Category: Life

Why Lutheran? Because Bach is one of us. At least, he was before he was translated into paradise, and I can prove it. Check it out.

The defense training available at Front Sight is so thorough that they even cover what one should expect after surviving an attempt upon your life and well-being. There are two other “problems” that we must face and either endure or overcome. They are possible criminal and civil liability.

Emotionally, we can expect elation or joy at being alive after the attack is over. We might later regret what happened, especially if we had to cause serious injury, and that injury led to the death of an assailant. This regret can be especially powerful for a Christian who understands the implications of dying with unrepented sin. It means that someone has reached the end of his time of grace, and will be found lacking on the day of Judgment. That person is already subjected to suffering in the place of torment prepared for the demons, and will suffer there eternally. By contrast, as a Christian, you would be prepared to die in the certainty of Jesus’ mercy, and God’s promise of eternal life. Regret can lead to anger and doubt, and when dealing with the social consequences of surviving the battle, to fear and panic. Those emotions are not a beneficial combination when encountering “problems two and three.”

Continue reading “The Aftermath of Self Defense” →

A force is an influence or a potential set into action. If you’ve ever moved your body or anything else, you have experienced a physical force to do so, originating in your muscles. A wood splitter uses hydraulic force. A lawn mower uses the force of expanding gases to spin its blade. A refrigerator uses magnetic forces produced by electricity to turn a compressor and chill the interior.

A deadly force is one that might potentially produce an injury leading to death. There are many such forces, found in many places, from wood splitters to lawn mowers to the movements of our own limbs to the voltage in our power lines. Usually, these deadly forces do not produce such injuries, because we recognize that they must be employed carefully, and under strict control. On the other hand, accidents also happen on a daily basis, and they sometimes lead to death.

You choose to use deadly force when you mow your lawn, drive your car, or shoot a firearm. They are all comparable. In matters of self defense, however, that deadly force is employed in a way that’s likely to stop an attack upon you. Coincidentally, such a use of deadly force is also likely to injure your assailant. Since it is deadly force, there is also a chance that your assailant may die from his injuries.

In order to be prepared to defend yourself when seconds count, you should take some time now to think through your willingness to apply deadly force during those seconds. In the course my wife and I attended at Front Sight, there was a lecture on moral and ethical decisions relating to the use of deadly force.

Continue reading “Using Deadly Force” →

In Tae Kwon Do class, my instructor has spoken about the need to be aware of our surroundings. That includes items like where the exits are located, where hiding places may be, what kind and how many potential assailants there are in what places. Such awareness can help one to anticipate an attack so that it might either be avoided altogether or the reaction time is instantaneous, increasing the effectiveness of your defense and the likelihood of your survival.

What I learned at [Front Sight][fs] makes mental awareness into a discipline that’s both simpler and more exact. It involves a color code similar to the Department of Defense’s “Defense Conditions:” Defcon 1, Defcon 2, etc., or the Department of Homeland Security’s color-coded threat conditions.

[fs]: http://www.frontsight.com Continue reading “Mental Awareness in Self Defense” →

While on vacation recently, my wife and I attended a 2-day defensive handgun course at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. It was partly experimental, to see if the online descriptions of this training are borne out in reality. I wanted to know about the level and quality of training, but I also hoped it would be good enough to help my dear wife to achieve a level of proficiency and comfort with the use of a handgun that might prove decisive in a situation where she might have to defend herself and/or our children in my absence.

The level of training exceeded my high expectations and hopes. One would not think that so much could be taught in only two long days, but the curriculum is geared toward both quality and quantity of training. I regret somewhat that we had not signed up for the 4-day defensive handgun class instead, though I intend to take it sometime later.

Part of the curriculum at Front Sight is training in manual skills, which are important for obvious reasons. Yet at least half of the training is mental work. I intend to reflect on elements of what was taught in several blog posts. One might wonder why I’d like to do this. My reasons are threefold:

1. In order to undertake a systematic review of what I learned.

2. Because a number of those concepts may be applied in other disciplines more directly related to the usual topics I address here.

3. Because those who read these posts might learn something useful, and may even find it interesting.

I’m restricted from reproducing the classroom materials here or quoting them extensively, and I probably won’t even quote them to the full degree of “fair use,” though I will use their terminology.

The first concept I’d like to consider is “levels of competence.” How skilled are you in the disciplines that you consider to be important?

fs: http://www.frontsight.com Continue reading “Levels of Competence (updated)” →

There are lots of single parents today, many more per capita than in recent decades. I assume that the vast majority of them did not choose to become single parents. Some are victims of tragedy, of adultery or desertion. Some are the victims of their own stupidity. (Where did you think children come from?) Yet there are a few cases who seem to have chosen single parent-hood of their own volition. That can’t be good for anyone, though it might possibly be a lesser evil than some other things.

There are times when one of my wife’s other vocations takes her away from her husband and children for a few days. One of those times seems to hit annually right around Lent, which provides ample opportunity for reflection. God has blessed my family with something much better than manna from heaven: a wife and a mom. We can get by during these days without her, but only because she planned out every hour of her absence. But for that, I’d have to forego my own public vocation with vacation time. That’s really hard to do during Lent.

When we’re all home, things have their natural ebb and flow. She switches between homeschooling and telecommuting; I switch between pastoral duties and household maintenance. We each handle the aspects of parenting that fit into our particular part of the ebb and flow. When one of us is not here, that delicate dance is completely interrupted, even while other duties continue. Only then can we fully appreciate the divinely-designed two-parent home. (To be fully clear, the male-father-and-female-mother home.)

I do some things well, by God’s grace. My wife does other things well, with some overlap. I feel sorry for the children who are denied the benefit of mother-father “diversity.” A little “daddy time” or “mommy time” is good, but some children don’t get anything else.

We see that great princes stumble and that the best bishops often show themselves as the most foolish.

Then what? Should nothing at all be done, and should all managing be shunned entirely? Not at all. Rather let everyone diligently and faithfully do his duty which has been committed to him by God. But let him beware of relying on his own strength or his own wisdom and of considering himself such a great man that everything should be directed in accordance with what he counsels. For it is incurable and damnable rashness and arrogance on my part when I claim to be such a person and such an extraordinary man that I can manage the state, the home, and the church wisely and properly. But if you are a judge, a bishop, or a prince, you should not feel ashamed to fall on your knees and say: “Lord God, Thou hast appointed me as prince, judge, head of the household, and pastor of the church. Therefore guide and teach me, give me counsel, wisdom, and strength to attend successfully to the office committed to me.”

…

Hence everyone should learn to acknowledge his weakness humbly and to ask GOD for wisdom and counsel. For men are not summoned to govern because they should arrogate to themselves perfect knowledge of everything, but because they should be taught and learn what God is and what He does through the government and the rulers, who are the instruments of God’s works through which God rules the people. Then they become truly wise and successful in governing. But if they follow their own counsels and their own thoughts, they do nothing properly. No, then they disturb and confuse everything. Therefore one must take refuge in prayer, set forth the difficulty of the office to God, and say: “Our Father who art in heaven, etc., give me the wisdom that sits by Thy throne” (Wisd. of Sol. 9:4)

But above all a ruler in the church should pray in this manner: “Lord God, Thou has appointed me in the church as bishop and pastor. Thou seest how unfit I am to attend to such a great and difficult office, and if it had not been for Thy help, I would long since have ruined everything. Therefore I call upon Thee. Of course, I want to put my mouth and heart to use. I shall teach the people, and I myself shall learn and shall meditate diligently on Thy Word. Use me as Thy instrument. Only do not forsake me; for if I am alone, I shall easily destroy everything.” The sects and the sectarians do the opposite, for they ascribe to themselves the wisdom and the ability to rule and to teach. Therefore they burst rashly into the church, do not pray, and do not believe that the administration either of the church or of the state is a gift of God; but they force themselves in as teachers and leaders. Therefore it eventually happens that they confuse and hinder what has been profitable built by others.

…

But you could find many who do not acknowledge this higher power and wisdom in governing. If any obstacles are put in their way, they suppose that they will set things right more properly if they employ greater severity in their punishments, so that their subjects are held in check by the fear of the punishments and are driven to obey even against their will. Surely there is need of discipline — and rather stern discipline at that — especially in the matter of these morals of ours; but it is completely certain that you will never achieve anything without prayer. For governing is a divine power, and for this reason God calls all magistrates gods (cf. Ps. 82:6), not because of the creation but because of the administration which belongs to God alone. Consequently, he who is in authority is an incarnate god, so to speak. But if they force their way into the government of the church, the state, or the household rashly and without due preparation, exclude God, do not pray, and do not seek advice from God but want to rule everything with their own counsels and strength, then it will eventually happen in the management of household affairs that an honorable and chaste wife will become a harlot of the worst kind and that the children will degenerate and come into the power of the executioner. In the civil government the state will be thrown into confusion by insurrections, wars, and countless other perils. In the church heresies, Epicurean contempt for the Word, desecration of the sacraments, etc., will arise. Why? Because such a head of a household, prince, or pastor does not recognize GOD as the Author of all counsel and government but by his presumption and arrogance destroys himself and others over whom he rules.

LW, AE vol. 5, p. 122-124

Hence the purpose of God’s gifts is not the pleasure or the tyranny of those who have the gifts, but the lawful use should be directed toward the glory of God and the welfare and benefit of the neighbor. But although people receive God’s blessing, sovereignty, priesthood, power, strength, and intelligence, and have the efficient, formal, and material cause, they are not concerned about the final cause. But why are you a king? Why are you a prince, a priest, a father, or a mother? “In order that I may be blessed in this life,” you will say, “in order that I may indulge in pleasures, in order that I may gratify my lusts. I am learned and rich in order that I may get a great name and glory among men.” But then the rule of which you boast is completely done away with, because God does not want His blessings poured out for any other purpose than for His own glory, for the praise of Him who bestows them, and for the welfare of the church. The government is held in honor in order that it may benefit the state. Husband and wife are joined together in order that they may bring children into the world and rear them for the benefit of the home and the state. But the world cuts off the final cause in all the gifts of God.

LW, AE vol. 5, p. 112

There are so many differing opinions and beliefs. It occurs in the political realm, and also in the theological realm. It must be a consequence of Babel. I’d like to describe something that might be agreeable to people who usually disagree with my own opinions and beliefs. It’s about love and mercy.

Generally, everyone would be in favor of love and mercy, especially at those times when we might be the recipient of them. Even the most legalistic Muslim would joyfully receive mercy from his god rather than damnation for his sins, would he not? It seems to me that all liberals, all conservatives, and the squishy-squashy people in the middle; all Christians, all pagans, and all those conflicted atheists are in favor of love and mercy, in some form, at some time.

The point I’d like them all to consider is that love and mercy don’t exist in a vacuum. Imagine pure anarchy: the lack of rule or law. How could anyone show love or mercy in a context like that? Mercy is unnecessary, because it would be impossible to do wrong. Love is undefined, because there would be no expectations on inter-personal relationships.

In order for mercy to exist among us, there must be the possibility of earning certain, definite punishments. In order for love to exist, there must be some kind of inter-personal behavior considered to be the norm, to make loving behavior distinguishable.

Someone might argue that love and mercy are just nonsense syllables until each of us assigns our own meanings to them. That is nonsense, and is easily demonstrated as false by simply communicating with one another, in any number of languages. No, there is some kind of mutual understanding we have of these two words, and that understanding requires that the things they represent have a context of laws and norms.

I’d like to write more about this later. For now, here is an exercise for the reader. Ask yourself: “What laws and norms exist to provide a context for love and mercy, from where have they come, and how are they enforced?”

Here is a veiled propaganda article about a supposedly new development in the Mexican civil drug war. American women with clean records are being paid to buy firearms for soldiers of Mexican drug cartels. Here’s an example of the propaganda, couched in weasel words.

Some of the largest and most deadly gun smuggling operations in the country have involved women. The development highlights the key role straw buyers are playing to keep what Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., once characterized as the “Iron River” of guns flowing from the U.S. to Mexico.

Deputy Attorney General David Ogden has described the role of straw purchasers as the spark which has led to “horrific acts of violence.”

“It’s a nationwide problem,” Ogden said, “that requires a nationwide commitment.”

In a case outlined in court documents unsealed here last year, an organization of 23 buyers, including at least one woman, was linked to purchases of 339 guns during a 15-month, $340,000 buying spree across the region.

As you can see, the author (Kevin Johnson from USA Today) is advancing the notion that we need some kind of federal solution to this problem. That would mean that the United States is to blame for Mexico’s civil war, because we allow these morally defenseless women with inexplicably benign legal records to break the law brazenly by buying firearms on behalf of someone else, who works for an illicit foreign army.

Do you understand the point Mr. Johnson is advancing with his careful sentences and selective quotes?

Now consider this. The legitimate Mexican army apparently has organizational and supply problems. Can that be blamed on the United States?

Another article states (in what may have been translated into English by the sound of it) “The weaponry occupy Mexico’s towns and cities and include grenade launchers, TNT, machine guns, rifles, anti-tank rockets and other heavy arms used to equip a military during a civil war or conflict.” Do you think that the weapons bought through morally-defenseless Texas women includes grenade launchers, TNT, machine guns, and anti-tank rockets? (Why did the author, Tala Dowlatshahi, include rifles among “other heavy arms” in that list?) The fact is, it would be impossible for those poor women to buy such things here, because it’s illegal in the United States, and perhaps unlike Mexico, we tend to enforce those laws consistently. (On the other hand, I understand it’s much easier to buy such things in Mexico.)

Consider that the same article claims that some of these “heavy arms” come into the hands of the illegitimate drug armies through the legitimate (but corrupt) Mexican army, and that an estimated 90% of firearms imports come from the United States, through a federal attempt to arm and train the Mexican military (called the Merida Initiative).

Now, do you suppose that 339 privately American-bought rifles or pistols over a 15-month period are more or less of a problem for the legitimate Mexican army than grenade launchers, TNT, machine guns, and anti-tank rockets? Bear in mind that most of those rifles or pistols must have come from either capturing or killing the illegitimate soldiers that carried them. Also bear in mind that these 339 traced firearms represent a miniscule number of weapons actually chosen in Mexico for tracing, the weapons more likely to be successfully traced than the thousands of weapons that were not chosen. Also bear in mind the difference in scale between the reported $340,000 “buying spree” and the reported $1.6 billion budget of the Merada Initiative. (Let’s see… $1.6 billion divided by $340,000 equals… 4,705.)

The latter article mentions that the United Nations will be having a conference on disarmament in Mexico. No doubt there will be propaganda about how the United States is to blame for the warfare in Mexico, because we allow our own law-abiding citizens to obtain, keep, and even bear arms. Some of this propaganda has already been floated in our own federal government. But finally, consider this: if the Mexican problem arises from the constitutionally-protected freedom we enjoy in the United States, then why is that problem manifested in Mexico? If our freedom is the problem, then shouldn’t we be the ones in a civil, shooting war? After all, the freedom exists here. Maybe instead of focusing on disarmament, the UN should help the Mexican government to arm and train all of its own law-abiding citizens. That might result in more peace south of the border, like we have now in the United States.