Now, that's not to say the Democrats and their approach to gun control are wrong. Nor is it to say that those who support the NRA or oppose the gun control agendas of liberal Democrats are wrong.
It is to say that, once again, those who follow political movements too closely are likely to become corrupted by them. The secular movement of politics, which includes gun control in its agenda, began to heap scorn upon those who sought to come together, mourn and pray, and seek common ground during the horrible days after Sandy Hook and San Bernardino.
The assumption was that prayer and God are, for want of a better phrase, a waste of time. What can they do? It's only the policies proposed by the modern Left regarding gun control that could possibly make a difference. From a secular political vantage point, that's fine. It makes sense. By definition, secularists don't admit to God or the efficacy of prayer. But from a Christian vantage point, that's blasphemy. And yet, as this comment suggests, it is becoming more common, particularly from the progressive wing of the Catholic Church.
If they don't dismiss such lame responses outright, they impugn the motives of those coming out to pray and mourn the victims. Judging, as Jesus put it. Sin, as it's been known in the past.
When you're stuck either saying prayer is pointless, or leaning on the judgment of another's heart for your politics, it's time to put on the brakes. You might think you're bringing purity and a clean heart to your political mix, but the likelihood is that you're the one becoming corrupted. Like it or not, if you throw a clean washcloth into a mud puddle, the cloth is more likely to become dirty than the mud puddle become clean.
Again, I'm not saying we can't have the debate in good time, once we know the details, and the solutions proposed can be shown to make a difference. In fact, the only thing worse than sinning and blaspheming in order to advance a political agenda is doing so to advance an agenda that ultimately wouldn't make a difference to the tragedy being discussed. At that point, we're looking at exploiting a tragedy rather than trying to prevent one. Which is its own evil.
But that's how sin works. Sin, blaspheme, exploiting human suffering - if I held an opinion that rested on those pillars, I would stop and rethink my tactics. After all, what does it profit a man to gain the political advantage if he loses his soul in the process?
I take it the comment you are referring to is that of Mark S., who said, "Yup. 'Thoughts and prayers" is Congress-speak for "because we aren't offering anything else.'"
ReplyDeleteVery likely I disagree with Mark S. politically and even theologically, but please note that his comment is not a criticism of prayer itself, but of a common expression that usually does mean precisely nothing at all other than, "I am momentarily sad." Seriously, "thoughts and prayers" are not the same as a promise to say the rosary or to spend an hour in Eucharistic adoration.
Nor is it blasphemous to acknowledge that God expects is to pray AND labor, rather than merely to pray. Usually God declines to miraculously intervene to fix problems, and even when He does intervene miraculously, usually we are expected to participate; even gathering manna was considered "work" and was punishable by death if done on the Sabbath. We see that in Romans 10:14 ("How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?") and in 1 Corinthians 3:8,9 ("I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.")The problem arises only if we either neglect the greater for the lesser, or if we refuse to give God the glory for success.
Now regarding the specific issue of gun violence, don't you think it would be a good thing if God had appointed minister to thee, for good; an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil? Might not this minister have some role in bearing the sword not in vain against those who bear the rifle for evil? These are not blasphemous questions to ask -- though, of course, some actions of this minister is advised to take might be unwise or even unjust.
Yes, I know that there are quite a few who want to cut God out of consideration altogether. The problem is that you completely failed to establish that this is what Mark S. (if he was indeed your target) had done.
I understand he isn't criticizing prayer itself. Many do, of course. Those outside of a religious fold who advocate gun control naturally have no use for prayer or God. The problem is, when we step alongside them in our discourse, we're faced with a quandary: How do we assume the people invoking prayer don't mean it? How do we assume they're only faking? It requires a tremendous amount of 'I do too know their hearts and souls' to make that claim. It falls down then to say 'there is only one acceptable policy solution, to refuse to accept that is therefore the same as blaspheming God or faking prayer or whatever.’ That's not the case.
DeleteIn fact, more than any shooting before, I've seen the MSM - begrudgingly to be sure - admit that almost every proposal made after these horrific shootings would not have addressed those same shootings. In other words, they sound good, but would make no difference. Which is a lot like doing nothing, if you think about it. Many who are accused of 'doing nothing' are, in fact, trying desperately to do something, like look at our modern culture, look at all of the facts and figures, look at all violence, gun violence, and see where the problems are. But the response is often 'if you don't agree with us, you aren't doing anything', which is bad enough. When we add 'if you don't agree with our politics, you blaspheme God and your papers are worthless’, it's quite a big leap to take. At best, it requires a judgement of their inner motives. At worst, it equates the will of God with the will of a political policy.