Guns Part 1: Good Faith Classic on Gun Culture and Control
June 24, 2023
Listen & subscribe
This week, Curtis kicks off a two parter on the tough subject of guns in America. Part 1 is a Good Faith Classic where Curtis and David explored the tensions between gun culture and gun control in our hyper-polarized environment. They help us take a step back to think through the “how” of approaching such a complex issue versus just the “what” of our preferred policy outcome. Stay tuned for next week’s Part 2 episode where Good Faith explores what a Christian response to gun violence could look like.
Show Notes:
Subscribers to Redeeming Babel will receive a discount on all Redeeming Babel courses, a monthly newsletter, and exclusive access to member only forums.
Thanks for this discussion… it is helpful to peel back the layers of complexity here and seek some deeper understanding.
One point I am confused on… from your discussion, why aren’t Background Checks considered a tool that that falls into the “Behavioral” pool of solutions to prevent gun violence? My understanding is that Background Checks target individuals with records/reasons that should limit those individuals from access to guns.
And if Background Checks are Behavioral approaches that don’t target guns (but instead potentially problematic gun owners), then why won’t the Right support Universal Background Checks?
Also, David mentioned breaking-down the statistics on Adolescent Gun Deaths in America by removing 18-19 year olds — can you do that break-down for us to help us understand the difference David is talking about?
I am troubled by David brushing that stat off because 18-19 year olds are in a more prominent crime age, rather than seeing the burden on America *and the Christian Right) to change the fact that Guns are the #1 killer of children & adolescents in America.
I look forward to “Guns Part 2” — thank you!
I really appreciated this conversation, I learned a lot and found myself verbally agreeing quite a few times. I’m excited for Part 2!
However I do think there is another potential strategy to the “how” of the gun debate (as compared to the “what” of specific policies) that I believe could uniquely impact evangelicals, and that’s our theology around violence. Too many evangelicals are quick to resort to violence and justify it using worldly standards, rather than embracing the radical teachings of Jesus which call for a love of enemies, a willingness to take up our cross, and choosing self-denial rather than self-focused protection.
Recently I wrote a blog on a related topic wondering if American evangelicals would disproportionately benefit from a thorough exposition of the biblical foundations of nonviolence and pacifism. (https://andrewtberg.com/would-learning-about-the-biblical-case-for-nonviolence-help-american-evangelicals-engage-culture-in-a-more-healthy-manner/) There are many Christians who fully obey these teachings, most prominently the Amish and Mennonites, but even just a toned-down version of full blown pacifism would be better than the status quo, where gun fetishists who claim the name of Christ are eager to blow away their enemies at the slightest provocation–including merely knocking on the wrong door.
As I wrote then, “As long as American evangelicals think that armed violence against one’s opponents can easily be justified biblically, it will inevitably lead to more division and animosity than if they remain committed to nonviolence. After all, why bother negotiating with someone that you are physically, emotionally, and spiritually prepared to kill? Nonviolence is a far harder path than violence, which is why so few choose it, but ultimately I would argue it’s more successful in the long run.”
I am not naive. I understand that vanishingly few American evangelicals would be willing to adjust their theology and actions to better reflect the teachings of Jesus, particularly on something as sacred as guns. But if even a few were to obey those teachings, even partially, I wonder if it might cool down our tense national atmosphere just a bit. And it might even save a few lives along the way.
Any thoughts about that?
I have not finished part 2- so apologies if this is addressed in that episode. I too learned a lot from PFrench’s experience and views but I do take issue with the either-or approach to gun control.
(Do we address the gun or the user/behavior?) Legal mandates for cars and drivers seem like a good correlation. Cars also are deadly weapons and we control the machine as well as the user and the users’ behavior. For the car legal standards are established for Seat Belts Airbags pedestrian safety CO2 emissions particulate emissions rollover protection crash protection rear visibility avoidance maneuvers Just to name a few.
Any of us who have a driver’s license knows there are also many legal requirements to obtain a license from minimum age, training- classroom and practical-, insurance coverage, speed limits, etc… There is also the potential to lose one’s privilege to drive if rules are broken.
Perhaps privilege is a keyword here. A demand for rights without taking responsibility for this great privilege of having rights can open the door to a lot of bad behavior.
which brings us back to the either-or argument. Should we promote the belief that I either get a gun or my rights are being trampled or IF I get a gun it is a privilege that carries tremendous responsibility?