Gun Control or Controlling Guns

Earlier this year I wrote a series of posts defending efforts to establish more gun control in this country. I was wrong to do so. I now see, though I think I was unwilling to see at the time, that the measures being proposed by those in the American politburo are more about control than about safety. As an idealist I want to believe that America can be a safer place – a place where even guns are not as ubiquitous as they are now. I thought a place with stricter gun control, or even no guns, would reduce horrendous acts of violence. However, this is neither a practical or theologically informed view. What we need is a dose of reality.

For example, why couldn’t I, or people like me honestly answer this question: Could the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School been prevented had there been an armed guard at the school? Even if you say no, how can any honest person say the chances of survival would be less or non-existant had there been someone who stood a chance of stopping Adam Lanza before his rampage began? But it is precisely this kind of logic that I (unfortunately for a time) and most of the American Left deliberately ignores. Why?

When the case is clearly made that people are safer when there are more law-abiding citizens with guns I want you to watch for something. Be careful to notice this. Note that no actual argument is brought against the fact. What you get instead is a lot of heat (much of it emotional)  that guns are bad. Why? They’re just bad. No statistical data (even this data) or reasoned argument will convince them otherwise. In case you were wondering and didn’t check out the link, it’s a confirmed study that shows gun violence is at an all time low in America.

The reason that good arguments, scientific studies, and plain common sense are ignored is simple. It’s about control. Many people on the Left have said that they don’t want to confiscate guns. That’s a lie. The Left has been dreaming about a unarmed populace for quite some time. If anyone has been paying attention, and I know there are a courageous few who have, the tell-tale sign that the Left is on the move to confiscate guns is in their rhetoric about the 2nd amendment. For example, read this ridiculous article trying to explain to us poor saps who believe in unalienable rights that we would be more free if we didn’t have guns. My recommendation is that you ignore this fool (but read his article) and follow those that have cautioned against tyranny. The Constitution has long been a thorn in the side to those on the Left who yearn for power. Just read this article trying to persuade people that the second amendment doesn’t really mean that people’s right to arms can’t be infringed upon. Or listen to this idiot talk about how we should scrap it all together:

One thing I was sure to do in my previous posts was to make sure that people understood I supported American’s right to bear arms. Watch out people, this right is under attack. Real motives and real feelings on the Left are manifesting more everyday.

To those who would say that extensive back ground checks (ones that I previously supported) would only help prevent more violence I would say you’re wrong. If a criminal wants a gun, he’ll get one. There are over 300 million guns in this country. The only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Extensive background checks and a national registry is nothing more than incrementalism. This is more about controlling guns and the people willing to stand up to a increasingly tyrannical government. If you doubt that, if you think that government tyranny is something of ages past, then just watch the news. If the IRS deliberately targeting conservative groups under the Obama administration  is not enough to convince you that something is going on behind the scenes then I don’t know what will.

I just know I’m glad I woke up…

Why I Believe in the 2nd Amendment

This may surprise some of you, especially since I’ve spent the last three posts arguing for gun control, but I believe in the second amendment. In fact, I believe that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the second amendment in the District of Columbia v. Heller case was correct. Individuals should be allowed to privately own and keep guns for self-defense. I hope people noticed that I stated several times I was not for a gun ban (however, I did say I was for an assault weapons ban). Now that I have engaged in discussion on the matter of assault weapons and read about the assault weapons issue, I’m rethinking my position. I may ultimately revert to a ban on assault weapons, but for now I think the case against a ban is more reasonable. Charles Krauthammer’s article on just this point is rational and well-grounded.

While nobody on the federal level has asked for our guns, they would be wrong if they did so for one reason. A man has a right to protect himself and his family. Period. Even though violence resulting from any kind of home invasion (armed robbery for instance) is extremely low this does not change a thing. Some have made the case that the presence of guns in the home heightens the risk of accidents and suicide. This is true statistically – in fact, an accident or suicide is many times more likely than a home invasion. But it should be noted that these are issues of personal responsibility. Big government has a tendency to be Big Brother – we can’t legislate every problem away. Part of the responsibility of owning a gun (and being a father, or mother) is making sure it is in a safe and secure place, out of reach of children, and unaccessible to those seeking to take their own life.

Now, what about the question of concealing a gun and carrying it with you? I still disagree with this in principle, even though it is hard to deny the power of the case in light of instances where a gunman was stopped from killing more people.  I don’t think it would be good for society, creating, as I quoted Alan Jacobs in my first post, a Hobbesian war of everyman against everyman. A version of interpersonal mutually assured destruction would not only undermine civility, it would create a kind of gun angst. People should not walk around afraid of who may have a gun. Furthermore, I don’t think it can be argued that more guns in the hands of more people (when it comes to conceal and carry) wouldn’t end up in more violence. Many complain about how litigious our society is: just imagine how quickly the differences in our society would be solved by gun battles because, “The b****** looked at me the wrong way!” We live in a society that takes the smallest things personally. Think about the terrible euphemism of “road rage” for instance. Finally, the Biblical view of man does not lend itself to the idea that arming more sinful people would make us safer. When it comes to the litigious nature of our society I’ll take lawyers over coffins any day.

So how do we solve the problem of mass shootings? We tackle and confront what’s at the root: mental illness. I won’t belabor this point because I simply don’t know enough to speak intelligently on it. But every mass shooting in the past few years, especially the worst ones, had as it’s central figure a young man or young men who were deeply troubled. There has to be a way to address this issue and it needs to be brought up with urgency. The same level of urgency when it comes to guns.

In what ways would I tackle the gun control issue? Make every gun transaction, for every kind of gun, subject to a background check. Close the gun show loop holes. How easy would it be for a criminal to go to a gun show and procure a weapon? Easy. Make it a crime to sell weapons through unlicensed distributors. Make it a crime to privately sell a gun without registering the process and running a background check. Run gun buy-back programs to reduce the number in circulation. There are more things we could do, and none of them, including the proposals already mentioned, infringe upon our 2nd amendment right. Let’s acknowledge that guns are part of the problem.

Lastly, what about owning guns as a check against tyrannical tendencies of the government? I’ve already made the case that there is a certain lunacy about this position. Let me repeat: nobody has asked for our guns. Talking about gun control, promoting gun control, and enacting gun control as described above does not infringe upon the liberty secured by the second amendment. Some people take these things as a sign that the government is planning to take away our guns in order to control the masses and force a secular, godless society upon us. While this topic could run on for another post altogether let me say a few brief words.

First, if you want culture and government to change get involved and stop complaining. Share the gospel. Our society won’t change unless the Church starts engaging it’s mission. Governments can and do go bad. I’m a history teacher, I know that for a fact. If and when our government starts to go down that path (and no, the move towards universal health care or gun control are not signs that count) it is our duty to respond as Christians first, and citizens second. There are distinctions to be made there, but let me be clear on what they are. A Christian can, in good conscience, resist a tyrannical government by force of arms. I don’t think we’re there yet. Not even close. Which is why I think such talk is crazy. You may disagree with President Obama. Fine. But he’s no Hitler – get real and grow up.

However, an armed citizenry provides a check on those who are like Hitler and would seek to end our liberty. That’s why I believe in the second amendment.

On Mark Twain and the Crazies

Mark Twain once said there were lies, damned lies, and then there were statistics. True enough. Most of the time I try to stay away from “stats” and argue on principle. I find it nauseating when the argument becomes centered on statistics. In general I think they take away from the key ideas. But when statistics are used to back an argument (which should be done) they should at least be understood in context. My brother has seen fit to take me to task on my use of statistics when it comes to gun control. His thoughts are welcome. His criticism is not. Chris writes,

“So, let’s conduct a real comparative analysis: The US Census Bureau puts the population of the United States at a rough, but rather massive 314,965,588, according to the US Department of Commerce’s web-site.  The population of Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, is 56,100,000, according the UK’s Office of National Statistics in 2011.  This difference in population comes to an impressive 258,865,588 souls; perhaps this disparity escaped Waugh’s mind, but I don’t think so.  The ratios used in his first article immediately come under scrutiny: In the US, gun related murder, in 2011, was 2.97 per every 100,000 people; but that number only works in conjunction with British statistics if our distant cousins have the same number of people living within its own borders.”

This “comparative analysis” betrays a misunderstanding of how statistics work. The rate/ratio data put up by the Guardian is calculated as incidents per 100,000 people precisely because the populations are of differing sizes. It’s the only way to compare the two countries. Chris seems to think that if the populations were similar the numbers would be too. But it just doesn’t work like that. The rate at which gun related murders happen is causally independent of population. If someone were to calculate the number of murders per 100,000 at the current rate of each country it would still show that U.K. has significantly less gun related murders. That’s the point of making the comparison. You can actually look at the data from different angles: average firearms per 100 people, homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 people, and percentage of homicides by firearm. So what is the U.K.’s (England and Wales) rate? It’s .07 homicides by firearm per 100,000! The truly interesting statistic is the percentage of homicides by firearm. Of all homicides in England and Wales last year only 6 percent were by firearm. When you compare that to the U.S. it is ten times that (60 percent). The only way to account for that difference causally is to look at the number of firearms available.

But my brother is right, this isn’t about statistics alone, as my first post makes clear. I am, however, I’m completely flabbergasted at why he mentions the border states or Mexico. He states, “To ignore the significance of these facts as they relate to gun violence is horrific negligence in the greater conversation through-out the country.” If you’re concerned about gun related violence on the border I’m right there with you. If you think that border could use less guns, again, I’m right there with you. But which facts am I ignoring? That violence and guns are a big problem? I think I’ve covered that already.

Unfortunately, Chris seems to misjudge and misconstrue my overall points, both major and minor. He asks, “But what does all this have to do with Adam Lanza?” Fair enough question, but my first post made it clear that this has nothing to do with Adam Lanza. I didn’t even mention his name. My point was that the tragic slaughter of first graders provided the context for a national discussion about guns. Alan Jacobs underscores a major point when he writes, “I am generally in favor of stricter gun controls, but not because of what Adam Lanza did in Connecticut last Friday. Hard cases make bad law, and freakishly rare events prompt bad policies — as most Americans should be reminded every time they are forced to take off their shoes in airports. We should think about the role of guns in our society because of our day-in-and-day-out death toll, not the bizarre and horrific events in Newtown (emphasis mine).” By the way, our daily toll of victims is 25, a little over 1 every hour.

When it comes to the type of guns we should control I did say that we needed an assault weapons ban. Chris makes the point that one man can do a lot of damage with a bolt-action rifle. True enough. But the reason that I believe in an assault weapons ban, for weapons like the Bushmaster .223, is because their capacity and function allows for more killing in a situation like the mass shooting in Connecticut. Not to mention the threat they pose to police. But as I said before, it would be idiotic and naive to believe that more restrictions (or a ban) would eliminate mass shootings. However, more restrictions would make them less likely. As would addressing mental health issues, a culture of violence, and cultural decline.

Lastly, I never said the second amendent itself was a conspiracy theory. I don’t know what he means by this. I did imply, however, that gun advocates are prone to view any proposal to regulate firearms as a conspiracy of the government to disarm it’s citizens and take away their liberties. This is only a symptom of the lunacy that forms the basis of Far-Right psychology. Most people on the left of this issue are not calling for a repeal of the second amendment. But this doesn’t seem to matter. When a person reads an article about the president proposing a regulation of firearms and tweets, “Suprise, Suprise: Obama Coming for Our Guns,” I just want to sigh and throw my hands up. At what point did the president command people to hand over their guns? He didn’t. Please remember, we did have an assault weapons ban in this country a few years ago, and nobody came knocking and asking for them. Ironically, it’s this kind of mind-set that could lead to more violence. When people are constantly afraid of what could happen it puts them in a defensive posture, ready to pull the trigger, ready to swear to the last that they can have their gun when it’s pulled from their cold, dead hand. Problem is, nobody’s asked for it…

The Truth About the U.K. and Violence

As a supplemental post to my previous article on gun control I thought it would be helpful to show you statistics from the U.K. about violence, and in particular gun violence. Since the gun ban of 1997 (which banned just about every kind of hand-gun) the gun lobby has made hay of a spike in violence that followed the ban. But when we look at statistics we need to be careful – the temptation to cherry-pick a statistic to prove your point (and defend your ideology) can be too much to bear if things look like they’re going the other way. This is what I believe happened in the article, Gun Control in England: The Tarnished Gold Standard, by Joyce Lee Malcom and used by my friend Aron Gahagan in our most recent debate.

The article makes two important assertions, both of which are baseless. The first assertion is that all kinds of violence, but especially gun violence, spiked and trended upward as a result of the gun ban in 1997. While the data does show that violent crime increased in the first few years after the ban, there is no direct correlation between the short-lived increase in crime and the ban. If what gun proponents say is true the trend should keep going steadily upward, but this isn’t happening, in fact the trend is in the opposite direction. The Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Crime in England and Wales, the publication the government of the United Kingdom relies on for tracking crime, says this about overall violence in the U.K.:

“Although the 2010/11 BCS showed no statistically significant change in levels of violent crime in recent years (the apparent 6% increase between 2009/10 and 2010/11 was not statistically significant and followed a period of general stability in recent years), compared with 1995, it has fallen by one half (47%). Since 1995, violence with injury has fallen by 50 per cent and violence without injury by 44 per cent (see Figure 2.6 for trends in overall violence and Table 2.01 for all crime types). “

Please notice that it fell onward from 1995, two years previous to the gun ban. What Malcolm has done is fairly transparent. She picked the years, of which there were very few, that came after the ban that showed an increase in violence. This M.O. has been followed by many pro-gun advocates that are eager to build a case against gun control. But this approach not only lacks integrity, it lacks sophistication. Crime does not go up simply because there are less guns. Gun ownership is one of the most marginal factors in mitigating violence. The approach ignores other factors like poverty, lack of education, and cultural decline. Malcolm lowers herself even more egregiously when she writes, “In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.” This statement is meant to induce fear in well-meaning citizens. But again, the correlation is built on a fallacy and some of the information is patently false. The U.K. murder rate in 2002 involving the use of guns did see a spike, but then dropped off steeply in the years that followed (you can see that here).

Again from the Home Office Statistical Bulletin:

“BCS crime rose steadily in the decade from 1981 and continued to rise during the early 1990s, peaking in 1995. Subsequently, BCS crime fell markedly between 1995 and the 2004/05 BCS. Since 2004/05 the underlying trend in BCS crime has continued to be downward, although at a slower rate and with some fluctuation in year-to-year estimates. Based on interviews in 2010/11, BCS crime was estimated to be 50 per cent lower than the peak in 1995, representing nearly 10 million fewer crimes in 2010/11 compared with 1995. BCS crime now remains around the lowest level ever reported.”

My primary concern, as stated in my previous post, was the use of guns to commit acts of violence. In that post I argued that the number of homicides committed with a gun averaged less per year after the ban. According to a research paper written for Parliament by the House of Commons Library, the average gun homicide rate in England and Wales in the 11 years before the ban was almost 59 murders per year. In the 11 years after the ban the average number dropped to 37 per year. A 36 percent decrease.

At this point I want to state again that I am not for a ban like the one in Great Britain. But the numbers don’t lie. The assertions made in the Malcolm article are clearly motivated by one thing: preserving unfettered gun ownership. This idea is directly connected to an ideology that views government in the worst possible light. What troubles me most, in a way, is the near conspiracy theory lunacy that is at the base of gun advocate psychology. Western Europe and other responsible countries have been able to enact tougher gun laws without any threat to the freedom of their people. In fact, their people are safer than people in the United States. England is safer than the United States, period. And I don’t think that anyone can contest the fact that this is because there are less guns in the U.K. My hope is that during the public exchange on ideas about gun control this fact will become painfully obvious to just about everyone.

A Need to Get This Right: Thoughts on Newtown and Gun Control

Just after 9:30 a.m. on what is now one of the blackest Fridays in our nation’s history I was behind my desk. My American Studies II students were taking a test, and I thought I’d take a brief moment to see what was on the news. To my horror I discovered that there had been yet another school shooting. This time the victims happened to be around my daughter’s age, and that sickening feeling you get when something terrible has happened to children set itself deeply inside my stomach. For a moment the thought of sharing this news with my students passed through my mind, but something stopped me. It wasn’t the test. I could tell them when they were done. I think now, though I’m not sure, that I instinctually understood news like this should not be trivially passed along with no time to digest the magnitude of  20 children being slain in cold blood.

The tragedy had me brooding all day. When the day finally ended I left to pick up my children. In the van and on my way I turned the radio to MPBN for news, on which there was on-going coverage of the shooting. Just as I pulled into the drive-way of my daycare provider an official statement was being given by the Connecticut state police. The statement was brief and to the point: 18 children had been shot to death at the school, two more were pronounced dead at the hospital. Several adults had been killed, both teachers and administrators. I waited a minute more for additional details but I couldn’t stand it any longer and started to cry. In complete disgust I turned off the radio and quickly composed myself. My daughter, Maddy, 4, and my sons Benjamin, 3, and Samuel, 1, were just inside and needed their daddy. I needed them. I needed to hug them. Extra hugs and kisses and love-you’s were given throughout the night.

Now that some time has passed, not much to be sure, I feel like some things need to be said. I know what my immediate thoughts were: ones of horror and disgust and anger. But other thoughts, ideas and sentiments, that have been growing in the back of my mind suddenly took shape and formed definite edges after hearing about Newtown. In many ways I think we knew what kind of discussion needed to take place and I was glad to hear a small chorus of people saying that now, more than ever, we need to talk about guns.

Ironically there had been an article written just weeks before the Newtown atrocity on guns and gun control in the Atlantic Monthly. The title, The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control), seemed to aim for the middle road in America’s debate about gun control. It was pragmatic to say the least. The author, Jeffrey Goldberg, argues that at minimum we should enact tougher laws which make access to guns more difficult. However, Goldberg also advocates for a more armed citizenry, and goes on to ask, “Mightn’t allowing more law-abiding private citizens to carry concealed weapons—when combined with other forms of stringent gun regulation—actually reduce gun violence?” This idea, that more people carrying guns would actually reduce the amount of gun related crime, is almost as old as guns themselves. It’s also an idea that we need to abandon.

Despite statistics from gun advocates, gun related crime, especially homicides, goes down when there are more restrictive laws. For example, if you look at the statistical data from this interactive map put up by the Guardian (a U.K. publication) it becomes clear that the countries with more restrictive laws save more lives. Canada, our more peaceable neighbor to the North, only witnessed 173 gun related homicides last year (0.51 per 100,000 people). When compared to the United States, which witnessed 9,146 gun related homicides in 2011 (2.97 per 100,000 people) the difference not only becomes clear, it also becomes grounds from which conscionable legislators should act. Another article by New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof nails this point home with poignancy. He writes, “…the solution isn’t just to mourn the victims — it’s to change our policies. Let’s see leadership on this issue, not just moving speeches.”

Yet when conservative gun advocates are met with the facts the reaction seems to be more entrenchment, sometimes behind data that can’t be substantiated. For example, some statistics are derived from interviews with criminals that have a history of violence. While I’m sure that there is a kernel of truth to what these inmates might say regarding deterrence, we have to keep in mind that these statements are made in a post-incarceration mind-set. There is simply no way to know whether a determined criminal may still commit his crime even if he knows that the potential victim is carrying a Glock. But that’s just the point – criminals should know that potential victims could be packing “heat” and are still committing crimes at one of the most embarrassing rates in the industrialized world. Americans have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world (89 for every 100 people) and our love of guns is no secret. So what does this mean? It means that gun ownership (including conceal and carry) is not a deterrence and adds to the possibility of more innocent people being injured or killed.

Still, some conservatives, including my friend, Aron Gahagan, insist that arming more citizens is the answer. When I made a few comments on Twitter regarding gun control a debate erupted between Aron and I over how a gun ban has affected crime (especially homicides) in Great Britain. Aron cited this article to prove that things have gotten worse in Britain (England/Wales) since the gun ban of 1997. I think what should stand out is the ideological nature of the article, and not any proposed statistics, which when examined show that England is a far safer place than the United States. With subtitles like, “Creating A Monopoly Of Force” the aim of the article is clear to any who read it. The author’s primary concern is not the safety of the citizenry as much as it is a defense of an “Anlgo-American” tradition. If one looks at these statistics it is obvious that the average number of gun related homicides per year went down after the ban. The United Kingdom witnessed only 41 gun-related murders last year (it had only 18 in 2009). But according to Aron’s article violent crime is on the rise in England and Wales. Despite this contradiction, Aron, and those of his political ilk, would have us add guns to a crime surge. The insanity of this position is only explainable by being married to an ideology that values “liberty” over lives.

However, before my readership (of which there is few I’m sure), thinks I’m for a gun ban like the one in Great Britain I should state my position in more detail. I’m for more gun control, not a complete gun ban. I’m for stricter rules on who can get a gun, how they can get a gun, and where they can have a gun. My primary concern is with hand-guns, with which most crimes in this country are committed. However, I do think assault weapons should be banned. I know these are controversial views in the land of the 2nd Amendment. But the second amendent should be looked upon as a responsibility as much as it is a right. Furthermore, it would be idiotic and naive to suggest that if we made stricter laws that the mass shootings like the one in Newtown would be completely prevented. I agree with Jeffrey Goldberg that enacting some restrictions (or especially a ban) would be too late. But can anyone argue that the lives saved by more restrictions on guns would not be worth it?

Perhaps we should concentrate more on the complex nature of mass shootings (i.e. the mental illness factor) and crime in general and the solutions to these problems. Perhaps we should address the abandonment of God in our culture rather than simplistically thinking that more guns can solve the crisis of violence in our land. Alan Jacobs sums up this point with great perceptivity when he says, “But what troubles me most about this suggestion — and the general More Guns approach to social ills — is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian “war of every man against every man” in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies.” He goes on to say that such a society is built upon a nefarious and paranoid version of mutually assured destruction.

As a teacher I want my students to enter the world with knowledge, confidence, hope, and above all a sense of safety. A sense that our institutions, while imperfect, are capable of making our nation safer. President Obama is right that we have failed in this regard and that we have a moral obligation to try harder and to do more. As a father I want my children to think of school as a place of learning and excitement, not a fortress. I pray for the families of Newtown and for all who suffer from acts of horrendous violence. May the God of all comfort give peace to them through Jesus Christ. But let us also pray that we come into a maturity about this issue, so that one day our country will see less death and more life.

Thoughts On Presuppositionalism

Are all forms of knowledge equal? When we consider basic epistemologies our core assumptions form a baseline to judge between them. But how do we come to those baseline assumptions? Is reason any better than revelation? And who’s to say? In my reading on this subject some Christian apologists believe and have argued that ultimately every position is a faith position. This is something of a truism, mostly because any kind of certainty is elusive if not impossible.

The Reformed (Calvinist) tradition within Christianity has a unique take on basic assumptions called presuppositionalism.  There is quite a bit to say about presuppositionalism, but for my purposes here I only want to concentrate on one aspect. In my mind presuppositionalism is a cornerstone of Reformed ideology (and make no mistake, this is an ideology). The unique function of presuppositional apologetics is not that it reduces all forms of knowledge to Revelation, but that it insulates Reformed epistemology from criticism.  In a segment from the movie Collision pastor Doug Wilson speaks to Columbia University’s club of atheists and agnostics and during the talk states that people who base their epistemology on reason are only “opening up their Bible” to explain their system of knowledge. What he means by this is that any conclusion is already based in the premise (and he admits this as much for Revelation if you’re paying attention).

My problem with presuppositionalism falls squarely on this point. By reducing all forms of knowledge to Revelation (we can only know the truth of things because God shows us) any way to judge between epistemologies is eliminated. Furthermore, and this is the kicker, presuppositionalism has to borrow from other epistemologies in order to support it’s own reliability as a system. Let me explain. Suppose you meet someone and they want to explain everything we know by Revelation. If you asked them why they would undoubtedly tell you that the explanation starts with acknowledging certain  truths about reality, but really they have to operate under the assumption that the reasons they give are intelligible and can be proved by reason. Indeed, why have the discussion in the first place if this wasn’t the case?

Presuppositionalism perpetrates the worst kind of intellectual sophistry. By sleight of hand it pretends to give the baseline for all thought, but really it negates all thought. How could one avoid the conclusion that presuppositionalism is nothing but fideism? When pushed on this point all the proponents of Reformed epistemology can say is that it has yet to be revealed to the infidel (Christian or otherwise). Yet they make the point from a locked, sound-proof room.

Sex, Theology, and the Gospel

I sometimes wonder if we’re missing the forest for the trees. The recent dust up (debate, argument, whatever you want to call it) over Doug Wilson’s comments regarding the male role in the marriage bed has produced a lot of heat and no real light. Do we really think that Scripture has nothing to say about this; either about sex or about how to talk about it?

We need to be careful here. It’s not that we can’t or shouldn’t have an intelligent conversation about sex. But where is the gospel in all of this? Jesus Christ died to save sinners and his sacrifice should sanctify and shape every aspect of our lives. Husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the Church (Eph. 5:25) and that command should shape how we talk about sex. Husbands and wives should also be willing to give each other their conjugal rights and in each case neither has authority over the other’s body (1 Cor. 7:3-4). That should shape how we approach the marriage bed. In case you want to see that for yourself go here. My point in bringing these verses in is not to argue for egalitarianism. I believe the complementarian view is scriptural. My point is that the debate proves our focus is on the wrong thing.

By crafting a theology of sex we miss the point. The gospel is about being transformed by Christ because he has made us his own. Our focus should be on obedience to his Word and walking with Him. How does Christ want us to look at the marriage bed? Perhaps the lens should be scripture instead of masculinity or egalitarianism.