Chan points out, even the great biblical figures of David, Abraham, Moses, Paul, Peter, and Mary are not lead roles in the story of this world – God alone is the lead. God is the center of this story. He alone is eternal. Everything in Scripture points to God. It is about God working in the life of Solomon, God working in the life of David, God working in the life of Saul become Paul. In terms of earthly significance I can't even hold a candle to those figures; if they are just bit parts, what does that make me?

I need to remember to be thankful and grateful for what I do have. I must remember that I must “Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!” (Philippians 4:4). This is not optional, it is a command. It is an imperative. I cannot rejoice in the Lord while I am worried and stressed. I have a choice between the one or the other. Sometimes I need to stop and consider all of the things that I do have to be grateful for. First and foremost is that God sent His Son to die as a result of my sins so that I may be spared eternal damnation. My student loans or my current inability to find a career pale in comparison to the greatness of that one gift. That is to say nothing about my family, the country and relative wealth I was born into, and the various opportunities that I've been given. I have been truly blessed and I must remember this far more frequently. I have never truly suffered from want and I've always had what I've needed.

There is a praise chorus that is sung frequently at church. I really enjoy it, but I've always had some difficulty singing it wholeheartedly:

How great the Father's love for us,

how vast beyond all measure...

Those are words that for some reason I've always had difficulty identifying with. The next two lines have always hit a little closer to home:

That He should give His only son,

to make a wretch his treasure...[emphasis added]

I have no trouble recognizing my own wretchedness. That is a topic that I am intimately familiar with. This book, combined with the numerous Scriptural references is helping to reacquaint me with those first two lines of that chorus. These are things that I know intellectually. They have been driven into my head all my life in church after all. One of the first songs that I ever learned to sing was “Jesus Loves Me”. Sometimes it seems like all of this intellectual knowledge has somehow inoculated me from actually knowing this love.

Perhaps part of the problem is that I've had very little earthly experience with love. It's not that I don't love my family or that they don't love me. That is absolutely not true. But it's a love that I've always known. I know nothing else. It is difficult for me to conceive of life in any other circumstance. It is the norm. When something is so normal – so consistent and reliable – you can easily take it for granted. I have never known a time when I was without the love of my parents or my sisters, just as there has never been a time that I can remember that God's love has not seemed to have been a given. Familiarity breeds complacency. This complacency comes into being through a process similar to how a body becomes immune to real sickness through vaccination; an exposure to an inert form of the disease inoculates you to the real thing. I have been so exposed to the intellectual or “inert” knowledge of God's love that my heart seems to be immune to the reality of it. I can't speak from experience, but it seems that I might value God's love more had I not “known” it for my entire life, just as I might appreciate the love of my family more had I been adopted rather than born into it. I have no earthly experience with receiving love that someone didn't “have” to give or that hasn't always been there. God does not “have” to give me His love, which is why it is so amazing. But my inexperience with what I'll call “elective love” causes me to take it for granted. I might not be so complacent about His love and about loving Him if it was something I had only recently become acquainted with or if I had experiential knowledge of what it is like to be loved despite who I am by someone who does not have to love me.

And God does love me. How do I know this? Well, as that old chorus says “For the bible tells me so”. There is of course the obvious reference:

For God so loved the world the he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

But the more amazing context is this:

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (Romans 5:8-10) [emphasis added]

These two passages demonstrate that He loves me, and there are still more references that I could cite. But He didn't have to love me. As the verses in Romans 5 point out; He loved me while I was still a sinner, and he reconciled me to him through the death of His Son while I was His enemy. God hates sin, yet He still loves me. He doesn't have to, but He does. I think this is something that everyone should be reminded of regularly, but especially me as I've never really consciously known anything else.

I can only hope and pray that in continuing to read through that book, spending time in the Word, and through diligent prayer that I will finally begin to truly love God. I know that I can never love Him as much as He deserves, but I know that I can love Him more than I do now.

 

The first of the chapter videos that accompany the book.

What is a Police Officer?

With the rash of violence targeted toward police officers in the last couple of years I’ve seen many question why so much attention is given to line of duty deaths. After all, the argument goes, they are just another individual murdered. There’s no difference between the officer and another individual gunned down on the street in terms of humanity, is there? There are other dangerous occupations out there as well. However, to understand why an attack on a police officer captures the attention of the community we must understand exactly what a police officer is on the practical level and in the abstract.

What is a police officer? On its face, the answer to this question seems simple. A cop is just a guy who got a job with a police department, carries a gun and a badge, and puts bad people in jail, right? Certainly that’s a part of what a police officer is. Obviously he (or she) is just a human doing their job. But what is their job? They enforce the laws of society, obviously. But do they really do this job as another individual amongst equal individuals? No they don’t. When a regular citizen attempts to do similarly, except in exigent circumstances, that regular citizen will find himself in legal hot water. This tells us that there is something abstract which sets the police officer apart from the rest of society.

That abstract idea which sets the officer apart from John Q. Public is the fact that when he takes his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and his home state and to enforce the laws of his state and community he becomes the personification of society at large. His authority is derived from the trust placed in him by his community. When he arrests someone, he is not arresting them, the community is arresting the individual. The officer embodies the authority of the community. The authority delegated to the officer is the authority to use force, even deadly force, to ensure that those who violate the community’s laws can be brought to justice in the court system. This is why police officers are held to a higher standard in terms of conduct. Officers can be held criminally liable if they execute the duties of their office improperly or neglect certain aspects of their duties. Effectively a police officer is two persons in one: John Q. Public and Officer Public.

Instinctively we recognize this to be true. When an off-duty police officer is assaulted or killed in a home invasion robbery with no connection to his occupation we consider it to be a shame and a tragedy, but likely very little additional attention is given to the events apart from a blurb on the 6 o’clock news and a story in the paper. Yet, when an officer is gunned down in the line of duty we instinctively recognize that something very different has happened. We may not be able to articulate this difference and we may not understand this difference, but we know something unusually heinous has occurred.

When one individual chooses to take the life of another there is really only one direct victim of the crime: the one whose life was ended. Certainly there are other “victims”; friends, family, dependants, etc, but the crime itself has one victim. This is not so when an officer is assaulted or murdered. There is a similarity of course between the two crimes, but what distinguishes between them is the second victim: society. When someone murders another he demonstrates a lack of regard for that individual. When someone murders or attacks an officer, not only do they demonstrate a lack of regard for the individual but also the rule of law and society as a whole. In effect, the assault is a treasonous act of sorts. The perpetrator is declaring that they are in opposition to society, that society’s laws have no authority over them, that they have no fear of society’s justice.

We recognize intuitively that when an officer is attacked we are also victims. An individual we have entrusted with our authority has been attacked simply because that authority has been vested in him. We feel a degree of responsibility for this attack – we have a minor case of survivor’s guilt. This individual lost their life because they chose to act on our behalf. This is what is different. This is what makes a police officer a police officer. He is a public servant; he enforces the law so we don’t have to. As a result, when an officer is killed during the course of their duties, we recognize that in a very real sense he has died in our place.

I'm not sure if I've conveyed my thinking as clearly as I would like, or if my thinking makes any sense at all. But this matter has been on my mind for about a week since the death of Kalamazoo Dept. of Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata. I really think that there is something that definitively sets a police officer apart from the average citizen. Not that his life somehow intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's, but that by virtue of his duties there is another element to his life distinct from his individual self which in the abstract represents all of us.

Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata – End of Watch: April 18, 2011

Late Monday night, Kalamazoo lost one of its heroes. Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata was shot and killed while investigating a shots fired call in the Edison neighborhood. Upon the arrival of the first officer, he encountered Leonard Statler on his front porch and questioned if he had heard any shots fired in the area. Statler then produced a handgun and began firing. The first officer returned fire, sought cover and called for assistance. Statler then retrieved a long gun and ran down a back alley where moments later he encountered Officer Zapata and took his life and then turned the gun on himself. Officer Zapata is the first Kalamazoo Dept. of Public Safety officer to have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty – protecting the people he swore to serve.

What does one say in the face of such a tragic and senseless loss? What can one person do to adequately express their sorrow? As the son of a law enforcement officer, every time I read about or hear about another line of duty death it hits very close to home. The fact that Officer Zapata is local to me makes matters worse. I can only imagine the torment that his family is going through right now. Though to the best of my knowledge I have never met Officer Zapata I have shed many tears in the last day due to his passing. My prayers go out to his family, his friends, and his department as they mourn the loss of a faithful father, friend, and peace officer.

While Officer Zapata is understandably and rightfully at the forefront in the community’s thoughts and prayers at the moment, we must remember that he is not the only casualty of Leonard Statler’s selfish and senseless act of violence. Innocent children are now without a father, a wife is now without a husband, a mother without a son, and forever there will be an empty space at the table where Officer Zapata’s friends sit. The presently unnamed first responding officer will carry a burden for the rest of his life. There will always be a lingering doubt of whether he did all that he possibly could, whether he did his best, whether he shares some of the blame for Officer Zapata’s death. He will likely suffer from an acute case of survivor’s guilt for many years to come. To that officer, should he ever read this: Do not blame yourself. You did all that you could. The only person to blame for this is Leonard Statler. He alone made the decision to take Officer Zapata’s life. Only he could have prevented what occurred. There are other officers who have been exactly where you are today. If you can’t carry this burden alone, seek these men and women out, seek counsel. There are people who will help you carry this awful burden. I pray that God will grant you peace and that He will comfort you in this time of distress.

I ask that anyone who reads this post will please take the time to pray for Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata’s family, friends, and coworkers. Please pray that God will grant them the strength that they need to make it through this challenging and trying time, that Officer Zapata’s family will have their needs provided for, and that each would be comforted and granted peace in time. I also ask that you pray and continue to pray for our law enforcement officers who daily pull on body armor and strap on a gun and handcuffs. Pray that God will keep them safe throughout their tour of duty; that they would be granted the wisdom, strength, courage, and compassion to do their duties; and lastly, that if their life should ever be required of them, that God would please watch over their children and spouse. They sacrifice so very much for all of us, and our prayers are the very least that we should give to them in return.

Officer Zapata, Kalamazoo will miss you.

Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata

Biting the Hand that Feeds

Recognizing that few people - if anyone at all – read this blog, I understand that the post I am about to make is likely only somewhat less productive than spitting into the wind.  However, I have noticed that in recent discussions on policies being debated in various state legislatures, as well as those in Washington DC, there are some fundamental disconnects in relation to the stated desires of liberals (the creation of jobs) and their opposition to legislating lower corporate taxes or the creation of corporate incentives.

In most of these debates, individuals decrying lower corporate tax rates refer to such policies as “corporate welfare”.  Additionally, they suggest that the legislature’s time would be better spent crafting legislation that would “create jobs”.  Unfortunately, these individuals do not seem to understand that the reason why many states – like Michigan – have such high unemployment rates is due to the fact that the present corporate taxation policies have created incentives for corporations to do business elsewhere.  Simply put, the corporate tax rates (and often labor policies in Union states) have created a situation where it is simply too expensive to continue to do business in that state or nation (remember, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world).

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the purposes of corporations.  Most on the Left, and in fact, many on the Right seem to believe that corporations exist for two reasons: the creation of jobs, and the manufacture or provision of products and services.  This is simply not the case.  The sole purpose of a corporation (or for that matter, any business) is to produce a profit for the ownership.  To that end a corporation may manufacture products and create jobs, but those are simply the means utilized to get to one end: profit.  When states or nations enact policies which cut into the profit margins of a corporation or business they are also enacting disincentives to do business in that state or nation.

To demonstrate how this works, allow me to use an analogy that I believe that we can all relate to: filling up our gas tanks at the local gas station.  When it comes time to fill up our gas tank, where are we most likely going to fill up?  Is it the station where gas is $3.25/gallon, or is it the station that is charging $4.05/gallon?  The obvious answer is the first station, the one that is charging $3.25.  Corporations and businessmen make similar calculations.  When they choose to start or relocate a business, or to expand their operations they shop around.  They take several things into consideration when making their decisions: political and economic stability of the location, the cost of labor, governmental regulation, and the corporate tax rates.  When a particular locality has enacted high corporate tax rates, has unsustainably high labor costs (as in most union states), is politically or economically unstable, and/or has excessive governmental regulation they will most likely choose to do business elsewhere.  The costs of doing business are simply too high.

For the last few decades, businesses in Michigan as well as the United States have been voting with their feet.  They have increasingly moved operations outside of Michigan, and in many cases, outside of the United States.  While the popular narrative is that this is simply the result of “corporate greed”, it is simply wise business practice.  Like individuals, business have a responsibility to utilize their limited resources in the manner that provides for the greatest return on investment.  In much the same way that a family on a limited budget will purchase groceries at a discount grocer, corporations move operations to “right to work” states like the Carolinas or to other nations who have lower costs of labor and corporate tax rates.  The primary responsibility of that corporation is to provide its ownership with the largest possible return on investment.

However, in the rush to demonize these corporations for simply doing their fiduciary duty, many people forget that they themselves are also the very same corporate ownership they themselves are demonizing for so-called “corporate greed”.  If you are the owner of a 401(k), mutual fund, share of stock, or any of many other forms of investments you are, in fact, a corporate owner.  The company that you may despise for “obscene” profits is actually conducting itself in the manner that it must to ensure that you, the shareholder, receives the greatest possible return on your investment to create the incentive for others to invest in the corporation.

The legislative policies that discourage or punish so-called “corporate greed” ultimately are harmful to individuals and employment because they make business too expensive.  They also play a part in devaluing the investments of the citizenry.  Not only is John Q. Public likely to one day receive the harm of a lay-off or pink slip as his company moves out of the state or country; but to add insult to injury his investment portfolio will also take a hit as corporate profits decrease over time due to the increased costs of doing business in an environment hostile to profits.

Businesses have repeatedly signaled that the status quo in corporate and labor policy is harmful.  This has been repeatedly seen in Michigan where several businesses, even the “big three” automotive manufacturers, have continued to move operations out of the state or shut down operations at certain plants altogether.  We are presently dealing with the simple economic repercussions of creating a hostile business environment.  The reason we have high unemployment is because companies cannot make enough money here to justify the costs of operations.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is good for the average individual to have corporations making “obscene” profits.  In fact, the more obscene the better.  If a company is making large profits in the locale that they are in, it provides additional incentives to continue operations in that locale.  If you enact policies that make creating profits difficult, you provide that same corporation the incentive to move operations (and jobs) elsewhere. 

If we, as a people, want to continue to have a high standard of living, we need our corporations to continue making “obscene” profits.  Not only do we benefit through the creation or at least maintenance of jobs, we benefit through the expansion of our investment portfolios.  I believe that it is safe to say that most Americans who are employed full-time have some sort of investment portfolio, whether a 401(k), personal mutual funds, or other retirement account.  That means that most Americans make up corporate ownership to some degree.  When corporations profit, we profit ourselves.

We must begin to recognize the simple economics of job creation and corporate taxation.  Jobs are not created in a vacuum.  There are a multitude of factors that determine whether a corporation will create jobs, but it can generally be boiled down to one simple question: “Does the creation of a job here help or hurt me?”  Unfortunately, if those who advocate high corporate tax rates and unsustainably high labor costs have their way, the answer to that question will more often than not be that job creation hurts the corporation.  When the expense of hiring a worker is greater than the benefit they provide to the company, or the costs of operations in a locality become so high as to eat away the profit margins of that corporation, they will cease to do business and hire workers in that locality.  It is an ugly truth, but truth nonetheless.

Tucson and Gun Control: Why More Gun Control Wouldn’t Have Mattered

In just a few hours following the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the murders of six other innocents including a federal judge and a nine year-old girl last week in Tucson, Arizona gun control advocates were once again in the news demanding more restrictions on Americans’ right to “keep and bear arms”.  In the time since, debate on whether Americans should be “allowed” to own “high capacity ‘clips’”  and “assault weapons” has once again heated up in public discourse.  Proponents of additional gun control measures have claimed that had the Assault Weapons Ban not been permitted to expire in 2004, Jared Loughner would have been unable to perpetrate the heinous crimes of last week.  Others have argued that the culprit is Arizona’s “lax” gun control measures where permits are no longer required to carry firearms concealed or openly.  However, these arguments are purely driven by emotion and speculation, not on hard facts.  The simple reality is that no gun control measure is likely to have done anything at all to prevent these terrible shootings.  Further, no such measure is likely to prevent such shootings from occurring in the future.  My objective in this essay is to demonstrate the many reasons for this assertion.

1. a.
   First among the reasons why additional gun control would likely have done nothing to prevent the shootings in Tucson is the simple fact that Loughner was not concerned at all with the law.  If Loughner is not inclined to follow the simplest of civil, common, and divine laws, “Thou Shalt not Murder”, it is highly unlikely that he would be concerned with paltry gun control regulations like “thou shalt not be in possession of a high capacity ammunition feeding device which enables a firearm to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading”.
   
   b.
   The same argument can be applied to those who believe that Arizona should rethink its policies on concealed and open carry of handguns.  When Loughner left his home January 8, 2011, he left with the intent to kill.  His plan is not going to be thwarted by a legal declaration that one may not carry firearms in public.  We see this everyday when criminals in states like Illinois and New York (which all but prohibit the carrying of firearms) hold up convenience stores and gun down people in the streets.  If prohibiting concealed carry was the answer, these crimes should never happen.  But they do.
   
   c.
   Even had the 1994 assault weapons ban remained in effect, guns and magazines like those used by Loughner remained legal to possess and use.  The 33 round Glock 18 machine pistol magazine used by Loughner (not to be confused with the semiautomatic Glock 17 or 19) was still legally available to the American public, albeit at a steeply inflated price provided that the magazine was manufactured prior to the ban being enacted.  Further, the semiautomatic Glock 19 used by the killer was available with no further restrictions than it must include a magazine of no more than 10 rounds capacity.  Loughner would have been perfectly capable of attaining both the gun and the magazine under the late ban’s restrictions.
   
   d.
   Further, there is evidence that simply by purchasing the firearm in the first place Loughner was already committing a federal crime.  Classmates have repeatedly described Loughner as a “pothead” who was a regular and unlawful user of marijuana.  When Loughner purchased his Glock 19, he, like all other gun purchasers at federally licensed dealers was required to fill out the BATFE form 4473 which facilitates a background check utilizing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and includes a brief legal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase a firearm under federal law.  On this form, question 11.e. asks: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”  An answer of “yes” on this question disqualifies the purchaser from buying the firearm.  Assuming that the reports are accurate, Jared Loughner lied on his 4473 to illegally obtain a firearm with the objective of using it to kill innocents.  This is a felony punishable under Federal law.
   
2. In terms of firearms, to steal a phrase often associated with nuclear weapons, “the genie is out of the bottle”.  The knowledge of firearms and firearms design is out there.  It is easily found.  There are already millions of firearms in American households.  Even if the government was successful in mass confiscations of firearms, taking all previously owned firearms off of the streets and out of American households, it would take nothing more than a few minutes of searching on the internet for computer schematics of firearms and a few hours on a milling machine to begin producing new, illegal guns.  Less sophisticated guns could be produced even more easily.  During the war which founded the modern day nation of Israel, the Israelis manufactured Sten Guns (a 9mm Parabellum submachine gun of British design utilized in World War Two) in underground workshops out of steel tubing.  They manufactured ammunition out of brass lipstick containers.  In prison, criminals are able to manufacture lethal weapons out of toilet paper and water, do we really expect them to be unable to do better in the freedom of the outside world?  Britain has found its gun bans to be so ineffective that they have had to prohibit the ownership of replica weapons because criminals have converted them into functional firearms.  Not to mention that this ignores the simple impossibility of confiscating all of the extant firearms in the United States.
   
   Additionally, much attention has been made to drug violence in Mexico and the media’s assertion that 90% of firearms seized by the Mexican government originate from the United States.  Of course, this is not true.  90% of guns sent to the BATFE for trace analysis do originate in the United States, but these are only the guns which are already believed to have come from the US.  Those guns which are believed to have originated elsewhere are not sent to the BATFE and therefore are not included in the statistics.  RPGs, hand grenades, AK47s, and other military weapons are not readily available for sale in the United States, contrary to what the media, Left, and gun control advocates would have you believe.  These items are strictly regulated in the United States, requiring several background checks, layers of government approval, and thousands upon thousands of dollars for legal ownership (assuming legal ownership is even possible) with stiff penalties for violations of the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986.  Despite the fact that these weapons are not readily available in the United States, they are readily available in the black markets of Mexico.  Should gun ownership become more stiffly regulated in the United States, it is not unreasonable to believe that the Mexican cartels would expand their business ventures from drug smuggling to gun smuggling.  Where there is a demand, there will be a supply.  We mustn’t forget that drugs are illegal in the United States, yet they are readily available all across the United States, largely due to the actions of Mexican cartels smuggling them over our vast and largely unprotected borders.

If one objectively examines the facts, one is led to the conclusion that no amount of gun control is going to prevent massacres like the one seen January 8, 2011.  We know that Mexico has for all intents and purposes prohibited the ownership of firearms, yet there is not a day which goes by that the news doesn’t have a story of some new cartel related violence.  In other nations (like Britain and Australia) which have enacted draconian gun control laws, gun crime rather than declining has spiked as the numbers of legally armed citizens decrease and the numbers of illegally armed criminals remains static (or perhaps even increases).

Gun control advocacy makes several assumptions  which simply are not borne out in reality.  Gun control assumes that criminals that would engage in armed robbery, murder, rape, assault and the like would choose to abide by an additional law enacted to prevent the very crimes which they are already committing.  If the advocates of gun control are more enlightened, they believe that while criminals may not be induced to follow gun laws it might be possible to put that genie back in the bottle and simply eliminate guns from the picture.  But once again, the illegal acquisition or production of arms is far too easy to make gun control measures effective at reducing any but the most impulsive of crimes committed by otherwise law abiding persons in the heat of the moment.  As the old saying goes, “where there is a will, there is a way”.  The third and second world already has demonstrated that illegal traffic in arms is a lucrative business.  It is folly to assume it would be any less lucrative in the first world, or that government enforcement activities will be any more effective.  It is not as if the War on Drugs has been particularly effective in reducing illegal drug usage in the United States or elsewhere.  We know that alcohol prohibition was equally ineffective.  The assumption that firearms prohibition is likely to be any more effective is simply naive.

Gun control is only effective as a cynical means of garnering favor from an ignorant electorate which demands that something be done about violence.  The restrictions are only effective in preventing law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms deemed too “scary” or “dangerous” by the powers that be due to aesthetics or other minutiae.  Criminals, who by their nature have no respect for the laws of society remain just as free to illegally obtain or manufacture prohibited weaponry as they were prior to the legislation (see the North Hollywood bank shoot out of 1997 for evidence – the perpetrators utilized weapons which were illegal under both Federal [AWB of 1994, NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968] and California State law).

Also ignored is the fact that so-called “lax” gun laws allow individuals like Joe Zamudio (the 24 year old man who assisted in restraining Loughner until police arrived) the means to end violence with like force when necessary.  Had Joe Zamudio, a lawful gun owner and concealed carry practitioner, arrived on scene mere seconds prior he may have had the opportunity to draw his personal pistol and permanently render Jared Loughner harmless.  Firearms are used for personal protection thousands of times a year, saving countless lives in the process.  Gun control advocates seek the ability to disarm those who would save innocent lives in the futile attempt to disarm those who would take them.  The “Reasonable Restrictions” sought by gun control advocates are nothing short of ineffective feel-good legislation which does nothing more than infringe upon the Constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens.

Everything’s Alright

Earlier this month, news of the destruction of the King of Kings statue at Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio hit the national airwaves.  This statue, over 62 feet tall made of flammable fiberglass and Styrofoam was struck by lightning on the night of June 14, 2010 and burned to ashes, leaving nothing but the steel girder framework.  The cost of the statue’s erection was $250,000 and the estimated monetary damages resulting from the recent fire are in the range of $700,000.  This statue, in addition to its official name of King of Kings was also known by several nicknames including “Big Butter Jesus” in reflection of its buttery appearance and “Touchdown Jesus” referring to a football referee’s upraised arms when a touchdown is scored.

When I learned of the destruction of this statue, something about its very existence was troubling to me.  Don’t get me wrong, I think that it is a very worthy goal to make a public declaration of Christ’s victory over death and the cross, but is this the best way to spread the Good News to a modern populace?  How many people did this statue bring to salvation?  This statue required an incredible expenditure of church resources, manpower, talent, and treasure.  Can one honestly declare that the construction of this large statue was the best way to spend God’s $250,000?  A quarter of a million dollars can go an awful long way to print copies of the Holy Bible for missions work, provide food and shelter for those in need, and to support local and international missions work.  Yet, despite this, a massive (and as it turns out, massively flammable) statue was erected by the church.

To make matters worse, an even greater expenditure of capital is about to take place in the reconstruction and replacement of this statue. The pastor of the congregation in question has dismissed arguments that the lightning strike which resulted in the destruction of the statue was a sign from God, but perhaps she has spoken far too soon.  Christ did not come to earth to be memorialized in statues for the world to see; rather, He came for the purpose of reconciling God and man that death and sin may be conquered.  Would Christ, if he was given $250,000 have made the same decision to build a statue of Himself?  Or, would He have used it in another fashion?

I want to make it very clear that I am not questioning the intentions of the Solid Rock Church.  Aside from this statue, I know absolutely nothing about the church, nor its congregation.  Additionally, I could be completely off in my analysis.  Perhaps that statue has done more to further the Kingdom of God than I think.  I am also reminded of the anointing of Jesus in John 12 and Judas’ complaints about whether the money for the perfume would be better spent elsewhere.  Yet, keeping all of this in mind, I still am forced to question the wisdom of such an expenditure of resources when there is such suffering and darkness in this world that might be better addressed in a different manner.

Bonus points for those who can decipher the meaning of the title.  Hint: it isn’t directly related to the statue, but something else mentioned in this post.