What are sacraments?

To some degree, all Christians believe Jesus Christ instituted “practices” that the Church would perform as part of her mission on Earth. When understood to be practices with a supernatural, sacred and salvific properties, roughly speaking, these practices are called sacraments. For example, Baptism is one such sacrament although many denominations would regard baptism as merely symbolic rather than supernatural. Like all the sacraments, Jesus instituted baptism commissioning his disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19. As one discovers with the sacraments, there is a proper application that validates it: in the case of Baptism, it must involve water and must be Trinitarian.

Some mainstream Protestant denominations recognize a few sacraments, usually two—baptism and communion — while many evangelical Bible churches do not recognize a “sacramental economy” at all.

Conversely, the Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, holy communion (Eucharist), penance, anointing of the sick, holy matrimony, and holy orders. According to the Catechism: [1131] “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.”

Although there is much to understand about the sacraments, their purpose, their symbolism, their prefiguration in the Old Testament, their application and salvific significance, the first thing to understand about the sacraments is: did Jesus really institute them. Although the Church claims that the sacramental system was passed on from the beginning through Sacred Tradition, we can still see evidence of the sacramental system in Sacred Scripture:

• Water baptism. We saw the commissioning of this in Matthew 28:19.
• Confirmation (anointing, baptism of the Holy Spirit, usually with oil or laying on of hands by apostle). Along with baptism, the two sacraments are considered part of Christian initiation. Jesus modeled the combination of baptism and confirmation in Matthew 3:13-17. Of course we see in the Acts of the Apostles many places where the baptism of the Holy Spirit was administered. Indeed, the word “Christian” is from the word “Christ” which means anointed.
• The Eucharist (the Most Blessed Sacrament) was instituted at the Last Supper and prefigured in the Old Testament as well as vividly in John 6 where many disciples left Jesus on the “hard teaching” of eating Jesus’ body and blood for eternal life. One writer called these disciples “Proto-Protestants”. 1 Corinthians 11:23-33 also talks about the institution of the Eucharist, the sign of the New Covenant.
• Penance, (or Confession, Reconciliation, Conversion). In John 19:20-23 we see the apostles are given the authority by Jesus to forgive sin—but why? It’s interesting the disciples had the authority to heal, cast out evil spirits, preach, etc. beforehand, but this authority was provided AFTER the resurrection. This authority, according to the Church, has been passed down through apostolic succession and evolved in format. So when one goes to confession (with the required disposition), the priest has the authority to forgive any grave sin and reinstate the baptized to the sacramental community of the Church. Protestants argue that you don’t need to go to someone to have your sins forgiven but that God can forgive you your sins directly. Catholics do not deny that this is possible but also argue that the ordinary way (the way we know about and the way Christ instituted) is through the sacrament of reconciliation.
• Anointing of the Sick. This is quite vividly described in the book of James. Because it involves the forgiveness of sin, only a priest (called an elder in James) may administer it. Likewise, Mark 6:12-13 talks about the disciple’s ministry of anointing the sick.
• Marriage is a sacrament. Not everyone participates in this sacrament administered by the authority of a priest. The Catholic Church understands marriage to be between one man and one woman, indissoluble. That is why divorce and same-sex marriage will never be condoned in the Catholic Church for, as a sacrament, no one has the authority to change it up—not even the Pope. Marriage was instituted in Genesis and validated by Christ in Matthew 19:1-12.
• Holy Orders. This is the ordination of men to the priesthood. Not everyone receives this sacrament, e.g., women cannot be priests. Paul and the disciples represented this priesthood as did the tribe of Levi in the old testament. When Jesus chose twelve men, he modeled this sacrament.

Analysis

As one apologist put it, Sacraments are the opposite of Magick (in the spiritual sense not in the Las Vegas sense). Whereas Magick manipulates the properties of the spiritual world to affect something in the physical world, sacraments manipulate the properties of the physical world (bread, oil, wine, hands) to affect something in the spiritual world (salvation, atonement).

The large paradigm shift here has to do with what the Church does or is supposed to do. According to Catholics it administers the sacraments with the appropriate authority. Compare this to a Bible church that predominantly preaches the gospel and studies the bible—all good things that the Church applauds.  But without Bibles, Christianity is merely disadvantaged. Without sacraments and liturgy, there is no Christianity at all. Think about what Christians were doing the first one thousand years before Guttenberg made Bibles readily available through the printing press and Luther conjured the sola scriptura philosophy. They were celebrating the sacraments instituted by Christ.  Catholics still do–all seven.

How I wept, deeply moved by your hymns, songs, and the voices that echoed through your Church! What emotion I experienced in them! Those sounds flowed into my ears, distilling the truth in my heart. A feeling of devotion surged within me, and tears streamed down my face—tears that did me good. [Augustine’s Confessions]

This paradigm shift discusses the differences in church services and what happens there. In this essay I select the Roman (Latin Rite) Catholic Mass although the Church recognizes a number of rites that have developed over time.

A typical evangelical Bible Church services starts with music and singing, often praise songs with a contemporary sound but sometimes traditional hymns. There are usually worship leaders, professional musicians, and vocalists to get things going, set a mood and create a spirit for worshippers to participate. The use of lighting and multimedia might also be employed. There might be a special music transition featuring a soloist or some other art form to get people settled for the next phase, the sermon. Central to the worship service of a Protestant Church, the sermon is usually based on a passage of scripture and used to illuminate a truth about God or a way for Christians to live—ironically sola scriptura cum persona.  After the sermon there may be an “altar call” (though there isn’t an altar anywhere) or blessing. Prayers are generally impromptu and concluded with the name of Jesus.

When Catholics go to Church they go to Mass, a word derived from the Latin word missa which means to “send forth” and where we get words like “mission”, “missionary” and “dismiss”. All Catholic masses are typical because it is a specified ceremony of words and actions with some variation in content depending on the feast day. The mass starts with an introit—a song or chant—in which the priest processes toward the altar where the sacrifice will occur. There are several phases to the Mass: 1) the penitent rite in which everyone admits their sin and asks for mercy 2) the Liturgy of the Word in which scripture is read 3) the Liturgy of the Eucharist in which the Last Supper / Christ’s Crucifixion is re-presented in time/space. The bread and wine used during the last rite are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus Christ and faithful Catholics will eat and drink this during Holy Communion—the most central and sacred part of the Mass. After communion, the congregation is dismissed with a blessing to go back out into the world as a people set apart for the divine life and sacred duty.  Prayers are always prescribed and usually end with the name of the Trinity.

Analysis

I do not know where the format of the Bible Church service originated—it’s most likely an American evolution. It can vary from service to service somewhat and may be punctuated with special events, causes, calls to action, new study series, or book recommendation. Services are planned ahead as an event that requires improvement, change and, to be honest, a bit of marketing. Let’s face it, many Bible Churches are a blend of worship and entertainment. The centrality of the sermon often creates organizations centered around performance and personality. That is why congregations established or expanded by Lon Solomon, Joel Olsteen, Joseph Prince, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren, and other mega-pastors tend to diminish in size, message, purpose after the pastor retires.

Once upon a time I would have totally discounted the “dead-formalism” of the liturgical worship of the Catholic Mass, facetiously labeling it “Simon said” sit, stand, knell, say, respond.  But in contrast to the “jazz things up” each week to stimulate the congregation, it not only makes sense but when seen around the centrality of the Eucharist, it is the reason we go to church every week. In many of Lon Solomon’s sermons that call forward the traditions of the Jews, the holidays and rituals they celebrated served as reminders from generation to generation. It makes sense from the perspective of history why this was important since it conveyed sacred tradition from generation to generation through the mechanics of ritual, responsorial, symbolism, and song.

For the uninitiated, the Mass is weird, foreign, and mysterious—rife with symbolism and meaning. It dates back to antiquity and is generally the same in every Catholic Church everywhere in the world. The Mass has also evolved over centuries but holds as its source the Last Supper. Catholics argue that liturgical elements of the Mass are evident in the Old Testament, the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Acts—many of the liturgical formulas are straight scripture. When you go to Mass it may seem foreign because, it is argued, one is transported to a foreign place, heaven, and much of what is done and said is representative of John’s Book of Revelation.

A prototype format of the Mass is also reflected in the story of Jesus walking with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35) where he talks about what scriptures said about Him (Liturgy of the Word) and the breaking of bread (Liturgy of the Eucharist). The Gospel of John (Chapter 6) talks about eating Jesus body and drinking his blood to obtain eternal life—what the Catholics point to as biblical proof for the Eucharist. Paul references the Mass in his letters to the Churches (1 Corinthians 10:14-22, 11:23-33, Hebrews 9:1-5). What’s more, the mass is prefigured in the Old Testament especially as the Passover lamb and the manna from heaven. And the writings of the early church fathers reflect a similar format of orthodox (“right praise”) worship. The amazing part of the Mass is that it is performed every day, everywhere in the world. The mass has been celebrated since Jesus instituted it and no one is allowed to modify it on their own.

Aside from the homily, there is little that can be subject to personal style or creativity in the Catholic Mass.  In fact, the priest wears a chasuble to shroud his identity as he is supposed to be representative of Jesus (alter Christus) and not himself. That is why, when the Gospel is read by the priest, everyone stands–it is Jesus speaking his own words. And no matter how good the music is, no one applauds. Although congregants become attached to their priest, it is quite common for bishops to reassign priests—and Catholics are used to this even if they don’t like it.

There is an interesting set of videos on the mass and one that came out today talked about Unity and Variety in the Mass.

Prerequisite to this discussion is the concept of salvation. The assertion is that mankind is in a fallen state and under God’s judgement and requires salvation to reclaim eternal communion with God. Protestants and Catholics differ on the doctrine of salvation.

Along with scripture alone (sola scriptura), another pillar of the Protestant Reformation is faith alone (sola fide).  This pillar refers to the doctrine of salvation—that God forgives sinners based solely on faith and is separate from any sort of “good work” on a sinner’s part. We cannot earn salvation but are saved by grace alone. In some factions, salvations can never be lost either—once saved, always saved. Since no one can earn God’s salvation, technically, no one can lose it either, or so the logic goes. Certainly, the role of works is also part of salvation, but as a natural response born of gratitude toward that which is, as Bonhoeffer called it, costly grace. In other words, “works” are symptomatic of a true saving faith and true conversion, but not essential to it.

Catholics also believe that sinners are saved by grace, but the Church believes it is our reasonable duty and responsibility to stay in grace through works of humility, penance, prayer, charity and maintaining a holy life in accordance with Church teaching and discipleship.  We continually and actively participate in our own salvation through the life of the Church, for God, in love, doesn’t compel us toward him. If we reject God, we turn away from God in free will. And he respects that in an act of love.

Analysis

As one would expect, there is no shortage of bible verses to support either claim. Protestants will often refer to works as “dead” or “a dead formalism” whereas Catholics view good works as part of God’s salvation economy, for we are to be rewarded for our good works as is promised in many places in scripture. Again, there are countless Bible verses to support either position.[1]

In some regards, the two teachings on salvation are similar. Salvation is through unmerited grace and good works are a component of this salvation in some manner. Intuitively we think there is something wrong and inconsistent about claiming to be a Christian but not living like one. Christians are judged by the world and each other to live according to some concept of a Christian ideal: moral living, social justice, charity, respect for others, the Golden Rule and so forth.

The Catholic viewpoint seems to comport better with our intuition if not our desire. One is tempted to say that a backslid Christian was never saved at all in order to preserve the faith-alone doctrine; otherwise it is hard to make sense out of it. It begs an odd question: how sinful can one be and still be saved? The Catholic answer is simple: you must be totally sinless. Any backslid Christian has fallen dangerously away from grace and the Church. This regression has eternal consequences if not remedied: repent and live the life prescribed by the Apostles, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (all that composes the Church). Axiomatically, one cannot be sinful and be in the presence of God.

But it also goes back to the first paradigm on Authority; with many takes on the Bible, who has the authority to teach truth? Although Martin Luther seem to do the most with sola fide, he wasn’t the first. The new testament epistles reveal situations in the Church where people were not living the way Jesus taught and transmitted by the Apostles—Sacred Tradition. Paul had very strong things to say about such conditions including the command to expel the immoral brother. The epistle of James, which Martin Luther called the “epistle of straw” presumably because he believed it was only good for burning, calls out this topic in some detail. Look up James 2:14-26 in which the Apostle talks not about a dead work, but a dead faith without works.

[1] Look at the article of Sola Fide on Wikipedia to see the list of scripture for and against.

The source of authority in this context means that which has the authority to teach faith and morals to the world, specifically Christians or any would-be disciple of Christ.  The assumption here is that the teachings from an unchanging God are also unchanging.

The first part in McLean Bible Church’s Spiritual Bootcamp series from head pastor Lon Solomon is about the Reality of the Bible because, as he says in the sermon, all we know about God, Jesus, salvation, creation, et cetera, comes from and begins with the Bible.  And so, in that tradition, the Bible is the source of what we know and is our source of authority. That is why the inerrancy of the Bible is crucial, for to be in error, at any point, poses a problem: how can we trust the Bible as a source of authority if it has flaws? Evangelical Christians defend the inerrancy of the Bible as if their soul depends on it because, in that tradition, it does. One of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation is sola scriptura (scripture alone) and, so, the Bible’s place in authority is paramount. Consequently, if a particular doctrine cannot be discerned clearly in the pages of the Bible, it is suspect or false.

The Catholic Church source of authority is, rather conveniently, the Church itself or more specifically the magisterium— the authority represented by the present Pope and his bishops as well as all the church’s past teaching as a continuum traceable to Jesus first authorization of the first pope, Peter, in Matthew 23:18, commissioned as the rock on which Christ would build his Church.

Analysis

Protestant and Catholics actually agree that the Bible is authoritative.  The difference is, in the Protestant view, the Bible stands as authoritative in the hands of the believer guided by the Holy Spirit, whereas Catholics believe the Bible is authoritative in the hands of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. After all, the Church was responsible for compiling the canon of scripture, so how is it that Protestants use the very thing composed by the Church as authoritative without recognizing the authority of the Church that compiled it?

And when one considers that there are numerous Protestants denominations of varying viewpoints but only one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which paradigm appears to be working? We tend to read the Bible through the lens of our personal experience, culture, language, politics and desires. So what really is the source of authority? Is it the Holy Spirit, a false spirit, or ourselves?

Catholic teaching is remarkably, almost miraculously, stable. Teachings that many mainstream Protestant denominations once held to be true have been eventually warped or disregarded including teachings on birth control, sexuality, marriage, divorce, perpetual virginity of Mary, male priesthood, salvation and a host of theological topics. Conversely the Catholic Church is routinely criticized for not changing with the times.

Conversion from Protestant Christianity, specifically Evangelical Bible Christianity, to Roman Catholicism involves a number of large paradigm shifts in perspective and thinking. It is not possible to understand the differences between the two as well as what Catholics believe and why they believe it without these dramatic changes. This series is designed to highlight these paradigms shifts in the hopes of bringing separated brethren into the fullness of faith.

For each essay, I will try to present the Protestant view juxtaposed to the Catholic view and Analyze. These posts will also be listed in one place as links in the main menu item above “Paradigm Shifts”

The history of the separation of Church and State is the story of the consolidation and separation of powers. In the present context, the Church is that power which represents authority on matters of faith, duty, ethics, spirituality, morality, right and wrong; the State is that power which represents taxation, policy, military, rule and governance. There are many who think America has, had, or strives for the separation of these bodies– and all such people would be totally wrong. In fact, the very people who clamor the loudest for the separation of Church and State seem to be the biggest supporters of their consolidation.  But I dare say we’ve never had a true separation and probably never will.

A proto-division of power can be seen in the Old Testament where the Levitical priesthood was not assigned any politically bounded territory. All other Israelite tribes had assignments, but spiritual authority belonged to the Levites. Theirs was an independent chain of authority as is a key attribute of separation. To subordinate one authority to the other in any way is a guarantee these powers will converge. Putting Levites into their own territory might isolate and marginalize their authority; instead the Levites were scattered all over the country to permeate political life and unify the culture.

Even when Israel begged for a political tyrant to rule over them and got Saul, there was still separation. The prophet Samuel was the spiritual authority making sure the king did not disobey the laws of God and become an absolute monarch to which he seemed to gravitate, as is the tendency of all human governments.  In a key case of disobedience, Saul was effectively ousted from power.

It may have seemed that his successor David violated this separation of Church and State when he became King of Israel and made sacrifice—a task only the Levitical priesthood could perform. Did David disobey the Mosaic law? No, because as the new king of Jerusalem under which these sacrifices were authorized, David was the king-priest in the order of Melchizedek (not Levi). In this way, David succeeded Shem and prefigured Jesus Christ, the ultimate king-priest.  But even David had to humble himself to Nathan the prophet when his power become great enough to think the ten commandments were optional. They weren’t, and he paid a price.

Between the reign of Solomon and the Christian era, the separation of powers varied with time and place and level of pagan regression. The separated Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam stood up its own places of worship outside the lawful Temple in Jerusalem to consolidate power. During the time of the Maccabees, the Greeks desecrated the Temple and compelled the Jews to worship their pantheon—but this met with rebellion.  Roman rule was a bit more thoughtful, letting the conquered keep their religion as long as they paid imperial dues.

Nonetheless the Roman Caesars ultimately wielded earthly power while enjoying the attributes of divinity, coercing subject to worship them as gods—clearly not a separation of church and state. And this was typical of most pagan organizations (Aztec, Egyptian, Babylonian)–complete consolidation of temporal and spiritual authority in one body despite what the treaties said.

Things changed when Christianity grew in ancient Rome and the separation of these powers began to emerge in Western civilization. This became evident in the fourth century when the Christian emperor Theodosius retaliated against rioters in Thessalonica over the murder of a Roman general in 390 AD. In an act of deceit, the emperor invited the Thessalonians to the city circus only to have them slaughtered by armed recruits. Seven thousand people were killed in an act of self-appointed retaliation, something any capricious, pagan, Roman, emperor-god of centuries past would have done without batting an eye.

But times were different and St. Ambrose, the bishop that stood in spiritual authority over the emperor, barred Theodosius from receiving communion and demanded he immediately start a regimen of penance for the blood on his hands. Now this is remarkable–for the first time in the history of the Roman Empire, Theodosius bowed to the laws of God and the unarmed moral authority of St. Ambrose–the Church–and did eight months of penance, begging to be recommunicated with the one true faith.

From that point forward, the absolute rule of monarchs in Europe was basically unheard of until many centuries later. The Magna Carta of the 13^th century illustrates the separation of the powers of state and church as it was understood by the medieval mind. The very first article states so much:

“FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.”

No doubt there was always a tension between lords spiritual and lords temporal when it came to earthly authority. The basic trend was to get rid of the Church so that monarchs would not have to be bothered with conscience and morality and right and wrong (reference the classic movie “Becket”). This tension was also exhibited in reverse by the Renaissance popes that led military campaigns to secure papal territory against political tyrants. Why? To keep the authority of the Church distinct and separate from the national powers that would control and direct its authority to their own ends. Certainly, monarchs in Spain, Portugal and France would leverage the Church for political ends; despite what many believe, the Spanish Inquisition was primarily the abuse of political power, not spiritual power, for, after all it’s not called an English, French, Catholic or Portuguese Inquisition as well.

The Reformation changed things considerably. Capitalizing on the usual tension, the Reformers coordinated with German princes and other heads of state to oust the authority of the Church from the national arena. And so we have King Henry VIII, now not only King of England but also the Head of the Church of England and anyone who disagreed with that edict lost their head (e.g., Thomas More). Likewise did the King of Denmark outlaw Catholicism in the provinces ruled by his throne, expelling the Church from such distant lands as Iceland and replacing it with a form of Christianity more suitable to his control. Even to this day we have the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Church of Denmark, the Church of Sweden and the Church of Norway—all of them quite indistinguishable from the state they belong to and, sadly, quite irrelevant to those societies as well. To this day Iceland is 90% Lutheran and not because Icelanders democratically thought it was the kind of religion they wanted but simply one their previous monarch coerced them into adopting. To change religions in Iceland still requires a notice to the government (but you can start your own pagan cult at any time).

Our founding fathers tried, once again, to segregate these powers through the rule of law. In a sense, the supreme court acts like the moral authority that judges right and wrong, at least as it can be discerned by constitutional intent. But this fails the independent chain of authority requirement since the president appoints judges that agree with his politics. When President Obama calls out to the Supreme Court to “do the right thing” it is clear that he is calling out to party appointees and the right thing is that which agrees with his political senses. And if there were a pure and true and independent “right thing” where would it originate? Without an immutable template of what is right and what is wrong and the independent authority to enforce it, there will never be a separation of church and state. Even now, as religious organizations, colleges and institutions, beholden to the federal government through funding, must heel to its temporal authority—what separation of church and state could there possibly be? If the government wanted to use the levers of power, it could starve the religious institutions it disagrees with and finance those it does through tax law, effectively bolstering a state religion—that which agrees with the state and that the state can control. Sound familiar?

And what does our judicial system hinge on? The oath? Late comedian George Carlin did a skit on the meaninglessness of using the Bible in court or swearing into office. But it’s really not funny. As Peter Hitchens says in his book Rage Against God:

Without the oath, where is the obligation or the pressure to fulfill it? Where is the law that even kings must obey? Where is Magna Carte, Habeas Corpus or the Bill of Rights, all of which arose out of attempts to rule by lawless tyranny? Where is the lifelong fidelity of husband and wife? Where is the safety of the innocent child growing in the womb? Where, in the end, is the safety of any of us from those currently bigger and stronger than we are?

So, I assert that there is no separation of Church and State in America and probably hasn’t been in Western civilization since the middle ages. Our state legislates morality and our president enforces the laws he agrees with and neglects the ones he doesn’t. When the state has decreed that a man can marry a man, and I must agree with it or suffer deprivation if I don’t (reference the Dissolution of Monasteries)—we cannot say we have a separation of church and state. The state and moral authority are now one.

Do we really want the government to decide the right and wrong on matters of faith and morals with the political and military power to enact it? With expediency and fashion being the motivation behind policy, one could expect that anything could be right or wrong at any point in our history depending on evolving attitudes. And so it has, for, consider:

• The massacre of Native Americans and the breaking of U.S. treaties.
• The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Our moral authority, the Supreme Court, ruled it was constitutional and have yet to retract this decision.
• Separate but equal decisions of the Supreme Court
• Institutional slavery in the south
• Legalization of abortion and selling of fetal organs
• Using citizens as guinea pigs in the testing of nuclear technology, birth control and electro-shock treatment.
• Unlawful search and seizures, physically and electronically.

Expect that our future policies to also include:

• Exploitation of minors
• Euthanizing the elderly, the handicapped and the psychologically disturbed
• Infanticide
• Continued dissolution of marriage and families
• Outlawing the right to bear arms.
• Outlawing of religion and its practice.
• Outlawing of free speech, free press and the right to assemble.

How? Because without an independent moral authority, the government will be the one to decide what is personhood, free speech, religion, marriage, life, liberty, or happiness.

So the separation of church and state, as it is understood today means: no spiritual authority can tell the government the right or the wrong. What it is supposed to mean: the government is beholden to a spiritual authority so that it will not do wrong, but right.

President Obama is right, adding more guns won’t solve the problem of mass killings that flare up almost weekly in America and now around the world. But by implication, he is suggesting that subtracting guns from society can solve the problem, but that’s where I think he is wrong or simply doing the delicate dance of a politician.

Speaking at an annual corporate meeting the CEO of a famous power tool corporation shocked the assembly when he stated that their customers do not want the company’s power drills, the sales of which were soaring. After repeating the statement and pausing for effect, the CEO clarified: what people really want is a hole.

The problem in America is not gun violence. The problem in America is a culture of violence of which gun violence is just an expression. And like the customers of power drills, we should specify that what we want is not a reduction of guns, but a reduction of violence. And then the dialog changes.

It seems that Americans from birth are bathed in violence and desensitized to it. We glamorize violence and pay for revenge in the form of masculine mode movies. We demand justice and hold peace ransom to obtain it. If we really wanted to reduce violence (and therefore gun violence) we would:

• Be critical of the media who, every day, bring violence into our living rooms from across the planet. WARNING: Contains graphic content—a warning summarily ignored by Americans who need to see Jihadi John decapitate someone with a knife. With the ubiquity of cameras, now everyone can upload violence to the internet whether it is an act of terror or a couple of school girls doing a beat down on another.
• Be critical of Hollywood rather than dine their dignitaries at the White House. When Quentin Tarantino depicts graphic violence to foment social unrest, does one really wonder why a person on the edge will turn to guns to act out? An episode of Hawaii-Five-O illustrates the hypocrisy: Steve and Danny are questioning a gun shop owner when the show takes a moment through the character of detective Danny Williams to add commentary to guns and gun freaks. And yet episode after episode, we can watch the same “heroes” open fire with automatic weapons, shotguns and state of the art small arms dispensing “justice” off the radar and away from the lawful rules of engagement. And we approve and tune in again.
• Be exemplary of the rule of law. We have an increasing number of laws in America, not because we are lawful, but because we are lawless. When the President and leaders decide that laws can be broken without reprisal or that certain laws are not worth enforcing, he takes matters into his own hands. Likewise, when we make unilateral decisions about right and wrong why would it shock us when edge cases decide to do the same thing with the only power they can appropriate? If our “democratic” government takes the law into its own hands and molds it to suite political and social needs so will everyone else. Ask yourself: are you lawless? Do you decide what laws apply to your life and which ones don’t and then act accordingly? This philosophy is the embryo of the maverick and the lone shooter. And we endorse it.
• Eradicate the immense multi-billion-dollar porn industry. If the left were vocal about the reduction and control of pornographic material, I might be vocal about gun control. But it will never happen because the access to adult entertainment is some sort of victimless “right” that everyone is entitled to. Even liberal Chris Hedges in his book “Empire of Illusion” understands the violent and militant use of pornography. It desensitizes people, mostly men, and destroys a noble view of people, mostly women. It is correlated to violence in society (search for studies on the internet and you will find many with this unanimous conclusions) and what does the president do about it—a president that wants us to view everyone with equanimity and dignity?
• Abolish abortion, euthanasia. We destroy people on both ends of the vector of life and somehow, expect that our culture–the air we all breathe–to not be coarsened. When we adopt a utilitarian society, life is cheap and the message imbues us. It permeates society and those who would take matters into their own hands.
• Not cultivate a moral and spiritual vacuum. Our increasingly atheistic worldview creates a moral fluidity where immoral acts can either be redefined or conducted with impunity. As Dostoyevsky observed, if there is no God, everything is permitted. With ones back against a wall, one might act out violently if there is no eternal consequence to one’s action. If we do not have to account for our actions, ultimately, we create an atmosphere where everything is permitted. So don’t be outraged.
• Repudiate our celebrity worshipping culture. When our gold standard is celebrity and one’s fate is obscurity, infamy becomes an option. The Columbine massacres were conducted by students that had been done violence through bullying in a climate condoned by the school authorities. Would gun control have prevented Columbine? Maybe. But if we eradicated our increasingly toxic celebrity culture, the event would not have entered the mind. Many a media outlet refuses to name the assailant in the hopes that such acts of quick celebrity would not be repeated. But it’s no use, the ratings are too important. And the deed is repeated.
• Not demand gun control. It seems whenever there is a loud call for gun control legislation, gun sales, like power drills, skyrocket. Why? Because our culture is violent and maverick, our democracy has always been antagonistic toward government, and our leaders don’t boost public trust. If no one is doing anything about our culture of violence, many feel they need to keep it at bay themselves since the government cannot. Hence, more gun purchases and carry permits.

If we focus on the things that create a culture of violence we may not need to cry out for gun control. Don’t ponder the need for a drill when what we really want is a hole in the wall.