Critical Comments on a Horrible Event

It happened this weekend. Here is one of the many news stories (my comment follows):

Colorado killings linked to same [dead] gunman

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-09-missionariesshot_N.htm

USA Today

COLORADO SPRINGS — Police searched a home in suburban Englewood early Monday, seeking any link between two deadly shooting sprees at Christian religious centers that left both communities stunned on a day of worship. Four people and a gunman died in the attacks Sunday at a megachurch here in Colorado Springs and at the Youth With a Mission missionary center in the town of Arvada. "She [the security volunteer] probably saved over 100 lives," [New Life Church leader] Boyd said. He described her as a highly trained volunteer member of the church with a law enforcement background whose role was to provide security. He said she was not wearing a uniform and is licensed to carry a gun. Boyd said the shooting was random and that the gunman had no conenction to the church. He said the church has had a security plan in place for many years which includes the evacuation plan it used on Sunday.

Let’s start with the good news: one woman with a gun, a church member, a volunteer with training, saved dozens of lives.

Why? Because:

(1) the leaders of that church (yes, a denominational church) faced facts (in today's society, just as in the time of Jesus, violence (sometimes random and irrational violence) was a fact of life, and no one is immune to it),

(2) fear did not drive their decisions (especially irrational fears about some of their own members carrying weapons, or about scaring away members of their church because weapons might be present in the meetinghouse),

(3) love DID drive their actions (concern for both the spiritual AND physical wellbeing of their fellow members in their church and those who visited); and

(4) they believed that self-defense was scriptural. It was taught by the Lord Himself, it is clearly a principle expressed in both the Old Testament and New Testament, and it does not mean that we do not trust in the Lord to save us or protect us.

Since Colorado is an open-carry state, I assume this woman volunteer had a CCW and carried her weapon that way - concealed. But more important, she knew how to use it and she had the courage to use it. Like the Lord, she was willing to lay down her life that others might live.

Notice: there was NO ONE armed at the Arvada church: no doubt they proclaimed what too many brethren have:

(1) “it can’t happen here,”

(2) "it is too dangerous,"

(3) "it might scare off people who would otherwise come to worship," and

(4) “we trust in God, not in evil weapons.”

Each of these excuses (and many others) can be answered simply and directly. This very incident (and dozens more across the years and around the world) show that it CAN happen here: yes, even in churches of Christ and even to faithful brethren. Just as floods, tornadoes, fires, vandalism, family violence, and other bad things can happen. Weapons are no more dangerous than any other tool: we don't ban electricity in the meeting house because there is a chance of electrocution, we don't ban baptisries in the meeting house because there is a chance of drowning (and sadly, over the years, children HAVE died from drowning in a baptisry), but too many are so fearful of "guns" that they are willing to ban them. If people are so fearful of weapons that it will keep them from worshipping God, it is THEY who are showing no trust in the Lord, nor in their fellow Christians: and the work of the church to educate them about the real dangers they should fear is obvious. Finally, if we are to trust in the Lord in the matter of self-defense and protection from attacks, why do we NOT "trust in the Lord" when it comes to fire, flood, vandalism, and car accidents: this argument makes paying for liability and auto accident insurance a sin of lack of faith in God. If we are to trust in the Lord in all physical things (an argument that has been advanced more than once to me), why do we have heaters in church buildings: do we not trust the Lord to keep us warm and safe from storms?

There are too many churches where leaders (sadly, elders and deacons) are willing to make fun of those who DO want to carry, asking “what are YOU afraid of?” and “why are you so fearful and distrustful of God?” Perhaps these needless deaths in Arvada and Colorado Springs will make a few wake up and and understand that when brethren are willing to and do carry weapons, openly or concealed, it is about LOVE and not fear: love for their brothers and sisters in Christ, love that says, in very physical terms and not just in pious words that if Christ was willing to die for us, we should be willing to put our own lives in danger to protect our brothers and sisters in Him, the visitors to our assemblies, even our neighbors and, yes, even strangers from both physical and spiritual dangers.

Reprint from Apologetics Press: Is all religion bad?

All Religion Is Bad Because Some Is? by Kyle Butt, M.A. Printer version | Email this article

In logical discussions, a straw man is a weak, illogical position that is easily refuted. The more powerful, logical position is then coupled with the straw man, and both are said to fall together, yet the stronger position never actually is refuted by the opposition. For example, suppose a person stated that he owned a congenial, safe dog. The man’s neighbor argued that such was impossible. The opposing neighbor then recounted a story about a family’s pet pitbull that went berserk and killed someone. Then he stated that this incident proves that all pets are dangerous. Does his argument follow from the evidence? Of course not. He might have proven that one family’s pitbull was dangerous, but he did not prove that all pets are dangerous. In fact, it would be easy to multiply numerous examples of dangerous pets, but proving those specific pets to be dangerous could not logically be applied to all pets.

This idea must be understood when reading modern atheistic writings that purport to prove that the ideas of God and formulated religion are detrimental to society. Their argument, in a nutshell, goes like this: Since we can list examples of religions and religious fanatics that were (or are) harmful or detrimental to society, then all religions or ideas about God are harmful or detrimental to society.

So that the reader does not think that this author is, himself, constructing a straw man, let us consult the writings of a very popular, militant atheist by the name of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens has been critically acclaimed as “one of the most prolific, as well as brilliant, journalists of our time” according to the London Observer. The Los Angeles Times stated that he is a “political and literary journalist extraordinaire.”

One of Hitchens’ most popular recent books is titled god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Notice that his subtitle is broad enough to lump all religions into it: Islam, New Testament Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Hitchens then proceeded, in the pages of his book, to list many horrible things that people have done in the name of “religion.” He said: “Religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow” (2007, p. 6). Hitchens even titled chapter two, “Religion Kills.” In it he wrote: “Here, then, is a very brief summary of the religiously inspired cruelty I witnessed... ” (p. 18). He then recounted horror stories of several moral atrocities perpetrated in the name of “religion.” Furthermore, Hitchens stated: “If one comprehends the fallacies of any ‘revealed’ religion, one comprehends them all” (p. 126).

Can Hitchens and others document atrocities performed in the name of religion? Of course they can. Does this prove that all religion is false, and that if a person can spot a flaw or comprehend a fallacy in one religion, then he has effectively disproved the validity of all religions? Absolutely not. Can you imagine what would happen if this type of argument were used in other areas of life? Apply such thinking to food. Many foods are poisonous and kill people, thus all foods should be avoided. Apply it to electricity. It is the case that many people have died while using electricity, thus all electrical use is detrimental to society. Or apply it to activities like swimming. Many have drowned while swimming, thus all swimming leads to drowning and should be avoided. What if it were applied to surgery? Since it is true that thousands of people have died during surgery, or as a result of surgery, then all surgery should be avoided because it all leads to death or is in some way physically detrimental to society. Obviously, the ridiculous idea that all religion is detrimental to society because it can be proven that some religions are, should be quickly discarded by any honest, thoughtful observer.

New Testament Christianity does not stand or fall based on the validity of other competing religions. In fact, Hitchens and others are right to assert that many religions are detrimental to society. But they are wrong to lump true Christianity in with the rest of the useless lot. New Testament Christianity is unique, logically valid, historically documented, and philosophically flawless. It does not crumble with various other religions that are filled with “vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20). Instead, New Testament Christianity as personified in the life of Jesus Christ shines as the truth that makes men free (John 8:32).

[NOTE: It should not be understood that Hitchens and others attack Christianity solely using the straw man argument. They do present other, more specific arguments that are answered in other Apologetics Press materials. It should be observed, however, that the straw man is a frequently used, favorite tactic that needs to be understood and specifically refuted.]

REFERENCES

Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve).

---

Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

How important is a "quibble over a word"?

Recently, a dear friend could not understand how I could not support an effort to preach the Gospel and restore liberty in our land, just because I did not agree with the promoter and founder of the effort insisting on calling preachers or evangelists by the denominational term "pastor."

I've written this informal study in an attempt to answer that question:

Dear friend:

I am sorry that you believe I am just quibbling over a word. I am not saying that it is an insult in itself, but an insult because it is wrong. If I, an engineer, am called either an "architect" or a "technician" it is wrong: it may not be an insult, especially not an intentional insult, but none the less it is wrong because I am neither. Would you accept being called a "Doctor" when you are a nurse? Or being called a "nursing aide" when you are a nurse? When someone should or does understand the difference between one profession and the other, it is insulting to be called the wrong thing, even if unintentional.

Mr. Baldwin states that he is very much a believer in the Scriptures, and that he follows the tradition of "Sola Scriptura" - the Bible only. He states that he believes that the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, and not that it "contains" the Word (as so many people do). He wants people to follow the Bible. I applaud his effort, but fear he is not sincere in it. He has added (or accepted traditions of men) to God's Word. It is very clear in the New Testament that there is a very great difference in the role or offices of pastor and preacher.

A preacher, evangelist, or minister is an individual who publicly proclaims the Word of God to both christians and nonchristians; from the pulpit and in public places; who may also be a teacher (although that is a separate role, as well). If we accept the usual division of the mission of God's church into three parts: "evangelism, edification, and benevolence," his primary concern is the first: evangelizing. It may be done in foreign fields (a "missionary") or locally - but the primary purpose is to reach the lost. A preacher may be completely on his own (example, Phillip or Peter) or part of a team (Paul and Silas, Paul and Barnabas); he may be located in one place for years (Titus, Peter in Joppa or even Paul in Corinth) or move from one location to another frequently (Paul's missionary journeys, Phillip; what today we call itinerant preachers). There are no requirements as to age, experience, family status, education, or similar things stated in the Bible: we know that Timothy was very young, Phillip of middle age, and there are other examples. As part of their duties (Titus is one example) they are to appoint shepherds or overseers in churches. An evangelist may be full-time (that is, supported by others) or part-time (supporting himself to do the work, as Paul did by making tents). I know that some people believe that no one should be completely supported by others because this creates a "hireling" mentality and creates a temptation to "tickle people's ears" when they are paying for you to do your work.

A pastor, bishop, shepherd, elder, presbyter, or overseer (all biblical terms for what is the same role or office, emphasizing the wide ranging nature and functions) is one of the leaders of a community of believers: a local community or congregation. All the examples and commands in the New Testament make it clear that there is _always_ more than one co-equal shepherds or overseers in a congregation - I believe to prevent the dangers of one-man rule. Their primary concern is the well-being, spiritual _and_ physical, of the congregation which they are among: the "edification and benevolence" parts of the church's mission. To carry out this mission, they may do it themselves or have teachers (for the edification) and deacons (for the benevolence). The qualifications of these bishops are very clearly stated in New Testament - twice in fact. Among other things, they are to be husbands of one wife and have believing children (I believe this is, among other things, because the viewpoint and wisdom of both a man and a woman are essential to performing the duties, and because properly raising a family is strong evidence that they have the wisdom (and patience)). They are, of necessity, of mature years. As part of their responsibilities, they are to resolve disputes, ensure that sound doctrine is preached and practiced, and see that things are done in good order. Most people that I know believe these should always be "part-time" - that is, not paid for their work (for the same reasons: a "hireling" mentality) but do not exclude retired men who actually do work almost full-time in this role,

Mr. Baldwin, like many many others, has confused these two very distinct offices and has a defacto clergy-laity distinction that is not found in the Bible and has led to the degraded state of "christendom" today. To call a preacher a pastor is like calling a Lieutenant a General: it is inappropriate, and when done by a civilian might be brushed off due to lack of knowledge, but when done by someone who is a military scholar or a military member, is an insult because it is so inappropriate. The development of one-man rule, the merger of individual churches into dioceses or synods or whatever, the "hireling" mentality, the splitting of churches into a privileged clergy supported by a laity; all these things have produced great evils. Worse, the word "pastor" (and for that matter, "bishop" and "elder" and even "shepherd") have been turned into titles, almost as bad as titles of nobility: together with the titles or honorifics "reverend" (reserved in the Bible for God alone) and "father" and "saint" - elevating some people over others. Bishops/overseers are not to "lord it over the flock" and there is night and day difference between "let no one despise your youth" and the way "Pastor" is fawned over in many congregations today.

I know of many men who are preaching in Wyoming and South Dakota and Nebraska who would agree with the idea of the Black Regiment who are preachers - not many "full-time" preachers but still ministers of the Word. They live in Sheridan, Rawlins, Cheyenne, Rapid City, Huron, Omaha, perhaps even Alliance and Hot Springs and Spearfish. They all preach, most of them two or three times a week in public worship services and public and private Bible classes in their communities. If someone calls them "Pastor" one time they will, to a man, correct the person gently and explain that they are not elders or bishops or pastors, just preachers or ministers. (Some of them may work in churches where there are shepherds that oversee them just like the rest of the congregation.) If someone calls them that again, and it is clearly not just a matter of habit, they will treat it as evidence that the person rejects the explanation or doesn't care enough to remember - either an implied insult, even if unintentional.

Just as I consider Mr. Baldwin's lack of any response whatsoever to my e-mail to be one of several things:
(1) he could simply be unable yet to respond due to press of time (my assumption for now)
(2) he is working on a response
(3) he knows he is wrong, ignores it, and therefore ignores any challenges
(4) he does not consider the argument to be worth considering because of who is making it

Sadly, the first two do not seem to be the case, as it has been three or four months without an answer. So I must reluctantly conclude that it is one of the two latter. He has apparently decided that he is not, after all, a believer in "Solo Scriptura" - that he can with impunity accept or add things to God's Word. Therefore, he is not in fellowship with God. I cannot participate with him in his effort, however noble or highly motivated it might be, because it is a religious effort, if he is not in fellowship with God.