Church Security

You did it again.:BangHead:

AJ

 

What? Is it wrong to call someone high on drugs a dopehead?

 

I am just messing with ya.

When I was in Kentucky, they call them "dopers"

AJ

 

Whew! You had me going for a minute! I didn't know there was a politically correct term for a drug user. Thanks for clarifying!:laugh:

 

My wife saw me laughing, came over and read what I said to you, and she smacked me for it.

AJ

 

Sounds like my kind of gal!

 

So good Christians are not to be soldiers, police officers or government officials (including politicians) since the government rules by the threat of force (and sometimes by actual force)?

That contradicts the examples set by John the Baptist, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in regarding to soldiers. John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers who responded to his ministry to give up being soldiers, but instead, instructing them not to abuse their position. Jesus didn’t condemn the soldiers he faced, including the centurion who’s faith made Jesus “marvel”. The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius in the presence of Peter so God could teach Peter a lesson about who is “clean” and “unclean”.

Certainly I agree that the church should not exercise the state’s power and the state should not try to be the church. But that’s a different issue.

You’re speaking of the church as a whole, not individual Christians. Certainly the church should not be an army.

Certainly that is an option. But at the same time, we are to love our neighbors. And part of loving our neighbors is to help protect them. That’s why our taxes go towards things like a police department. A police department projects force against those who do evil.

Not to retaliate.

Not to retaliate.

The interesting thing about the word “Christian” is that it should denote a follower of Christ. Have you noticed that Christ is also a warrior?
Certainly Christians should try to live at peace (“as much as it depends on us”) with others and the world, but sometimes others will not allow it.

To give it freely.

To see if there is a way to take care of the person’s need righteously.

I don’t either. However, we haven’t really been talking about retaliation in this thread. We have been talking about defense.

Retaliation would be for church members to strike back at the loved ones of a spree shooter with a similar attack of our own, much like is done in the Middle East between rival religious groups and the Israelites and the Palestinians. That sort of thing is evil.

I don’t either. However, a person with a concealed weapon is not threatening violence. The person only threatens violence (actually the use of lethal force), after violence has already been instigated by someone else. A person who is carrying a concealed weapon intends to end the violence as quickly as possible so that fewer people are injured or murdered.

The use of force, up to and including lethal force, can sometimes end an incident of violence. But the job of transforming the human soul so that it no longer seeks violence is something that can’t be done with a weapon.

I believe you are using the term “spree killer” incorrectly. It is a technical term regarding a certain type of murderer in an otherwise non-war situation. But I’m not going to get too picky.

No one has suggested we can.

Certainly. And, in my opinion, it is a better thing to try to prevent people from being harmed in the first place.

Taking someone down is hardly “non-violent.” You are projecting force upon someone else against their will. Often they will fight viciously and to maintain control of the situation, you have to apply painful force to bring about compliance. I know how to do this and have done it more times than I care to remember. However, it is preferable to shooting someone if it can be done safely and effectively. However, you don’t always have that option. Carrying a concealed handgun gives you more options, should you need them.

It’s clear you haven’t thought through this very well, or else you must think people who carry concealed weapons are complete idiots who can’t wait to shoot people and don’t mind shooting into a crowd!

You’ve moved from discussing whether someone should be armed in a church setting to a discussion of tactics. So let’s think this through together:

If a shooter comes into a fairly large room (think worship center or large common room) and starts shooting people, what do you think will happen? Most likely, the reactions will fall into three basic categories, with significant overlap between two or more of them: Flee, Take Cover, and Confront.


Those who Flee will take significant steps to move away from the shooter to enhance their safety. Those who Take Cover will put objects between themselves and the active shooter to protect themselves. Those who Confront will look for opportunities to respond to the shooter by closing the distance and moving into position to safety project force (yes, that includes the use of a firearm).

There may also be those who are paralyzed with fear or who become unconscious due to stress. Those persons are unlikely to get in the way of a confrontation.

So in reality, most situations are going to provide some opportunities for confrontation.

Yet Paul points out in Romans 13 that those who exercise state-mandated force are ministers of God...

I suggest you meditate on Romans 13 and do a study on how everyone in the New Testament treated soldiers of the occupying Roman army. The Holy Spirit did not seem to have a problem with Cornelius, so I think it’s highly arrogant for us to say that being a soldier is evil.

Ah yes. People carry weapons in the hopes that they can shoot people...

The Kingdom of God can be expressed by overcoming evil and defending the innocent and defenseless. Defending the defenseless is certainly a biblical theme. Please consider that in regard to this discussion.

And shortly afterward in another post:

Just want to point out that those who have concealed handgun licenses have been deemed by the state to act responsibly as defenders of themselves, their families and the public. As a Texas CHL holder, I carry a license and must be very mindful of the law. There are only a very limited number of situations where a conceal-carry person may draw their weapon, and it’s almost exclusively for very serious crimes. Conceal carry holders actually have less discretion than police officers to determine what is serious enough to threaten lethal force. A criminal just walking down the road is not one of those situations unless they are shooting at bystanders.

And I would agree. But I think there is the option of defense.

Including the power of the State to authorize certain citizens (who pass a battery of extensive background checks, undertake practical and legal training, and prove proficiency with their handgun) to exercise the appropriate use of force in certain situations?

I agree, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

 

Where is the option of using deadly force granted to Christians in the New Testament?

 

Where is it not?

 

Not to derail the thread, but I highly doubt that the lack of any specific authorization of using deadly force in self defense in the NT makes any difference.

If one takes the Bible as written, then we have a God who authorizes the wholesale slaughter of entire cities in the OT, which is the same as the God of the NT.

So..

Slaughter of women and children: ok.

Killing a deranged killer in self defense: not ok?

 

We should think church should be safe for all of us.
But now, that hasn't been the case for the past
Few weeks sadly.

 

I didn't ask how many shootings there have been, but what percentage of churches have had shootings out of all churches in the U.S.? I doubt it is even a fraction of a percentage.

If we are generous and say it's .001% of all churches, would that merit hiring armed men or arming people in the church.

 

I've also had a gun pointed at me, though it was not in a church (I was not a believer at the time). However, that did not make me want to get a gun or even have a gun at home, even though we lived in an area where there was a more than moderate amount of crime.

 

I agree Marcia, I have twice had a gun pointed at me (with hostility I might had), and once a knife put to my throat, it never resulted in making me feel like caring a gun, or even consider it for that matter.

 

Driving in a car is probably a million times more dangerous that sitting in church.

 

Your point?

And that is why we take security precautions, such as seat belts, air bags, speed limits, insisting on crash tests to determine the safest car in a crash, etc. Are you saying we should not take precautions to protect our church family while at worship services?:tonofbricks:

 

So, its ok to vote for someone that advocates the slaughter of babies but it is wrong to defend the widows in the church from a deranged killer?

Please!

AJ

 

You don't have to carry a gun if you don't want to. If that's you're preference, that's fine, but that doesn't make it wrong for me to carry if that's my personal preference. It doesn't mean I'm a killer or have less faith in God than someone who doesn't carry.

 

Mat 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

This action was in self defense.

 

Two thoughts:

1. I guess you haven't bothered to notice the Scriptural context here, have you?
2. In order for you to be consistent in your view, then when you are attacked/robbed/shot, or a family member is, for you to call the police would be sinful.