tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) (04/04/91)
"Methodist pastor lists NRA with Mafia as public enemy."
by Paul H. Blackman, Ph. D.
[From _American Rifleman_, April 1991, p. 50]
Since the 1970s, Americans have been told on the envelopes of Handgun
Control, Inc., fund-raising letters that "this is your first real chance to
tell the NRA to go to Hell!" And that has been the gist of HCI's publicity
campaign, one accepted as appropriate by its supporters. The push for "gun
control" is portrayed more as a way to "get" the NRA than a way to curb
crime.
When the Senate last year voted 50-49 to ban some semi-automatic firearms,
HCI toasted the result as the beginning of the end of the NRA. When the
"Brady Bill" was reintroduced at the start of this session of Congress,
its House sponsor, Rep. Ed Feighan, said: "This is not only the
reintroduction of the Brady Bill. This is a declaration of war against the
NRA."
Until recently, most religious leaders and organizations, though often
formally supporting gun control, avoided attacking the NRA. This was true
even in the United Methodist Church, which founded - and initially funded -
The National Coalition to Ban Handguns (now the Coalition to Stop Gun
Violence) in 1975, calling for a ban on the private possession of handguns
and licensing of rifles and shotguns.
Now the Rev. William Holmes of Washington, D.C.'s Metropolitan Memorial
United Methodist Church, has used his pulpit to describe the NRA as "public
enemy No.2." The Mafia is his "public enemy No. 1." Rev. Holmes was not
preaching against NRA simply as an abstract organization, but against its
2.6 million individual members. He noted that NRA members, like Mafia
members, have some good points: members of both organizations get married,
have children, take care of their families, etc.
Rev. Holmes said he scheduled his attack on the NRA and its members for the
first Sunday in Lent, a time of personal reflection and repentance. The
sermon was preached by the senior pastor of what is called the National
Methodist Church due to its prominence in the city, and its relationship to
the Methodist-founded American University, located in the nation's capital.
Will the official position of the United Methodist Church change from
opposing gun ownership to vilifying the NRA and its members? Will it
start labeling the NRA the "evil empire" as HCI's Sarah and Jim Brady have
done? Church members may wish to express their views to the General Board
of Church and Society, United Methodist Church, 100 Maryland Ave., N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20002.
--
Tom Albrechttblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/05/91)
In article <Apr.4.00.59.03.1991.14933@athos.rutgers.edu> dvnspc1!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes: > > "Methodist pastor lists NRA with Mafia as public enemy." > by Paul H. Blackman, Ph. D. > [From _American Rifleman_, April 1991, p. 50] > >Will the official position of the United Methodist Church change from >opposing gun ownership to vilifying the NRA and its members? Will it >start labeling the NRA the "evil empire" as HCI's Sarah and Jim Brady have >done? Church members may wish to express their views to the General Board >of Church and Society, United Methodist Church, 100 Maryland Ave., N.E., >Washington, D.C. 20002. I'd love to see it, but I'm afraid the UMC doesn't work that way. Perhaps the social principles might be ammended to include statements againts the NRA specifically, but that would be quite out of character. The General Conference, or Jurisdictional Conferences, or Annual Conferences might pass statements of their disapproval of the NRA. But noone will say "United Methodists think that the NRA should be outlawed" or something like that. The General Board of Church and Society might agree that they don't like the NRA, but they cannot speak for all United Methodists. (We are a non-doctrinal denomination.) For instance, all of the bishops can get together and make a statement against the arms race. They can address their statements to the members, but they don't speak for the members, they only speak for themselves. Personally, I think the NRA is making a big deal out of nothing. One pastor spoke out against the NRA in the pulpit. Pastors speak out against many things. A good many pastors spoke out against our recent war. Should the government conclude that the UMC is against the US? Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
morrow@uunet.uu.net ( config) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.4.00.59.03.1991.14933@athos.rutgers.edu> dvnspc1!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes: > > "Methodist pastor lists NRA with Mafia as public enemy." > by Paul H. Blackman, Ph. D. > [From _American Rifleman_, April 1991, p. 50] > > > >Will the official position of the United Methodist Church change from >opposing gun ownership to vilifying the NRA and its members? Will it >start labeling the NRA the "evil empire" as HCI's Sarah and Jim Brady have >done? Church members may wish to express their views to the General Board >of Church and Society, United Methodist Church, 100 Maryland Ave., N.E., >Washington, D.C. 20002. I personally feel this topic is better placed in soc.politics. As it has been raised on soc.religion.christian, I would like to offer a view from a person raised as a christian in a society not completely immersed in the tradition of bearing arms. Jesus said "If any one strikes you on the cheek, present them with the other" (the paraphrase is mine). I was brought up to apply this (and the Golden Rule) to mean "No Force - No violence". While visiting my relatives in the southern US, I heard the interpretation "If you are hit - hit back"; the proof of this is the Old Testament theorem "An eye for an eye...". My US history knowledge tells me that the "right to bear arms" is a secular-political proviso of the constitution created at the time when each state had it's own "private" militia (which, in it's turn could be mobilized into an army by the federal government). Given that the framers of the consitution were (in part) intellectuals from a time where faith in God was not as fundamental as belief in "enlightenment" and the natural course of events, can Christians honestly support this provision? My personal belief is that we cannot support the proliferation and easy access to firearms as they are more often as not the tool by which a person does Satan's will. However, I am uneasy about the right to "bear arms" given that we know that at least on of Christ's disciples had a sword ("drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the servants"). Comments? Please, let's keep this discussion within the confines of Christian faith adn theology. Unrelated political discussion belongs elsewhere. BOB [No, I'm not interested in a discussion of gun control. The posting was primarily focused on the actions of a church. One could accept gun control but still feel that the quoted pastor was acting inappropriately. I believe it's appropriate for this group to consider how Christians relate their faith to politics, and how churches should participate in the political policy. However this is not the best group for discussions primarily focused on issues of public policy. I'd also like people to beware of newspaper coverage of controversial issues. The papers did great harm to some of the New Jersey churches by exaggerating stands on a recent tax issue. They quoted leaders as accusing opponents of the tax as racist, whereas in fact the actual statements had been models of diplomacy, and were primarily directed at encouraging rational discussion of both sides. --clh]