Tragedy

Ideas for posts come and go, and many never return from the ether...

...but this one stuck.

It's a little 'old' now, but there was a story about a man in Colorado who killed several others at two Christian organisations. The first was Youth With A Mission, which is an organisation I'm familiar with because they have a campus in my home town and several of my friends had some involvement with them at one time or another. The second was a church.

This is as good a summary as any.

The incident really didn't cause that much of a ripple on the news, at least over here, which says something about our perception of American culture. Yet another disaffected American male deciding that the way to solve his problems is to go down blasting simply isn't very newsworthy any more. We realised quite some time ago that this is the way they have learned to deal with life.

That these events are commonplace is sad enough, but I can't say I was immune from the general 'eh, so what' reaction. No, what really grabbed my attention was the way in which the gunman, Matthew, died. Not least because it, too, wasn't seen as worthy of comment.

[Sigh. Of course I've picked a version of the story that doesn't mention this.]

He was shot dead by a church security guard.

A church security guard.

Excuse me. When exactly did churches start having security guards?

I realise we are talking about a very large church. And also, that this is America. But still, I'm trying to grasp what's happening here. People are streaming in on a Sunday morning, welcoming each other and smiling, talking about how marvellous it is to be in such an inclusive church... filing past a security guard who has a gun.

I'm certainly not seeking to criticise the individual guard's actions. Far from it. If there's one situation where it's legitimate to take a life, it's to defend lives from someone intent on murder.

Despite that, I end up wondering how it came to pass that the church was actually prepared in this way for such an eventuality.

----------------------------------------------

Another side of this story emerged as information about Matthew and what he had written prior to the shootings came to light.

His targets were by no means accidental. But it also seems that a significant part of his grievance may have been to do with his sexuality, and the church's response to it.

Of course, it's impossible to unravel from here just who had said and done what over the course of several years. Depending on who you ask, the problem was the church trying to 'cure' Matthew, or the damage was done by other experiences involving abuse and rape, or something in him that was inherently 'troubled'.

And a lot of that perspective ultimately depends on your own views on whether homosexuality or bisexuality or anything other than straightforward, mainstream heterosexuality is a 'problem'.

My own views on this have changed markedly through personal experience. But, thankfully, the consequences for me of years of internal 'trouble' never extended as far as someone's life being lost.

As I said, it's impossible to know exactly what contribution that turmoil over sexuality and the church's response made to Matthew's raging hatred. But if it made any contribution, I can't help thinking that maybe tragedy would have been averted if someone, somewhere in the Christian community had been more willing to listen, and less willing to condemn something that I personally believe Matthew had no control over and couldn't alter no matter how much he wanted to.

Just Listen.

Please.