"The Great Divide": WNYC's On the Media Addresses Reporting on Guns

Every Sunday afternoon my local NPR station airs an episode of, "On the Media."  Hosted by Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield. According to the shows own website, "On the Media" provides a "weekly investigation into how the media shapes our world view." Whereas most shows on NPR are (appropriately) focused outward toward events out in the world, "On the Media" turns its critical journalistic energies inward. And n many ways, this week's episode is the episode many gun owners have been waiting for. It focuses in large part on the various ways in which the media fails in its reporting on guns.

The episode's chapter titles are revealing:

• "The Media's Gun Blindspot" 
• "What the Media Don't Get about Gun Owners" 
• "Expanding the Gun Violence Conversation" 
• "Stopping Mass Shooters Long Before They Act" 
• "Data Cop Out" 
• "The 'Criminal Mind' Calculator" 

As somehow daily steeped in the gun conversation, I have to say that this particular episode represents a rare attempt on the part of the hosts to explore critically how the "mainstream" media reports on guns, gun owners, and gun violence. The shows guests, who are from both inside and outside of the gun community, are given generous amounts of time to make their case. And in each segment, "On the Media" takes no prisoners, offering critical commentary on the strategies, rhetoric, and language of advocates on all sides of the gun debate.

"The Great Divide" is a truly excellent piece of journalism. It can be heard here.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/on-the-media-2016-06-24

Gun Talk: A Conversation Between Two Christians about Guns and God

When you talk to people about the public discourse around guns in America, they often show signs of frustration. And this is true on all sides of the debate. Lamentations often spill forth about the lack of authentic, honest, and meaningful exchange about guns. This entry features one exception to this general observation, an exception I was fortunate enough to record and participate in: https://youtu.be/C4qIQvzmVr0  But first a few words about gun talk in America. 

Since I started the Faith and Firearms Project, I can point to only a handful of instances where genuine, constructive exchange around guns occured, and all of those instances were in face to face scenarios, not over social media. This isn't to say that social media cannot facilitate meaningful, empathetic conversation, only that it typically (in my experience) does not. Perhaps there is something about seeing the human face or hearing the human voice of the other that contributes to a more fruitful exchange. 

Let's be clear about one thing: respectful , meaningful, and authentic conversation does not preclude disagreement or even intense debate. In fact, the true measure of such conversations, as I see it, has almost nothing to do with the quality or quantity of words spoken. Rather, it has to do with the quality of listening that occurs. 

And now we turn to the exception. I recently participated in a conversation about guns between two Christian men, Dr. Eric Barreto and Pete Carroll. Barreto is a professor of New Testament and Carroll is an Information Technology specialists. Both are friends. The conversation occured over lunch at a hunting lodge in MN, just after the three of us had spent a few hours shooting. These men have very different views on firearms. They know one another through work and church connections and are between 30-40 years old. Carroll, a hunter and sport shooter, came to the experience with significant firearms and hunting experience, while Barreto came with very little. Both men have firearms in their family histories, but they show up in very different ways. 

I won't summarize the 33 minute conversation here, since it can be accessed through the project's YouTube channel (https://youtu.be/C4qIQvzmVr0). But I will leave you with just a few thoughts. This conversation, though somewhat short and limited in scope, demonstrates that it is in fact possible to have meaningful conversation around topics as contentious as guns, and to do so in a way that allows for listening, disagreement, and learning. Part of me thinks that we don't have more conversations like this, because in the current environment, our collective imaginative capacity is so impoverished by a lack of good examples. It's hard to engage in practices that are so rarely embodied and seen. 

If you have had such conversations, or are interested in setting one up to be featured on this blog, contact me, Dr. Michael Chan, at faithandfirearms007@gmail.com. 

"Why I'm Renouncing My Second Amendment Rights," Dr. Kutter Callaway

In a recent Huffington Post article, Dr. Kutter Callaway made a bold (and perhaps unprecedented) statement: "Let the record show, I hereby renounce my constitutional right to bear arms as outlined in Amendment Two of the Constitution of the United States." Professor Callaway is Assistant Professor of Theology and Culture at Fuller Theological Seminary, and he is no stranger to exploring the intersection of popular culture and religion. His most recent book, for example, is the cleverly titled, Scoring Transcendence: Contemporary Film Music as Religious Experience (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2013). When a friend sent me Callaway's article, I knew it needed to be featured here.

Callaway makes no secret of the fact that his own history informs his strong personal stance against guns. Born in Texas and raised in Colorado, Callaway has not only lived life in gun country, but his father was also a "Texas lawman/rancher/cowboy." Guns are quite literally his "inheritance" and "legacy." But as a resident of Colorado, he also knows the pain of gun violence; such violence has, to use his words, "landed on my front door."

Out of this complicated history come forth the following points, which seem to drive Callaway's argument:

1. Faithfulness to Christ should trump faithfulness to any state or law. This means, to Callaway, that his identity in Christ "alone is what organizes, orients, and ultimately relativizes every other possible identity that would make a claim upon me." 
2. Having differentiated loyalty to state from loyalty to Christian identity, Callaway states that his Christian faith compels him to "stand in radical opposition to the forces of death and destruction that threaten to undo the very fabric of God's good creation, regardless of what the Constitution says I can or cannot do as an American citizen." This commitment to God, creation, and to life lead Callaway to renounce his right to bear firearms, which he presumably includes among "the forces of death and destruction." 
3. Although distinguishing Christian and American values earlier in the essay (see Point #1 above), Callaway does find a point of convergence in their respective emphases on liberty. In fact, he argues, "it is the very liberty we have both as Americans and as followers of Christ that allows us (and obliges us) to live differently." The liberty he finds in Christian faith and the liberty guaranteed him by the Constitution, give him the freedom of choice--and in this case, the freedom to set aside his right to bear arms. 

Callaway is a clear, thoughtful, and compelling writer, and I am already thinking about ways to integrate this article--or at least parts of it--into the next congregational conversation I host on guns and religion.

From an ethnographic perspective, Callaway's article also raises some questions for me, questions that (to my mind) have no easy answer.

Callaway has a very clear reason for why he is personally opposed to gun ownership. and it is the call to, "stand in radical opposition to the forces of death and destruction that threaten to undo the very fabric of God's good creation." The statement is potent, drawing on mythic images of chaos and cosmic conflict. Creation is under threat, and one way to take a stand against this onslaught is to lay down the implements of death, namely, guns.

As someone who is daily immersed in research on gun culture, I hear Callaway's rationale with some frequency. But more often than not, it is used by gun owners who support ownership for the defense of themselves or others. Why own a gun? Because they are responsible (or "called") to resist the forces of death and destruction, not only to preserve and value their own lives, but also to preserve and value the lives of others. (For a helpful study of these, "citizen protectors," see Jennifer Carlson, Citizen Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline). "There is real evil in the world" I often hear "and a gun allows me to confront it." The impulse to resist evil is similar to Callaway's, but how that impulse is actualized is quite different.

Let's take an example from Kyle Cassidy's fascinating photography project, Armed America. In this masterful work, Cassidy travels the US, asking people why they own firearms. He then photographs them at home with their guns, along with whatever other props they wish to include. A woman by the name of Gwen offered this reason for owning guns: "We each have the right to be the source of our own salvation from evil if we so choose. That right must not be usurped by those who would run our lives for us according to their own agendas, whether it be for the basest of self-interests, or for the noblest of altruisms" (See Kyle Cassidy, Armed America: Portraits of Gun Owners in Their Homes [Krause Publications, 2007], 84).

I interviewed a white, male college student in an April 2015 who also has his permit to carry. He made the following comments: "I feel like it's my duty to, just as the Bible says to help the poor, lift up the downtrodden, everybody in society, it almost connects with my faith in that I'm there to protect, and just be there for my brothers and sisters in Christ . .. there is evil in the world and there are people out there trying to do bad things, and I pray that I never have to, but I want to be there, just as I was saying before, to help my neighbor and to help those people when they're in their hour of greatest need . . . I want to perform the actions of Christ . . . I want to be God's hand in the world at that point, protecting those who need his help." Clearly framing his ideas in the language of the Bible, this young man feels that it is his duty--better, his calling--to carry a gun for the sake of the neighbor, who may one day be confronted with a lethal form of evil. The gun is a way for him to resist evil.

Callaway's article has left me with a number of important ethnographic questions that I will take with me into the field: What factors explain how three people (Callaway, Gwen, and the college student) can, on the one hand, show such a strong willingness to confront evil, and then, on the other hand, choose to act on that willingness in such contradictory ways? For Callaway, guns seem to symbolize the creation-threatening powers he wishes to resist. For the other two, however, guns are a means of resisting those creation-threatening forces.

Juxtaposing these voices alongside one another makes one thing clear: human moral, theological, and religious reasoning never proceeds along straight lines. The path from moral value (e.g., creation and precious and should be protected from the forces of death) to moral decision making (e.g., to renounce guns or to own guns) meanders, and often around unexpected and even subterranean features of an individual's history, psychology, and even faith.

Pennsylvania Amish Man Sues to Buy Gun Without Photo ID

As part of the larger Faith and Firearms Project, I regularly listen to a weekly podcast called, This Week in Guns, on the Firearms Radio Network. The podcast's format is a rotating roundtable conversation that includes a wide variety of members from the gun community--men and women alike--who bring a range of professional competencies and personal backgrounds. Their views on guns, while showing some diversity at times, are generally uniform. The head host, Jake Challand, is the President of the Firearms Radio Network.  This Week in Guns is effectively a commentary on news, politics, and events related to guns.

On episode 140, the hosts discussed a recently filed federal lawsuit, in which an Amish man sued the federal government over its requirement that he have a photo ID to purchase a firearm. Justin Wm. Moyer, writing for the Washington Post, describes the suit in this way: "In a suit that brings together the Second Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFPA), an Amish man filed a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania last week because he wants to buy  agun without the required photo ID -- and because getting that photo ID would violate his religious beliefs" (link to the full story). It should be noted that there is diversity within the Amish community, and that not all members relate to technology and modernity in the same way. Generally speaking, however, the Amish, whose Anabaptistic religious roots can be traced by to 16th cent. Europe, generally refuse to have their photographs taken.

Interestingly, one of the hosts of This Week in Guns, Adam Kraut, Esq. is employed at the firm that is responsible for filing the suit (Prince Law Offices, P.C.). A regular commentator on This Week in Guns, You can hear Mr. Kraut's comments on the case by clicking on this link and fast-forwarding to 12:00. According to Mr. Kraut, this is a case that forces the man to choose between "either his religion or exercising his Second Amendment rights" (13:30). Around 17:27, the conversation evolves into a conversation about "sincerely held religious beliefs," and the criteria on which such beliefs are recognized in the courts. For better or worse, the religion of The Flying Spaghetti Monster did make an appearance.

It will be interesting to watch how the suit progresses. Whatever the result, this case is a notable instance where faith, firearms, individual rights, and federal regulation intersect in fascinating ways.

"My Gun and I," by Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman

Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman is the author of a fascinating new Times of Israel article, "My Gun and I." In this profoundly vulnerable piece, Rabbi Hartman reflects on his love/hate relationship with his firearm, and at a time when Israeli-Palestinian tensions are exceptionally high. 

A few words about Rabbi Hartman. He is president of the Shalom Hartman Institute, a renown educator and thinker, and a combat veteran of Israel's armed forces. His educational experience is broad and deep: He did his Ph.D. work in Jewish Philosophy at Hebrew University (Jerusalem), studied political philosophy and religion at New York University and Temple University respectively, and received his Rabbinic Ordination from the Shalom Hartman Institute. 

According to its own website, the Shalom Hartman Insitute is "a pluralistic center of research and education deepening and elevating the quality of Jewish life in Israel and around the world. Through our work, we are redefining the conversation about Judaism in modernity, religious pluralism, Israeli democracy, Israel and world Jewry, and the relationship with other faith communities." Full disclosure: I was a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute for two years, have profound respect for the work of the scholars, leaders, and students there, and have had many interactions with Rabbi Hartman, who is, regardless of how one responds to this article or anything else he might say/write, a passionate, insightful, and provocative thinker. Even when one disagrees with him, he is always worth listening to. 

What I appreciate about Rabbi Hartman's article is his utter honesty about his love-hate relationship with his gun. However you evaluate the argument, I hope that you, the reader, will leave with a sense of appreciation for Rabbi Hartman's willingness to give us a glimpse into how the intersection of faith, firearms, and ethics are manifest in the life of a particular Jewish intellectual, whose country is currently experiencing a serious and troubling uptick in violence. 

Faith, Family, and Firearms: Duck Dynasty

A&E's Duck Dynasty is one of the most popular series on television today. Now in its 8th season, the show provides one of the clearest, most prominent examples of how one family (the Robertsons) holds together the realities of faith and firearms. While I've never tried it, I'm willing to bet that one could not find a single episode in which guns and religion are not given some air time. In fact, concerninng the latter, faith is always showcased at the end of each show, when one of the family members leads a prayer around a typically full and festal dinner table. 

As I talk with gun owners from around the country, I would have to say that the Robertsons are both typical and atypical of American gun owners. The Robertsons poverty-to-privilege narrative is clearly exceptional, and their fame remarkable. However, the family's deep appreciation for hunting, the outdoors, family, and "redneck" living is certainly not--and neither is their faith. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, "Americans who are most likely to own guns or share a household with a person who owns a gun include members of the Tea Party (63%), white evangelical Protestants (58%), and Republicans (60%). Americans who are least likely to own guns or share a household with a person who owns a gun include Democrats (34%), Catholics (32%), Northeasterners (27%), and non-white Americans (23%)" (http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/08/august-2012-prri-rns-survey/#.ViAJhZRHarU). The Robertsons certainly fit into several of these categories. 

I referred above to the Robertson family's "privilege," but they would almost certainly prefer the term, "blessing." In their view, the position they now find themselves in is not simply the result of winning the economic lottery: They have been given a calling, and they now have responsiblities to the One who provided that calling. 

In a recent edition of the popular magazine Guns & Ammo (November 2015), Willie and Jase Robertson were asked, "What are the top three things that you'd credit your family's success to?" (p. 75). Willie replied,"Faith for sure, our family's willingness to stick together and our incredible good looks . .. (laughs). Perhaps the third thing we've been blessed with is the gift of storytelling" (p. 76). Jase's answer: "God is number one. The best part of the show has been exposing people to Christianity through our prayer at the end of every episode. Phil has gone on to baptize hundreds of people into the faith. It makes us humble and proud" (p. 76). Jase goes on to tell a story about his uncle Si, also an outspoken Christian: "When Si took the director of the first 'Duck Dynasty' show on a tour of the river,Si told theman, 'Technically, you're not directing this. God is" (p. 76). These two Robertson men clearly believe that the platform they've been given is a divine gift, and one they intend to use. 

Phil Robertson in particular takes his newfound platform very seriously, unapologetically using it to comment  on matters of faith, politics, and values. One finds Phil Robertson commenting on everything from ISIS ()http://youtu.be/qhYbxCRcLCM) to homosexuality (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/18/phil-robertson-suspended-after-comments-about-homosexuality/). The Bible plays a central role in how Phil interprets society and its woes. 

He is unmoved by controversy, or even by the disciplinary attempts of A&E. Phil Robertson is like Donald Trump: he speaks his mind with little to no regard for the well-patrolled borders of political correctness. 

Jase also seems to share Phil's concern that the Bible be given a central place in American politics. In response to the question, "What do the Robertson's look for in a presidential candidate?" Willie: "Obviously the 2nd Ammendment is big to us, and their spiritual platform. When you read the forefathers, our country was founded on those two principles" (p. 74). Jase, similarly, linked faith and politics: "I think it was George Washington who said, 'It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible" (p. 74). As far as I can tell, the Robertson men share a common conviction about the Bible, namely that it provides a clear standard by which to judge society and the government charged with its care. The Bible provides a guide, not only for the lives of individuals but also for American society. This conviction is further grounded in a particular interpretation of America's founding fathers, whom they see as ideological allies. 

Whenever I interview people, I usually ask what guns symbolize to them. While my own minimalist public profile all but guarantees that I will never get to ask the Robertson's that question directly, the aforementioned interview in the November 2015 version of Guns & Ammo may give us a glimpse into how Jase and Willie might answer this question. Both were asked, "What does the 2nd Ammendment mean to you?" Willie, the businessman of the family, responded with a typical nod to family and industry: "We are a family that hunts and works in the gun business. It's our life and our livelihood. We've always been about the 2nd Ammendment" (p. 64). Jase's response actually provided the interview's first reference to guns as tools of self-defense against human violence, a topic rarely broached in the television series: "The Second Amendment means freedom to me, freedom to provide for your family and protect yourselves from evil" (p. 64). The freedom to bear arms is tied to one's responsibilities to family and self.

For Willie and Jase, guns are also clearly related to family history, legacy, and patriotism. When asked about their first guns, they not only provided answers (a .410 shotgun), they told stories. Willie:"Our first guns were a couple of family guns. We didn't have a lot of money, so we only had a 16 gauge and Dad had bought me a .410" (p. 62). After a jovial argument about for who actually owned the gun, a number of stories spilled out about how Willie damaged the gun as a child, and how (after sawing off the damaged part), it became a snake-slayer (pp. 63-64). 

The Robertson family is in many ways typical of gun owners in America. In other ways, however, they are exceptional. At day's end, one thing is clear: They represent one of the most public examples of a family that is entirely comfortable at the intersection of faith and firearms.  

Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey (R): Serious Christians Need to Get Serious about Gun Ownership

Religion stands at the very center of the recent school shooting at Umpqua Community College. According to many accounts, the shooter asked his victims about their religious views before shooting them (see the following ABC News article). As the investigation continues, more details about the shooter will no doubt emerge. 

Religion has also played a role in the response to this shooting, at least for Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, a Republican from Tennessee, according to a Washington Post article by Elahe Izadi, Lt. Gov. Ramsey ("Christians ‘serious about their faith’ should consider getting guns, Lt. Gov. says"). On his Facebook page, Ramsey posted a NY Post article about the shooter's targeting of Christians and then makes the following statement: 

"As I scroll through the news this morning I am saddened to read the details of the horrible tragedy in Oregon. My heart goes out to the citizens of Roseburg -- especially the families and loved ones of those murdered.

The recent spike in mass shootings across the nation is truly troubling. Whether the perpetrators are motivated by aggressive secularism, jihadist extremism or racial supremacy, their targets remain the same: Christians and defenders of the West.

While this is not the time for widespread panic, it is a time to prepare. I would encourage my fellow Christians who are serious about their faith to think about getting a handgun carry permit. I have always believed that it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Our enemies are armed. We must do likewise."

Ramsey then posts a link to Tennessee's Handgun Carry Permit page, providing people with instructions on how to obtain the permit. 

The story of the Umpqua Community College shooter is one in which religion and guns tragically intersect. The discourse that emerges at this intersection, however, will only become denser as Americans register their responses to this tragedy. If the responses thus far are at all telling, "religion" will not, and indeed never does, provide a single response to human suffering and violence.