He starts with a correct observation: that God could have prevented the massacre. But then he proceeds down a well-worn path of jackassery characteristic of the politically active religious right. To wit: to presume to know the mind of God (dumb) and to apply this special knowledge to score political points (dumber). Fischer, you, see, knows why God didn’t stop the killings—because Fischer knows (somehow) that "God doesn’t go where he is not wanted."
God would tell us, according to Fischer, that He'd be happy to to protect our children, but he won't enter public school grounds unless he is invited, because he (God) is a "gentleman."
Bryan Fischer is just making stuff up. He competently demonstrates once again that while atheists are impotent when it comes to harming Christianity, Christians can land some devastating body-blows.
His argument is vomitous on many levels, including the fact that he presents it with a backdrop of the US Constitution. A venerable document to be sure, but it was not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is, in my opinion, worthy of admiration—it is not, however, worthy of motivating the behavior of Christians other than as Americans. One thing (Christianity) has nothing to do with the other (the constitution).
Fischer's greater offense is his statement that "God does not go where he isn’t wanted." First, Bryan Fischer does not get to put God in a box. And second, the statement is batshit crazy on the face of it. How many counter-examples from scripture could we come up with in five minutes? In fact a much more supportable statement from scripture is that, as the result of the fall, practically the only place God goes is where he is not wanted.
The Bryan Fischers of the world (and their flag-waving, priority-challenged para-church organizations) are too intent on saving America. In this mission, which obviously I have no objection to in-principle, they —either willingly or with self-delusion —sacrifice biblical teaching if not outright outright lie for Jesus. They do this for the “greater good” of keeping America as something it never was, hopefully never will be, and something that the bible never instructs us to strive for: A Christian nation. So, Bryan Fischer and the multitudes of like-minded of the politically-active Christian right: Do not try to save America in this manner. Imposed adherence to Christian values, mores, and commandments is meaningless. We are not called, anywhere in the New Testament, to make sin illegal in our civil government 1. The bible is very clear on these matters—while rituals before the first advent were useful as types in foreshadowing what was to come—empty adherence for purposes of appearances—which is what we get if we say, force public school prayer or outlaw the personal sins of unbelievers, is not, we are told, pleasing in God’s sight. Lessons like Matthew 6:6 may not be intended to stand without the possibility of exception, but the evangelist is certainly giving us the normative expectation.
Forget trying to restore America to some mythical Christian nation past. Forget trying to demonstrate (with incredibly stupid arguments about twins) that gays are never born that way2. Forget arguing that gay marriage will destroy marriage. Shut down your bizarrely prioritized para-church organizations.
Instead: Feed and clothe the poor. Support missions. Preach the gospel. Live the gospel. Study the word. Give up on the nation building--we are not called to do that. We are pilgrims. We are aliens. We are citizens of someplace else.
If you can’t do any of that, at least stop misrepresenting scripture. At least stop lying for Jesus, and stop pretending that you know anything about science. If you offend people with the gospel, that’s fine—but stop making us look like buffoons.
1 This is intended as a nuanced comment. I am not arguing, for example, that Christians should not vote or should not vote their principles. I am arguing that winning those votes is not something we should be overly concerned with.
2 Which is bad science. And worse theology. A form of Pelagianism. A Pelagian view that God would not demand obedience of a people who are born without the ability to obey. To paraphrase the classic debate:
Pelagius: God would not punish people for how they were born.Now consider the modern debate over homosexuality:
Augustine: Yes He would. That's why we need a savior.
Christian homosexual apologist: I was born this way. So a loving God won't punish me.
Christian a la Bryan Fischer: No you weren’t, you chose to be gay. So you are indeed at risk.
Notice that both sides in this debate tacitly accept the Pelagian position: God would not punish someone for how they were born. Both sides deny original sin.
The proper Christian response is: It would not be surprising at all if you were born that way, but that changes nothing. We’re all born sinners.