Gun Control & Good Discussion

The shooting in Colorado has inspired many people who like guns and don't like gun control to post clever little pictures on their Facebook pages for everyone to see. Some of the images have messages on them that are directly connected to the tragedy in Aurora and some are run of the mill anti-gun control messages.

I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinions or for being against gun control. But it seems to me that most of the images/messages I see posted on the subject aren't of any value and don't contribute anything worth while to any honest conversations that are going on concerning the issue of gun control. In fact, most of these messages seem to cause more trouble than anything else.

I want to run through a few images and give some words about them just to demonstrate what I'm writing about. To be clear, I'm not trying to argue for gun control in this post in any measure. I'm simply trying to demonstrate the need for healthy dialogue and how people are failing at it through these tactics. All the images below are from actual pages of people I know and if I had seen any that existed for the opposite position I'd certainly include them.

In this first image there exists a very large problem. A guilt trip. A guilt trip that seeks to use a very recent tragedy to push someone's political agenda. They believe that if the theatre was not free of privately held weapons by citizens that the shooting wouldn't have happened. That's the implication at least. But because we've allowed this theatre to exist as a weapon free zone we should all feel bad because someone broke that common rule and committed a heinous crime. For some reason that's the community's fault. I say the community because this is a society which works together, votes together, and makes majority decisions much of the time. Not only that but it's a society that prides itself on unity. Regardless, images/message like this that use guilt trips with faulty logic to push someone's political agenda are flat out morally wrong and don't help a conversation because they aren't on the side of their opponent but rather try to prove themselves right at any cost, even the cost of devaluing a tragedy. This is nothing more than an attempt at a cheap shot.

This second image is unique because it doesn't villainize the community of which it is to be a part but because it takes aim at the authorities who govern the society. The logic in this post is sub par because it makes Obama or any person of political authority who is for people being unarmed in some fashion out to be 'dictators' as though that were some sort of terrible position by default. Someone may be a bad dictator but that doesn't mean all dictator's must be bad. I like democracy too but can we at least agree that it's possible for someone to dictate well, or as well as a group of people? Criminals may prefer unarmed victims if they plan to use violence as a tool (and even then fear and anger are greater preferences to an assailant than victims being unarmed) but that's because they have ill will within them and not because weapons are necessarily a good thing. This post baptizes weapons so that anyone who opposes them in the hands of the masses is in the wrong and thus a criminal (if a citizen) and a dictator (if an authority). In other words, if you're for people being unarmed, you're bad. Villainizing the people who disagree with you won't help the conversation. It puts you at further odds and grows a distaste for one another. What needs to happen is finding common ground through how we see the world and then moving forward together, even with differences to find the best solutions so we truly can be a united society. Maybe that begins by saying we're all against ill-will and not our authorities, each other, or even objects that people can use in harmful ways. 

To the left is a perfect example of someone wanting to be heard but not wanting to listen. Often times we want to be the only voice in a discussion so we can frame truth and reality on our own terms, never giving an ear or benefit of the doubt to those we disagree with.  We have to learn to be able to characterize and explain a position someone we disagree with holds in a way that would honor their viewpoint. That is, if we can't portray someone's argument in a way they would portray it then we dismiss them, elevate ourselves, and do not continue the conversation but instead act like a child for the sake of winning or appearing clever. This type of behavior is what I often calling "talking at" someone instead of "talking with" someone. There is no community progress when we talk at each other. This profess comes about only when we talk with each other and talking with each other demands listening and trying to understand one another's viewpoints. When we paint someone's view in the way we want it to look we clearly don't care about them or progress, just ourselves. Feeding our ego isn't going to help others and the goal from both sides is always helping others (I hope). Belittling the views of others instead of allowing them to be proven insufficient by a superior argument shows weakness of argument and character.

Okay, this is one of my favorites because the problem with it is so simple. Like the first picture, this message carries with it the idea that if only we'd agree with this person then we wouldn't have the tragedy that we do on our hands (and this sort of image is really trying to put blood on the people's hands). That aside, it's still a damaging post because the notion is silly. The fact is this: the situation may have been different if someone in the theater had a gun, it may not. We don't know. It may have been worse, it may have been better. Either way, I bet people would have died and we'd still have a tragic news story. The reason this post is so bad is because it doesn't operate within the confines of reality but rather hypotheticals that just aren't all that likely. This post assumes that just because someone carries a gun they can and will save people from tragedy and that's simply not true (even worse, it assumes that in a very specific situation this would have been the salvation of many people when it's highly unlikely). It's also not true that if people don't carry guns they will be kept safe from tragedy. This messages focuses too much on the weapon and not enough on those who are able to carry weapons. Guns don't kill people just like they don't save people. People who carry guns don't even save people. People with bravery and the right formula of factors save people. Can't we agree that these kinds of absolutes are unrealistic in the world we live in? People will be sinful and hurt each other without guns and knives. They may use rocks. Which brings me to the next and final image. 

This may be one of the worst posts I've seen in terms of logic. Don't get me wrong, the opening line is correct. That's a rock. But the rest of this message refuses to be based on honesty. Honestly, most people do not consider the rock to be the world's first assault weapon (as we use the term). Yes, many people of the Abrahamic faiths believe that the rock was the first weapon used in a murder, used to assault, but none of those people believe the rock is to be classified as an assault weapon unlike an M16 which was designed specifically for killing. God did not create rocks for killing. Rocks have been used as weapons but were not designed as weapons. There is a vast gap between the two that we would be wise to recognize if we desire honest and reasonable conversation. Because of this difference and others (like the ratio of rocks on earth to the rocks on earth used to hurt/kill others vs. the ratio of assault weapons on earth vs. the assault weapons one earth used to hurt/kill others) it makes sense that people don't want to "take your rocks" like they want to "take" your M16. Also, let's add another bit of reality to this situation; most people that this post is aimed against ("liberals") don't want to take everyone's guns away. Odds are probably higher that those "liberals" want laws centered around safety and storage in regards to weapons for civilians who live in a country which has the largest budget for military in the history of the world and where the only major threat on their lives is their fellow country man and not a foreign military or revolutionary group which is heavily armed. Again, I'm not against the second amendment, I'm simply saying that we need to be more honest about other people's opinions. Generalized arguments that ignore reality and the logic and reason that create disagreement won't help further that conversation because they refuse to engage what matters to the group and only focus on what matters to self. 

So it's true that Cain murdered Abel and the rock did not. It's true that guns don't kill people and that people kill people. again, the discussion must start in agreements of reason (such as, people of ill will are not something to get behind, and people will hurt people with any object if their desire is strong enough). But snide arguments that hide being the veil of cleverness aren't helpful. I mean come on, people taking your rocks? Really? 

At the end of the day we just need to learn that we're meant to be on the same team, helping each other, working together to move forward. We all want peace, safety, and positive mutual affection to exist among us. We just disagree on what that looks like politically. If we won't listen to each other, use logic and reason, try to understand each other's views to the point that we can explain them as the owner of the view would, and care more about the community than ourselves then we won't progress and nobody will ever get what they want. If we villainize one another and try to use guilt trips instead of conviction then we're doomed to dislike one another and hurt one another. 

Voice your opinion. Disagree with people. Be clever. Fill your Facebook wall. Write to your representatives in office. Go to local government meetings and share your view. That's all well and good, but only if you can do it in a way that builds others up. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and everyone else's. And for what it's worth, real conversations that bring change usually happen outside your Facebook wall so if you're going to post online and not have these discussions in contexts that can actually bring about change, then you're just complaining or training for discussions you'll never have, and doing so in a really annoying way. Let's make change, let's have healthy discussion.

The Far Reaching Love of Christ

There is a practicality to Christ’s love which reaches beyond our feelings and affinities, transforming our actions and attitudes so that our entire being and future are changed. This far reaching love inevitably must extend to our neighbors otherwise it’s no love at all.

This means that we won’t merely want good things for others or pray for our enemies but it means we’ll refuse to hurt our enemies, protecting them from ourselves, and it mean we will give up our own good things so that others may have the good things we desire for them to possess even if it costs us everything. This means that the transformation of our character is tied up in and dependent upon the loving action we extend toward our neighbor.

All of this is the work of God through his Spirit within us. Christ's love is not only a cure for sin that completely washes our souls clean but the far reaching love of Christ is a transcendent power that transforms our very person, community, and world. It is like yeast in flour, eventually taking over the entire batch. That is the way of his kingdom. It is too powerful to be possessed and contained by any human. Either we have given ourselves to it or we have not. 

If our love, religion, beliefs, or relationship with Christ (or whatever else you want to name it) stays isolated within ourselves it is a corrupting lie and not of God, for God is seeking to reconcile ALL things to himself and not merely the portions of our own selves which we want to give to him. An isolated and self-focused religion is the antithesis of Christ’s kingdom which is not something to be owned but something to be owned by.  A love that does not transform every aspect of our lives is less than the love of God.

We must ask if we have given God our whole self, if Christ's love has affected every part of our lives. We must look to see if we have the fruit of God's Spirit (Galatians 5) and if our actions are proof of whether we have been overcome by the love of the self-sacrificing Christ or overcome by anything lesser. Is the love of Christ in our hands and feet through action as much as it is in his hands and feet which were pierced for us?

Give Everything

In the New Testament we are given a picture of what the Church looked like when she was very young and very close to Christ and his teachings. We are told that the Church was characterized as being poor but making many rich. Along with this, and I'd say deeply connected, is the picture of a people who gave up what they had and put it in a giant pot with others so they could provide for those who lacked in their area. 

Acts 2:44-45, "And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need"

This, of course, is an imitation of Christ Jesus who left heaven and emptied himself for the sake of all others. He did this to heal, functioning as a physician who came to heal the sick. He gave up literally everything he had as God and man for all those in need. 

Philippians 2:5-8, "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

The Church is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:17). Each individual is to live as Jesus in this world and the whole of the Church is Christ and has his ministry. Thus, she functions the same as Christ does, using the same means to achieve the same goals (even though the Church will not pay the debt of humanities sin). This is why the Church in Acts functions the way she does. Everything is given up for others. I becoming poor the Church made many rich.

This has played itself out in many ways through history. The Church has at many times been the being that creates life-giving organizations, programs, and behaviors among a group. We've seen it in the medical and education fields in the United States. But we don't always live this way as individuals or a group. In fact, I've rarely ever seen it. Why?

Maybe we're afraid. Maybe we just don't know how. Maybe we didn't know that's the way we were meant to live/give. Maybe we've been blinded by the prosperity gospel. Or maybe, just maybe, we've been told that such a way of life isn't practical and we've believed the lie. 

Recently there was a woman who came to a congregation I am a part of and she had a daughter who needed 11 cavities to be taken care of. She found this out through a free clinic. She learned she had to pay for the fillings and it was going to be a doozy of a bill. She came to the pastoral team with this story. A man in the congregation was a dentist who specialized in pediatrics. He did the dental work completely free. It took up much of his time and he could have made a good profit off the work even by cutting the price but he sacrificed those things to meet the needs of people in the community.

I often wonder what it would look like if the Church was continually doing this in every corner and space it occupied. What if we did this in masses, together? If we lived together and pooled our finances so we could help others in need. If we used our skills and talents to give without charge as often as we were allowed the opportunity. If we gave everything, more than seemed practical, fasting just to afford to feed others.  What if we did this? 

It sounds nice. It's idealistic. Why don't we believe in such a way though? Well, we know that if we give everything we will end up with nothing. But the Gospel seems to say that if we give everything and end up with nothing then others will have everything they need and as a result so shall we. Isn't that part of what it means to seek first the kingdom of heaven; to live in kingdom ways of generosity and self sacrifice like Christ? If we're willing to lose it all, to be poor for the sake of others, then they'll win and be made rich. That's how it works.

But, we love ourselves and our money too much now don't we? I know I do. I'm not free from this. I know that if I give up everything it means I don't get to live a life of self pleasure and entertainment, that I will rely on my community and we'll all have to work hard to love our neighbors. My life won't be as cozy. I'll probably need 7 roommates (or more) to make it work, and that's annoying. Community life is annoying. A life of simplicity without riches and luxuries is annoying to those of us who have riches and luxuries. But if I do that then others will have enough. I'll still have enough. Why wouldn't I? Won't my Father who loves me give me enoguh? Won't I have my daily bread? Won't we all?

The Gospel says "yes."

In his book The Early Christians, Eberhard Anrold provides portions of an apology written by Aristides. In it he writes of the Christians, "Kindliness is their nature. There is no falsehood among them. They love one another. They do not neglect widows. Orphans they rescue from those who are cruel to them. Every one of them who has anything gives ungrudgingly to the one who has nothing. If they see a traveling stranger they bring him under their roof. They rejoice over him as over a real brother, for they do not call one another brothers after the flesh, but they know they are brothers in the Spirit and in God. If one of them sees that one of their poor must leave this world, he provides for his burial as well as he can. And if they hear that one of them is imprisoned or oppressed by their opponents for the sake of their Christ’s name, all of them take care of all his needs. If possible they set him free. If anyone among them is poor or comes into want while they themselves have nothing to spare, they fast two or three days for him. In this way they can supply any poor man with the food he needs. They are ready to give up their lives for Christ, for they observe the words of their Christ with much care. Their life is one of consecration and justice, as the Lord their God commanded them."

As people living in the United States we tend to be the richest people on earth. With that, I'd argue, we're also often the most selfish and entitled. What is Jesus asking of us who have much? What is he asking of our belongings, our finances, our comforts? Whether we have much or little is he not asking us to share it? Is he not still asking us to give to all and rely on Him as our Provider, remembering how he provided for our forefathers when he brought them out of Egypt? Is Christ still not reminding us that worry does not need to be within us because God cares for us and will give to us more than he does the birds and the flowers?

I believe this sacrificial emptying looks different for all of us, but I don't mean that in any way that says it's easy or escapable. I mean that we all have unique neighbors with unique needs and we have to give everything for them. Like Paul, I pray that we can be like a drink offering, poured out. Let's begin to challenge one another to take the impossible and unthinkable steps into generosity and self sacrifice. Let us challenge our own comforts and what we know as practical and begin to live in a way that baffles the world. Let's give freely and give unceasingly. 

Let's empty ourselves and find both our neighbors and ourselves filled. Let us be Christ on earth, let us be the Church. We've been given everything freely, let us give everything freely. Let us imitate our Gracious Giver.

Listen; Advice from Dr. John Perkins

Portland Oregon hosted the 2nd annual Justice Conference a few months ago. One of the key speakers was an American hero named Dr. John M. Perkins. He's been a civil rights leader as well as a community transformer. He's been a great voice for justice in the United States in the last several decades and it was my great privilege to drive him around during his time here.

During some of our spare time we had a short conversation in which I asked Dr. Perkins "In this time of twitter, texting, blogs, iphones, and instant information, what can my generation and the genrations after mine be doing to make sure we don't waste our potential? What must we do to not lose a grip on being as effective as we need to be?" His answer was incredibly simple.

"Listen. Make sure you hear what people tell you" He said.

Recent generations don't seem to value those older than them as previous generations did. We've lost a sense of honor that our grandparents held. Too often we focus on ourselves and our peers above those who have wisdom to share with us. We too often care about what we are saying that what others are saying. If someone isn't on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, (or whatever is newer) then we tend to tune them out. This worries me.

The generations of young people today are unique to all others before them. Technology can serve them in a way like never before and they can harness it like never before. Invisible Children's Kony 2012 campaign is a small proof of this. These younger generations are more global and justice minded than others preceding them. They are creative, hopeful, innovative, loud, and eager. However, too often, they are not quiet enough. We are not quiet enough. Part of progress is education and education requires the passing on of wisdom. There are stories, experiences, lessons, hardships, and more that need to be heard from those who have already struggled, failed, and triumphed.

The Proverbs put a great deal of emphasis upon the listening to teachers and embracing education. Being quiet, slow to speak, and having strong ears is a biblical value that this young generation often overlooks. If we want to make change then let's start by listening to the world around us. Let's listen to the one's who walked before us and have experienced both success and failure.

Proverb 19:20, "Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future."

When to Disobey Proverbs

The book of Proverbs is full of wise sayings that help us to live well each day. We often look at the proverbs as a bunch of rules or sayings to obey but this isn't a sufficient perspective if we want to react to the proverbs properly.

Some of these sayings simply exist to tell us the truths about our world. Sometimes this means explaining the goodness in life and sometimes the bad. For instance, Proverb 20:6 states, "Many a man proclaims his own steadfast love, but a faithful man who can find?" This is a truth about how the state of our world but it doesn't mean this is the way the world ought to be. Faithfulness can be hard to find and people will often proclaim they have a faithfulness but we all fall short in the pursuit of being faithful to others. Does this mean we should give up on the pursuit? No. It just means that the world is full of people who miss the mark and people who lie. 

On the other hand, there are proverbs which exist simply to explain how things ought to be! Proverb 20:28 states, "Steadfast love and faithfulness preserve the king,and by steadfast love his throne is upheld." We don't see this always happening. We don't always see this is true, but it ought to be true. In a perfect world this would be the way of things and thus we ought to live in such a way. 

A lot of these types of proverbs have an inferred lesson within them. When we read Proverb 20:4, "The sluggard does not plow in the autumn; he will seek at harvest and have nothing", we can take away the wisdom that we should not be sluggards but rather but people who work hard in being prepared for the future. 

So we see that most proverbs really do give advice on how to live in this world even if it's not stated outright. The advice isn't always straight forward. Certain proverbs imply that you simply have to make a choice at times and live with the results. Take a look at Proverb 20:2 which states, "The terror of a king is like the growling of a lion; whoever provokes him to anger forfeits his life." 

The main points of this proverb are that people of power (kings or authorities) hold great power and with that power can come great terror. The second point is that when a person comes against that power they may suffer and even die. What this proverb doesn't say is to abstain from provoking a king/authority. That's not the wisdom being shared even though some may think that. After all, sometimes those in power must be provoked, even if it results in death.

The truth of this particular proverb is seen in the life of Christ. The way in which he lived and the proclamations that he made were provoking to those in power at the time. When he called himself Lord and Son of God or spoke of his kingdom he was presenting opposition to the kingdom, lordship, and divinity of Caesar. In the United States we might say he was campaigning against the current President, setting up a new nation. Christ died for many reasons and one of those reasons is that he upset the authorities and they put him to death in their terror. Throughout history we've seen people provoke authorities for good reason and been killed as a result. Their death did not mean they were unwise but rather that they were wise and brave.

When we read the proverbs in scripture let us ask ourselves what the real message of the saying is meant to be. Let us ask the Spirit of God to teach us so that we may react as appropriately as possible. May these wise sayings help to form our worldview so that we have a realistic view of the world we live in and the wisdom to walk through it as Christ demands. 

God Is Not My Strength

In the Old Testament there is talk of salvation. Quite often, this salvation isn't the kind that we typically speak of in 2012. These days we tend to speak of being saved and having salvation in a strictly 'spiritual' sense. However, for the ancient Israelites salvation was more tangible. 

When we read the Psalms we repeatedly see David crying out or giving thanks for God's salvation. He does this not because he is afraid of hell but because he is afraid of Sheol (the grave) and he wants to live. He is afraid of his enemies. He doesn't want to die and lose the life he is currently living. Salvation for David is a rescuing from a troubling or threatening times. It's a very literal and physical saving. God saves David from enemies, from death, from violent and wicked men.

We rarely speak of salvation in this way nowadays. Unless we're preaching a prosperity gospel or immensely reformed theologically we shy away from talking about God's deliverance from hardships and the power he has in this world and in our lives. Privately we pray about it, but a lot of our congregations don't talk about it. Yet, salvation is multifaceted. We need rescuing from a great many things.

What strikes me as beautiful about David and the Old Testament is that we repeatedly see God delivering his people (saving them from evil or some type of destruction) throughout the scriptures without the people doing much of anything to help. Millard Lind writes about this in his book Yahweh is A Warrior. God fights for his people and saves them. He does it in unique and mysterious ways. He brings down entire city walls with trumpets and nothing more. He splits seas, steals away the sun, gives an abundance of insects and amphibians, and so on. God does not need the strength or violence of his people to help him. 

David knows this, in a sense. He often praises God for being his all in all, everything he needs. When he has trouble he goes to God for salvation, for rescue. When God helps him out he praises God for being the one who saved him. Even when he does the killing he praises God for making him a good warrior. It comes back to his Creator, Provider, Defender, Salvation.

In Psalm 18 David writes, "I love you, O Lord, my strength.The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies."

The rest of the psalm is fascinating and poetically beautiful. It gives us a real glimpse of who David was and how he saw God. I love this song because when I read it I don't think I need to pick up arms and lay waste to nations like David, rather, I remember all the times God delivered his people without the use of armies, or with the use of small and inadequate armies. 

So often God proves to us that we don't need anything but him for our deliverance, be it spiritual or physical or whatever. He gives us life, both now and forever. He gives us refuge, now and forever. He gives us strength, now and forever. What's even greater is that he is himself our strength, refuge, and life. I have only to rely on God for everything.  Must I still act? Yes. When it comes to my trouble, to violence, to threats on my well-being, I should begin with prayer, move in faith, and see God work the way he has worked in the past for Israel and the way he has worked through Christ. 

I once wrote an article about how nonviolence is more about faith in God and the reality that he says we live in (as opposed to faith in weapons and the reality that humans say we live in). The article was called Reality vs. The Nonviolent Dream. In it I lay out the idea that we can be nonviolent because we have a God who doesn't require our violence and possibly even calls us away from it. The scriptures we adore show us a God who is more than capable to be our salvation in times of trouble with our having to act unloving towards our enemies. 

When I read David's words they remind me that God is my strength, my rock, my refuge, my fortress, my deliverer, my shield, my stronghold, the horn of my salvation. He  protects me. Nothing else does (be it nonviolent tactics or violent tactics). He wins my battles, I do not. Even if he equips me, he does the work when I cry out to him and honor him with my life. He enables me to love and to live. 

It's easy to find our strength, refuge, fortress, deliverance, shield, stronghold, horn of salvation, in anything but God. We fool ourselves a lot into thinking our weapons, our hands, our brains, our friends, our money, our anything can save us. We think we can save ourselves. Whether we be afraid of hell in eternity or hell presently on earth, God is our salvation and will pull us out of death's dark waters and place us on a rock (Christ). David knows better than to think he is his own salvation. May we love our Lord as David did, declaring who God is and in so doing declaring that nothing else can be what God is to us.


Psalm 20:7-8, "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. They collapse and fall, but we rise and stand upright."
⁸ 

David & Solomon Got It Wrong

There are a lot of beautiful psalms and proverbs in the Bible. The Old Testament contains a book psalms consisting of 31 chapters. The Old Testament also contains 150 Psalms, also all in one book. These two books are side by side in scripture and you can open any Bible to just about the middle and land on these sections. Psalms are, in a sense, song lyrics. Proverbs are, in this context, words of wisdoms or short sayings that reveal wisdom about how things are and how things ought to be. 

We attribute most of the Psalms to King David and most of the Proverbs to King Solomon (David's son who also happened to author a zesty little book entitled the Song of Solomon/Songs which was like 50 Shades of Grey for Bible time people). I often resonate with the psalms and proverbs which mention violence. Below are some examples.

Psalm 11:5, "The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence."

Psalm 17:4, "With regard to the works of man, by the word of your lips I have avoided the ways of the violent."

Proverb 13:2, "From the fruit of his mouth a man eats what is good, but the desire of the treacherous is for violence."

Proverb 16:29, "A man of violence entices his neighbor and leads him in a way that is not good."

Proverb 21:7, "The violence of the wicked will sweep them away, because they refuse to do what is just."

Proverb 24:15, "Lie not in wait as a wicked man against the dwelling of the righteous; do no violence to his home."

Proverbs 3:31-32: "Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways, for the devious person is an abomination to the Lord, but the upright are in his confidence" [emphasis mine].

In a recent blog article I used the previous proverb and a friend pointed out to me that using it was problematic if I was aiming to use it as a support for claiming that the scriptures command a nonviolent lifestyle. He mentioned that the violence mentioned by either David or Solomon can't be seen as a general violence, as we typically view violence, but rather a violence that is "unjust" because it wielded with the motivation of greed, hate, or some other kind of evil. Thus, we can't see the violence mentioned by David and Solomon (when in a condemning context) as the kind in war or self defense because those forms of violence are not motivated by evil but are instead a reaction to evil.

His claim is a very good one. The question raised by the context of David and Solomon's perspective is one that must be addressed. It can easily seem problematic for someone such as me who believes nonviolence is a central piece of universal Christian ethics. 

The key to reading the Old Testament as a Christian is to read it through the lens of Christ. What that means is we must read the Old Testament passages with the knowledge and wisdom that has been given to us from the Spirit as we've ventured through the New Testament and have had God revealed to us more clearly through the person and work or Jesus Christ. Our Christology (study of Christ) must dictate how we view scripture because Christ is the very Word of God (John 1:1). 

As a person of the Trinity, Jesus is God and has existed since before the creation of the world (Genesis 1:26). Thus, he breathed the scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16). When we are taught this truth we are also taught that all scripture is useful "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." This was written to early Christian churches to remind them that the Old Testament is not to be tossed out but rather to be treasured! There is still wonderful truth in the Old Testament. Jesus even teaches some folks about how to read the ancient scriptures and identify Jesus through them in ways they were unable to do before (Luke 24:13-27). Jesus literally taught people to read the Old Testament with a Christological lens!  

Again, having this understanding of Christ and how he affects our reading of scripture is of immense importance. We must remember that because Jesus is the fullest revelation of who God is and how God functions (Colossians 1:19) we must always side with what we know about Jesus whenever there seems to be a dispute between an Old Testament passage and a New Testament passage. Jesus, in a cliche, is a trump card when it comes to the interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures. Jesus reveals the truths we did not know. In Christ, the mysteries of God which were once hidden are made known to us and now that we have that knowledge (Colossians 1:24-29, Ephesians 3:7-12) we can read the ancient scriptures with/through that gift. 

Back to David, Solomon, and their words on violence. As my friend said, we have to take into account who these men were and what their perspectives were as a result of who they were as people. 

Both men were kings of Israel. They fought wars as leaders of giant armies. David's road to becoming king started when he was a young man, still guarding sheep as a shepherd, and ended up killing a military phenomenon named Goliath in a 1 on 1 fight by hitting him in the head with a stone (from a sling) and then cutting off his head with a sword (1 Samuel 17). Violence led to his kingship and established him as someone to be respected. He fought many battles and had many soldiers under his wing. They sang of David, even before he replaced Saul as king, "Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands" (1 Samuel 18:7). He killed so many that when God wanted a temple built he forbade David from participating in the process because he had too much blood upon his hands (1 Chronicles 22:8). Solomon's story isn't as red as David's but he was also a king in Israel and experienced the wars of his father. In some ways, he was his father's son. 

Chances are good that both these men saw the violence they committed as good, necessary, perhaps even righteous at times. Why wouldn't they? They were kings and leaders of militaries and that's just what those sorts of men think. How could they not have the perspective that the violence they committed was not wrong? As my friend pointed out, their violence was not motivated by evil unlike their enemies. After all, they were God's people. 

It's not at all difficult to enter the mentality of these men. But why did they have this mentality? Why were they such warriors? Scripture actually gives us a pretty good read on the answer. 

For a long time, God was the king of Israel. They were a theocracy (which is a people who are ruled by God alone). They had no human ruler. God led his people and he fought on their behalf in unique ways (examples: Exodus out of Egypt, the walls of Jericho, the swarm/hornet which would go before the Israelite army, etc.). God did not lead his people like human kings, he did it better, more justly, less violently. However, there came a time when the people of Israel grew tired of this theocratic system and demanded a human king. 

1 Samuel 8 records this change in kingship. Basically, the people tell the prophet Samuel (who has grown old and had sons who abandoned justice) that they desire a human king. He appeals to God, telling him what the people have demanded in hopes that God would not allow it to pass. God tells Samuel that the people have made their choice and he will honor it and so they shall be given a human king so that they may be just like all the other nations (and thus no longer a theocracy and unique nation among all the others). The catch is that Samuel must tell the people the consequences of their decision before they are given a human king. 

The first of the consequences is stated in 1 Samuel 8:10-12, "So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, 'These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.'" In other words, the human king will create large armies and change the economic climate into one that fuels war. 

David and Solomon were kings of Israel. These kings, as God said, created large armies and brought forth much war. It's a part of the deal that comes with putting humans in power. Just like every other nation that didn't belong to God or worship him, so the kings of Israel led God's people into war. Not strangely, the people, upon hearing Samuel's words exclaim, "...there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles" (1 Samuel 8:19-20). 

This is not what God desired. This is not the type of leadership God wanted for his people. This is the type of leadership that comes from sinful creatures. Economies that bless violent war were not in the plans for God's people. Yet, David and Solomon fall into the category of men who would create such economies and lead the people into wars. In a sense, it's not their fault. It's just what humans in power are bound to do.

So why do David and Solomon have the perspective they do? Because they are human kings who are bound to create war. It's near unavoidable for them to see the world the way that they do. And after being raised and drenched in such a culture of human kings and war it's hard not to have the perspective that they do. Of course the violence of other nations seems evil and theirs appropriate! Yet, God has said that they are going to function just like other nations, they will be the same. Their violence is the same. Their wars are the same.

But let us not forget, David was a man after God's heart (1 Samuel 13:14). Solomon asked God for wisdom above strength, power, or riches (2 Chronicles 1:7-11). These aren't evil men. They are men who love God and want to honor him, and often do honor him! It just so happens they are men who love God that are also kings and leaders of war. They are sinful men. It ends up that they are like you and me. In their pursuit of being righteous, they miss the mark. They fall short. They get it wrong. 

The only reason we can claim that they may have missed the mark is because of Jesus.  There are a lot of differences between Jesus and these two kings. For one, Jesus is the ultimate king. He is God. He is the original King of Israel. God's kingdom is his kingdom because Jesus is God. He is the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, 19:16). These are political terms! He's the rightful ruler. He was Plan A* and after Plan B didn't work out (because the wars didn't end up going in Israel's favor due to their continued rebellion against God) Jesus comes to reconcile God's people to him so that they may come back under his rulership. 

Second off, Jesus is sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5). He is not tainted by the culture he grew up in and did not succumb to the sinfulness around him. He was able to lead properly. Along with this, unlike David and Solomon, Jesus only does what the Father tells him to do (John 5:19, 14:9-10). As stated before, he reveals the fullness of God. This means that those who lived before Jesus did not understand God as well as those who would come after Jesus because they did not get to know of this unveiling of mystery. David and Solomon lived, ruled, sang, and wrote when the mysteries of God were still hidden. Thanks to Christ's life we now have a better picture of God. In other words, we have the potential to see God more clearly than David and Solomon. 

While David or Solomon may have seen a prayer requesting or action involving violent destruction towards their enemies as a just and permissible (even perhaps righteous) thing,** we see a different viewpoint from Christ in his approach towards enemies. He dies for enemies (instead of killing them), nonviolently interacts with them in moments of conflict (John 8:1-11), forgives on site of violent oppression (Luke 23:24), and demands that his followers only bless, pray for, nurture, and love their enemies as an imitation of Him (Luke 6:27-36). 

I have to think that sort of teaching/ethic would look at prayers asking for God to violently overthrow those who oppose us (or those we closely identify with) as missing the mark. When David and Solomon lived there was a population notion that one should love neighbors but hate enemies but Jesus corrects this way of thinking (Matthew 5:43-48) by saying that we should love enemies as well. David and Solomon did not have this teaching close to them and thus it makes sense that they would have the perspective they did. Knowing the times that these kings lived and reigned, the conditions which brought about their rulership, and the teachings they followed, it becomes very easy to see (through the lens of Christ) why they might miss the mark of the specific issue of violence. It makes sense that they spoke of God with violent imagery. It's what they knew. They weren't wrong about God's power and his desire to defend his people but their requests and they view of violence was short-sighted as we now know thanks to Christ. 

When I see Christ, the perfect king, live out nonviolence and speak against curses, retaliation, and unloving action towards others I can't help but come to the conclusion that while Solomon (or whoever truly wrote the proverb quoted) probably was alluding to a specific type of violence and not a generalized type of violence, it's safe to claim that we can look back at such wisdom through the lens of Christ, the Prince of Peace, and see it differently than was originally intended, without it being error. When I quote Proverb 3:31-32 (or a similar passage) it makes sense to speak of general violence because Christ has called us away from the way that David and Solomon approached the issue. He called us away from war, weapons, curses, and mistreatment of enemies. He called us back to his lordship, his reign, his kingdom, and a part of coming into all that means taking up our cross as self sacrificing imitators of Christ who forgive enemies as they kill us and do good to all people no matter what. 

No longer do we live like David and Solomon or the people of Israel who desired a human king who leads us into war and creates an economy that blesses war. Now we live under the Prince of Peace, praying for his kingdom (which doesn't fight like the world according to John 18:36) and his will (which was always to defend his people in unique and often nonviolent ways) to be on this earth just as it is in heaven. With this perspective we can look at verses like Psalm 17:13 which states, "Arise, O Lord! Confront him, subdue him! Deliver my soul from the wicked by your sword," and connect it not to violence but to the sword of the Spirit and the word of God (Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12) just as we see it playing out in Revelation 19. We can see God subduing enemies with his powerful truth, unveiling their wickedness and bringing them out of rebellion and into his kingdom so that they are no longer enemies (now defeated) but brothers and sisters who share in the victory of Christ! Thus, we can pray the prayer of David in a different sense which is in line with the testimony of Jesus Christ. 

When we read the words of those who came before us, let us do so with the lens of Christ so we can most clearly see what Spirit always meant to communicate to us through the words of the people God was using at the time. We've progressed, we've been brought forward by God's hand, let us honor that by not moving backwards and adopting what has been corrected and left behind. Let us live like Christ by no longer studying the ways of war (Isaiah 2:4) but instead making peace (Matthew 5:9).

*I'm not entirely comfortable with the terms Plan A and Plan B but for now they will have to suffice since I am at a loss for words on how to describe the role of each. I'm merely trying to communicate that God was supposed to always rule his people and when the people went with a human king things didn't turn out as well as they would have if they had followed God to begin with. 

**Some of David's petitions to God in his psalms are for deliverance from is enemies and he frames the methods of deliverance in very violent ways. He even prays that God would break the teeth of his foes in their mouths (Psalm 3:7, 58:6). He frames God's judgment in warrior imagery as well, pairing it with destruction (Psalm 7:12-13). Simply, he is a man of war and communicates as a man of war would.

A Letter to Depressed or Suicidal Friends,

I've felt the stings of heartbreak, depression, and even suicidal tendencies in the past. I wanted to take a moment to share a few small truths I've learned since those times.

Even in a suicidal state, though it seem truer than the blue tint of the sky, none of us want death. We merely want release and freedom from the pain we've experience and the depressing that we've created a cycle of. Too often the way out of those things is clouded and, as a result, horrifying. Suicide definitely is the easier answer to that horror but it's not satisfying for us or anyone connected to us. Removing life is not a release we experience for once we're gone, we're gone. We don't feel that release, there is no ecstasy or joy that follows such action. It can only worsen things for others and remove us completely from the opportunity for joy and all the wonderful things we desire (like the freedom from present pain and the release of depressing behavior). So hold on.

Only love, wise counsel, and the courage to act upon the wisdom and love we've received will allow us to experience the release, freedom, and joy we truly and deeply desire. If we have been depressing (because like it or not, it's a pattern of behavior we choose as a reaction to our pain) let's make the choice to walk out of pain, even if it's difficult and takes time.* It's not always our fault we hurt but if we let that hurt reign over us then we've allowed it to be our god and to control our life. However, we're not cursed to suffer forever. We have the ability to cry out and reach out to God and to others (friends, teachers, parents, family, counselors, etc.) who can help to heal us. We don't have to be alone in pain or the journey out of pain. 

It get's better. It really does. And it's worth the fight.

May you find your way out of death and into life. May your life be abundant in joy, hope, and love. May you overflow so that you may share your abundance with others and lead them out of death and into life. Peace be with you. 

*A fantastic book about the notion of depression being more about choice than oppression is Choice Theory by William Glasser. He is an incredibly successful counselor who teaches the reader how to properly see the way they are living, why they are living that way, and what it takes to change their life. While seeing a counselor is best, this book will help anyone who wants to counsel others and be counseled.