Skip to main content

Some Thoughts on the West Freeway Church Shooting

Our nation was rocked again this week by another senseless shooting, this time at the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas.  It seems that Churches, and other houses of worship, are a new favorite target for gunmen, who, one would imagine, identify them as vulnerable targets because churches, like schools, provide the opportunity for maximum damage with minimal resistance.  This story, of course, ended a little differently.

I genuinely tried not to write about this story, but doing is so is the only way I can stop fixating on it.  Here are my thoughts on this event.

1) Obviously, it could've been much worse.  It's not very often that a "mass shooting" ends within few seconds of beginning (we don't hear about them on the news anyway).  As far from comforting as it may be, the people in that building, and across the U.S., should be thankful that the carnage was limited.

2) We need to stop twisting tragedies for political purposes.  This is not a victory for anyone.  Let me repeat that--this is not a victory for anyone.  Two people lost their lives.  Two families lost loved ones.  The lives of countless people were altered irreparably.  Yes, we can be thankful that only two people died, and, yes, there are practical implications that we can and should glean from this story, but, remember, nobody wins here.  Everybody loses when a madman picks up a gun and starts shooting.  Liberals need to stop grandstanding after every shooting, and so do conservatives.  We all need to shut up and let people mourn.

3) Knowing how to use your firearm properly is vital.  The man who stopped the shooter was well-trained.  He was not just some random guy who bought a gun; he was a former police officer and apparently now trains others to carry and fire their weapons safely.  I fully support the right of every citizen to carry a firearm, but I don't want idiots walking around toting pistols.  I personally own three weapons, two of which are handguns, but I do not carry a weapon because I do not feel adequately trained at this point in my life to use it correctly, should the need arise.  I think this might contribute to the confusion that surrounds this issue.  Liberals, we conservatives are not advocating that novices start waiving guns around every time a crisis occurs.  Everyone who chooses to carry a weapon has the moral responsibility to be trained properly (we conservatives don't trust government licensing programs, in case you're wondering, as they rarely guarantee any real level of competence).

4) Evil exists and legislation can't stop that.  Another issue at the heart of our political differences is the modern denial of the existence of evil.  My friends, evils exists.  There are bad people.  In one sense, we're all bad people, but in another sense, there are people who are unusually bad.  Yes, mental illness also exists, and, yes, there are other issues like the widespread use of opioids, but evil does exist, and there is nothing that we can do to change that.  No one, rich or poor, black or white, is exempt from the chaos evil creates.  Violence has no rhyme or reason.  You can't legislate it away.  Remember, the gun that the shooter used was illegal, to say nothing of the fact that he, a career criminal, possessed it illegally.  Legislation can't fix all of our problems.

5) The story doesn't end here.  We need to step back and contemplate this for a moment.  We Americans, liberal and conservative, will be over this story within a few weeks, but the members of West Freeway Church of Christ will never forget that gruesome day.  That day will have devastating effects upon generations to come for two families that have lost their patriarchs.  May God be with them.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...