Once again, Americans witnessed horrific examples of gun violence, and one of the cases has brought to light the rising trend in hate crimes against people of Asian descent.  The mass shootings of March 16 at three spas in the Atlanta area led to 8 deaths, including 6 Asian females.  Even though law enforcement authorities have not gathered enough evidence at this point to charge the suspect with hate crimes, the event speaks for itself when viewed in conjunction with the expressions of hate Asians have been experiencing.  The haters, among other things, blame them for the current pandemic and refer to the covid19 virus as the China virus.

The Atlanta shootings were followed 6 days later by an attack at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, which resulted in the deaths of 10 people.  It was also reported by the New York Times that 2 days later, on March 24, a heavily armed man was arrested as he was about to initiate a mass shooting in a grocery store in midtown Atlanta.  The next day, a man wearing body armor and in possession of multiple handguns was arrested by the University of Kentucky police in a parking lot of the school’s Chandler Hospital. Apparently, he also had two explosive devices in his vehicle.  According to the New York Times article mentioned above, “Mass shootings tend to happen in clusters of two or three, and research has shown that after one happens, the risk of another is elevated for about two weeks. This is due in part to the attention that the shooters receive in the media, a notoriety that a person somewhere else in the country might quietly be yearning for.” The article also explains that “Last year in the U.S. was shockingly violent, with nearly 20,000 deaths from gun violence and another 24,000 gun suicides, the highest toll in decades.”

The recent events seem to have revived the dormant debate about gun control, but with a sense of helplessness since the Republican side of the debate has remained unmovable in its opposition to any attempt to limit gun rights.  Many of these Republicans invoke the Second Amendment to justify their position, even though they may self-identify as Christians.  Their brand of Christianity does not seem to pay any mind to Jesus’ words, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:10).  In this website, the issue of gun violence has been discussed at length (See for example Gun Violence and the Second Amendment, or Peace or a Sword?).  The focus of today’s post is to address some religious implications that arise from the motives attributed to the Atlanta shooter.

The discussion on the connection to religion in the Atlanta shootings is based on a New York Times article by Ruth Graham, titled Atlanta Suspect’s Fixation on Sex Is Familiar Thorn for Evangelicals.  As the title indicates, the article brings attention to the fact that the suspect, Robert Aaron Long, is a 21-year-old white evangelical.  The fact that most of the victims were female Asians raises suspicions about misogyny and racism as motives.  Graham reports remarks from Dr Brad Onishi, who grew up as an evangelical in Southern California, and points out the great emphasis on sexual purity in his upbringing:

“The evangelical culture he was raised in, he said, ‘teaches women to hate their bodies, as the source of temptation, and it teaches men to hate their minds, which lead them into lust and sexual immorality.’”

He then describes the potential results of such an emphasis:

“Purity culture teaches young men to view young women who do not try to maintain modesty as sinister forces,” Dr. Onishi said. “It’s hard not to think about the fact that Asian women have been sexualized and set up to be viewed through the lens of an exotic other who is sexually desirable.”

These two statements obviously point to misogynistic views directed at Asian women in particular, and explain the current outrage in the Asian population.  But they also point to evangelicalism as a culprit in these events.  As for the shooter himself, he does belong to an evangelical church, and he told the authorities that his action was not racially motivated, but was the result of a sexual addiction, and that he had been a customer at two of the three spas he attacked.  Also, “He was so intent on avoiding pornography that he blocked several websites on his computer and had sought help at a Christian rehab clinic.”  Furthermore, according to a former roommate, he “agonized over the possibility of ‘falling out of God’s grace.’”

The article goes on to tie the shooter’s behavior to patterns observed within evangelicalism over time.  Evangelicals have been combating pornography and “improper sexual desires” for a long time and believe they lead some people to commit crimes.   In recent years, evangelical leaders have begun to talk more frankly about sex, but have not strayed from the message that “sex is reserved for straight married couples.” More importantly,

“Many Christians trace their condemnation of pornography back to Jesus. ‘I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart,’ he is quoted saying in the Gospel of Matthew.  For Protestants in particular, whose faith prioritizes correct internal beliefs and spiritual attitudes, that passage has contributed to a worldview in which inappropriate sexual thoughts are just as sinful as wrong actions.”

Some evangelical leaders emphasize that the problem is not the sexual act itself, but the lust in a person’s heart.  The article also quotes research that indicates that evangelicals are not more likely than non-evangelicals to be consumers of pornography.  They only feel more guilt about it because of a phenomenon in some parts of evangelicalism, called “sexual exceptionalism,” in which “sexual sins are implied to be more serious than other categories.”  At the same time, the culture is biased against women in the sense that they are easily blamed for tempting men by the way they dress or by their demeanor.

As for Robert Long, he apparently sought treatment for what he called “sex addiction” at HopeQuest, an evangelical treatment center in Acworth, Georgia.  It is also reported that he was an active participant in youth activities in his church.  But in November last year, he heard a sermon on battling against sin, which emphasized Jesus’ words to his followers that it may be worth gouging out an eye if it causes them to sin.  Applying this to pornography, the preacher also said: “Cut it out by getting rid of your smartphone, getting rid of internet connection, anything and everything that would allow you to do it,” he said. “Your soul is at stake.”

After the shooting, the church condemned the violence and the reasons given by the shooter, and declared that “The women that he solicited for sexual acts are not responsible for his perverse sexual desires nor do they bear any blame in these murders. These actions are the result of a sinful heart and depraved mind.”

I am not a behavioral therapist and I do not claim to have any divine insights on how to deal with pornography or other issues relevant to this matter.  But I would like to clarify certain items that come out of the above discussion.

The emphasis on sexual purity is probably not unique to evangelicals.  Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, whose theology had a great impact on western Christianity, had views on sex that were fairly negative.  In essence, he believed that sex was only legitimate for reproductive purposes.  Any sexual activity that was not intended for procreation was a sin, but a minor sin.  In Ruth Graham’s article, Dr Samuel Perry, a sociologist at the University of Oklahoma who has researched the role of pornography in the lives of conservative Protestants, is quoted as saying:

“So many men boil down how they’re doing spiritually to how often they have looked at porn recently. Not whether they’d grown in their love toward others, given generously of their time, or spent time connecting with God, but if they masturbated.”

This obviously goes well beyond Augustine’s thoughts on the matter. But more importantly, there is really no biblical justification for elevating sexual sins to a level much higher than other sins. Indeed, some of the heroes of the Bible had failures in this area, but were not declared eternally damned as a result.  King David, for example, crossed the line on at least one occasion.  His son Solomon had so many wives it is difficult to imagine how he found time to govern.  And yet, the main accusation against him is that he allowed some of his wives to introduce idolatry in Israel.  Judah, David’s ancestor, slept with a prostitute who turned out to be his daughter-in-law.  But according to the narrative, his violation was sleeping with his daughter-in-law, not sleeping with a prostitute.

To be sure, moral standards are higher for Christians than they are for Old Testament people.  However, Christians also recognize that the salvation of their souls comes from God’s grace rather than their own ability to live perfect lives.  Jesus’ statement on adultery in Matthew 5:28 illustrates the fact that God’s true moral standard is even higher than the standard given to the Israelites by Moses.  In other words, those who took pride in their claims that they met God’s requirements by obeying the Law of Moses were, in fact, not even close: God could judge them because he knew their thoughts.  Christians believe that the salvation that comes through Christ is by grace, through faith.  Therefore, they strive to live their lives according to God’s higher moral standard, but do not despair when they fail.  They are also told not to judge others and to forgive those who commit offenses against them.  As far as the Atlanta shooter is concerned, perhaps he might have had less time for pornography if he had dedicated more of his energy on the things that Jesus really emphasizes, which have to do with loving one’s neighbor.

A point must also be made about Jesus’ view of sin, which is seen in his golden rule: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).  This rule is based on his second greatest commandment (the first one is to love God above everything else), which is to love your neighbor as yourself.  From that, it is clear that sins are primarily actions that violate the rule of love.  And the pursuit of the kingdom of God, which he emphasizes more than anything else, consists essentially in applying the rule of love in God’s creation in order to make it what God intended it to be.  Adultery certainly violates the rule of love since it necessarily does harm to somebody.  But again, there is also grace.

It is also true that Jesus thought of moral violations in radical terms and urged his followers to remove themselves from situations that might bring temptation.  The preacher at Long’s church therefore advised him to get rid of tools that connect to tempting sites on the internet, but certainly did not suggest that temptation should be removed by killing people.

It is ironic that the Protestant Reformation was launched by Martin Luther, a man who had been tormented by the fear of going to hell because he was not sure he had done enough to deserve God’s salvation.  Luther rediscovered God’s grace, which had been preached by the apostle Paul and had been in the New Testament all along:

“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.  This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:21-24)

As Jesus says in John 3:17, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”  Are Protestant churches not teaching this appropriately?