© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
A merciless gunman (we will follow the lead of the local sheriff and not mention the murderer's name) killed nine people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, last week and wounded seven others, before taking his own life during a shootout with police. While this is terrible news and a real tragedy, incidents like this have occurred often enough in the United States that they no longer shock us as they once did.
Following this most recent deadly rampage, The Washington Post published an article headlined "Shooting in Oregon: So Far in 2015, We've Had 274 Days and 294 Mass Shootings." (see link in list below). Citing as its source an online index called the Mass Shooting Tracker, which counts mass shootings in 2013, 2014 and 2015, the article reported that the Oregon killings brought to 294 the number of incidents in just this year in which four or more people were killed or injured by gunfire. The numbers reported include assaults as well as homicides, and also gang-related and murder-suicide events.
In fairness, there are estimates that the number of uses of firearms to prevent unjust violence is considerably higher than the number of uses to commit homicides, but no statistics are available. We recognize that the vast majority of firearms owned by citizens in the United States are not used in crimes.
Also in response to the recent Oregon killings, Polly Mosendz, a breaking-news reporter for Newsweek, explained that from a reporting standpoint, mass shootings have become so routine that her publication now keeps a template for such stories, where they essentially fill in the blanks with the details. "Mass death is prewritten in America," Mosendz said.
Mosendz also said, "My news desk and I are good at covering shootings because we get a lot of practice. This is the fifth mass shooting we've covered since Dylann Roof murdered nine parishioners in the name of racism at a Charleston Bible study."
Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, when asked to comment on the shooting at Umpqua Community College, argued for caution against more gun control as an instant reaction, saying that "stuff happens, there's always a crisis." In the context of his full remarks, the "stuff happens" remark wasn't flippant -- in fact, Bush earlier called the Oregon shootings "heartbreaking" -- but, predictably, some others in the presidential race pounced on the comment to bash Bush. In general, political commentators took a longer view, but even then some still found the comment to fall short when speaking about the ongoing gun violence in America. (See two contrasting articles in the links list below.)
The Wired Word is taking no position in terms of Jeb Bush as a political candidate, but we believe that the "stuff happens" comment is an expression of one of the biblical viewpoints about life. It's the view seen in the book of Ecclesiastes, which leans toward fatalism: The sun rises. The sun also sets. There is nothing new under the sun. A time to be born and a time to die. Etc. Stuff happens.
But it is not the only biblical viewpoint. At minimum, the Bible also presents a prophetic viewpoint, an apocalyptic viewpoint and a wisdom viewpoint. As is usually the case with the scriptures, there is a conversation going on, with more than one side having something valid to say.
Understanding that there is more than one biblical viewpoint can help us as we seek to make sense of life and wrestle with how to respond to the things that knock us down.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Jeb Bush's 'Stuff Happens' Response Was Fine. New York Magazine
Context Does Not Make Jeb's 'Stuff Happens' Better. Washington Post
Shooting in Oregon: So Far in 2015, We've Had 274 Days and 294 Mass Shootings. Washington Post
What It's Like to Report on Mass Shootings Routinely. Medium (Mosendz's article)
Mass Shooting Tracker
Gunman in Oregon Massacre Was Turned Away From Firearms Academy. The Financial Express
The Big Questions
1. When have you been aware that the Bible does not present a monolithic view on every subject? Do you find it helpful to acknowledge that? Why or why not? Do "monolithic" and "consistent" mean the same thing? Explain the differences or lack thereof.
2. When has "stuff happens" (or some similar statement) been a helpful insight in dealing with problems in your life? Why? When has it not been helpful? Why?
3. If there is more than one biblical viewpoint, how do you decide which one is applicable to specific circumstances of your life?
4. What might it mean for your practice of faith to look at the scriptures as offering a conversation about matters of this life?
5. About which subjects does the Bible offer one and only one viewpoint?
6. (NOTE: This question is not included in the student version of this lesson. Use this question only after reviewing with the class the Scripture selections and accompanying commentary in the "Confronting the News ..." section below.) Which biblical viewpoint -- or what synthesis of biblical viewpoints -- do you consider most appropriate and helpful in addressing the mass murder incidents that are, sadly, now a feature of American life? What about for other incidents that are less clear, such as policies with good intentions that produce opposite results? What specifics in each case might that biblical viewpoint or synthesis of viewpoints call for from us?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Ecclesiastes 1:14-15
I saw all the deeds that are done under the sun; and see, all is vanity and a chasing after wind. What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be counted. (For context, read 1:12-18.)
Some ancient commentators on scripture used to say that Solomon wrote Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) when he was young, Proverbs when he was mature and Ecclesiastes when he was old and tired. While scholars disagree about whether one can attribute the three books to Solomon, there is no denying a certain fatalistic perspective in the book of Ecclesiastes. The two verses above, and especially the second sentence, speak of this outlook. In terms of perspective, many people see Ecclesiastes as quite different from the other books of the Bible, while others consider it not so much different as complementary.
Questions: Why do you think the ancient Bible scholars who decided which books belonged in the Bible chose to include Ecclesiastes? Why would God want this book to be in the Bible? How do these verses connect with "stuff happens"? When do you find yourself agreeing with the viewpoint expressed in these verses? When do you find yourself disagreeing?
Proverbs 2:1-3, 5-7
[A wisdom teacher said,] My child, if you accept my words and treasure up my commandments within you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; if you indeed cry out for insight, and raise your voice for understanding; ... then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD ... is a shield to those who walk blamelessly. (For context, read 2:1-11.)
James 3:13, 17-18
Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. ... But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace. (For context, read 3:13-18.)
The Proverbs verses come from Israel's "wisdom" tradition that is part of scripture. Wisdom in ancient Israel was a way of regarding life characterized by the belief that both the physical and moral realms of the world operated according to orderly principles that people could perceive. Coupled with this was a belief that if a person lived in harmony with this order, things would go well and that person would be happy, and that this arrangement was the will of the generous Creator.
Wisdom was not seen as the sole property of Israel, but as knowledge common to all humankind. In fact, portions of the book of Proverbs seem to quote older, even more ancient, Egyptian wisdom. Israel's wisdom perspective was much more international than Israel's covenantal view and maintained that the people of Israel could gain a better understanding of life through contact and exchange with other peoples of the world.
According to wisdom, fullness of life was the goal of human existence. This fullness of life did not mean simply sustaining existence, but a living characterized by well-being, happiness and wholeness in the here and now. Wisdom believed that human well-being was God's intention and therefore viewed the achievement of this good state as fully in keeping with God's intended role for humankind. Wisdom did not claim that humanity had unlimited insight and capacity, but it did affirm that God expected full human responsibility within the limits of human understanding and ability.
Proverb-like sayings, which were the most common form used in wisdom literature, spoke frequently of the consequences of good and bad choices and voiced the belief that humans are able to make wise choices and then act responsibly based on that capability.
The book of James in the New Testament is often considered to reflect the wisdom tradition. Indeed, in the verses from that book quoted above, James speaks directly about the matter of wisdom. For space reasons, we haven't quoted all of verses 13-18, but in the full context, he differentiates between wisdom that is from above and that which is not.
Questions: In keeping with this explanation of the Bible's wisdom tradition, what might be the wise response to the spate of mass shootings that are now a part of the American scene? Does this sort of wisdom address the problem? Does it evade the problem? Make a case for each viewpoint.
Amos 5:21-24
[God said,] I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; .... Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (For context, read 5:18-24.)
Matthew 25:37-40
Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?" And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." (For context, read 25:31-46.)
Both of these passages, one from each testament, are examples of the Bible's prophetic outlook. Some might want to question whether the Matthew 25 passage belongs to that category, given that its words are from Jesus, not one of those usually called prophets. But note that some of Jesus' contemporaries did call him a prophet (Matthew 21:11; Luke 7:16; John 4:19) and that Jesus also alluded to himself as a prophet (Mark 6:4).
The prophetic view is characterized by a call to get up and actually do something -- whether it be to repent, to right wrongs, to change one's ways, to combat evil (which, in the current situation, could mean doing whatever might be done to stop an attacker -- even using a gun against him).
Even when prophetic words were laced with judgment, there was still a basic underlying optimism to them -- that is, that if the hearers did what the prophet was calling for, then the impending doom could be averted.
Questions: In keeping with this explanation of the Bible's prophetic tradition, what might be the prophetic response to mass shootings or other violence? Would there be any difference between something a prophet might say, and something Jesus might say speaking prophetically?
Revelation 12:12
Rejoice then, you heavens and those who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!" (For context, read 12:7-12.)
Revelation 21:1
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. (For context, read 21:1-8.)
In the Bible, the book of Revelation, along with the later chapters of the book of Daniel, gives voice to the apocalyptic viewpoint. While apocalyptic literature has some similarities to the writings of the prophets, there are two distinct differences:
First, in general, the prophets spoke or wrote to people who were disobeying God. They warned them that unless they repented, disaster was sure to come upon them. On the other hand, the recipients of the apocalyptic writings were generally people who were obeying God and were likely to suffer disaster precisely because they were being faithful.
Second, as mentioned in the Amos-Matthew commentary above, the words of the prophets, stinging though they were, had an underlying note of optimism: "If you repent and turn back to God, then God will turn aside the coming disaster." There was still the opportunity for repentance. Often the hearers chose not to repent, but at least they had the chance.
In contrast, apocalyptic literature, such as from Revelation, is much more pessimistic about the world. As far as the author of Revelation was concerned, the world as it existed in his day was beyond redemption and things were too bad to be salvaged. In his view, what Christians should do was to remain faithful to God no matter what suffering or martyrdom came their way because God was going to destroy this evil world in the future and bring in a new one. And in that new one, those who suffered and died for their faith here would live in glory. They would have an eternal reward. Thus, the message of Revelation was good news for the faithful but bad news for the present world.
Questions: In keeping with this explanation of the Bible's apocalyptic tradition, what might be the apocalyptic response to mass shootings and other murderous acts?
Considering what is said in Ecclesiastes, the wisdom view, the prophets and the apocalyptic outlook, how many scriptural ways do you think there are to address mass murders? Which approach speaks to you and which one challenges you the most?
For Further Discussion
The killings at the community college in Oregon have again brought the issue of gun control into public conversation. If you wish to discuss that matter, the following article may be useful as a discussion starter: A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths. New York Times.
Although none of the recommendations in the article appear to bear directly on the Umpqua murders, it does seem to suggest some middle ground in the gun control debate. The Wired Word is not advocating a position in the debate. (A consultant to TWW who is knowledgeable about gun laws points out that, in at least one instance, the author of the article appears to not know that current law already includes a lifetime prohibition on gun possession for anyone convicted of domestic violence, and not the 10 years the author recommends.)
Responding to the News
As a class, decide if there is anything you might wish to do together to help people who suffer when "stuff happens" to them.
As an individual, consider what choices you can make in your life to be a peaceable and godly person, while still maintaining security for yourself and your family.
Closing Prayer
Thank you, Lord, for the Bible and the ways in which it helps us hear your word and decide how to deal with life today. In Jesus' name. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment