Church Security

hehe...I've submitted my praise of rejoicing through the internet program discussed elsewhere (cf. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=58329) and believe it will happen immediately after I let the computer voice my thankfulness to God.

Let's celebrate our agreement!:thumbs:

 

I'm all for an unarmed vigilant security force to pre-empt violence. Please reread my reply above and you'll see it.

I'm just suggesting that an armed militia occupying a church is neither a) biblical, b) nor an appropriate response to violence.

Again I suggest rereading my above post.:flower:

Thank you for presuming that this hasn't happened to me. In actuality it has and I've also been beaten by an attacker. Yet I'm still a pacifist.

I'd challenge you to show me where Christians, under the New Covenant, are permitted to exercise violence as a means of a) defense b) retaliation c) pre-emption.

 

I think in some states you cannot carry a concealed weapon unless you are law enforcement. So it would be hard for you to carry a gun to church unless you are in law enforcement or unless you wanted to break the law.

Anyway, the issue here is not whether or not you or I should carry a weapon, but whether people in church services should be armed.

I do not want my church to be like an armed camp.

 

Baptist Believer, thanks for the reply. I hope to make mine a bit more concise and combine reiterated points. If I have overlooked something please let me know. :thumbs:

Uh, I can't speak for anyone else but I chose not to join the military because I saw it as a violation of my Christian commitment to peace with all other men (and women.)

What is the job of the military? To kill the other guy. Not my thing. I don't believe violence ever solves anything.

I deeply disagree with this assessment.

Agreed! :saint:

Protection is different than retaliation. Show me a place in the New Testament where disciples of Christ (i.e. you an me and others) are told to do violence to others in order to create justice and protection.

Someone smacks you across the face. What is Christ's command?

Well this is an eschatological imagery that is not given to the rest of the Church. Also I would caution anyone to look at Christ as a warrior or some great leader who will come back and physically defeat our enemies. That is what the Jews were looking for and they missed Jesus. While I embrace a historical premillenial view of eschatology I disagree this is applicable for the Church.

It is interesting that all actions in and around the return of Christ are done by members of the Trinity and never by humans...insofar as establishing the eschaton. But I digress...

Show me in the New Testament where Chrisitans, who are under the New Covenant, are permitted to hit back when someone strikes you across the cheek (a violent act), or steals your cloak (mugging), or sues you.

Yes they are. The threat of violence is an effective deterant, yes, but not how the follower of Christ is respond according to the New Testament.

Some might point out that it just lengthens the incident of violence.

Perhaps my point is that we can never prevent people from being harmed when the intent of an attacker is so focused. When we respond with further violence we only prolong the effect and incur more damage.

Frankly, carrying a concelaed handgun only gives to 6 or 10 more options that are all limited in their scope and not awfully smart once they are released.

Well I have thought this through. I believe an armed society bolsters more violence. Not the reverse.

Actually most situations (according to my police friends and soldier friends) are over before our minds can wrap around what is going on. Again, the Hollywood illusion of a ranging gunfight is almost never the case.

This instance, which we are directly discussing, was over in seconds from beginning to end.

You've taken gun safety courses I believe. What do your instructors tell you to do, when armed, when someone comes running at you from twenty-five feet away? Pull out your gun and start blasting? Of course not you don't have the time to do that. They will always suggest another means to create space and/or ellude your attacker. Things move way too fast to think like you're suggesting is possible.

This is exactly why we don't need a bunch of gun owners packing to church on Sundays.

Your being condescending. What do we truly know about Cornelius? We don't know how long he stayed in his profession. The testimony of many in the early church is that those in the military would serve out their terms faithfully and move into a non-violent ministry/vocation for the rest of their lives. The point here is to serve your current situation faithfully and then move on.

I believe Scripture speaks of a different kind of defense. A non-violent defense. Do we really believe that its okay to go out and harm and murder those who perform abortions for instance? I'm against the practice but who here thinks its okay to go and end their lives?

Again I challenge you and anyone who disagrees with me: show me in the New Testament where Christians are given permission to "fight-back" or commitment violence against an aggressor before, during, or after they've acted.

Your arguments are good. I appreciate you voicing them. Really I do. Yet I'm the only one using Scripture here and have yet to be Scripturally refuted.:flower:

 

No one has responded to my point about the percentage of churches that have had shootings vs the number of churches in the U.S.

How many churches in the U.S.? I would bet at least 500,000. And how many churches have had shootings? 15? 20? Even if it's 50, that's like .0001% of churches that have shootings, and that is being more than generous!!!

So we arm ourselves in church while we worship for this miniscule percentage? Somebody please explain how this is logical and sound.

 

Um, not to step in between you and JC, but there is a HUGE difference between the Church and Israel in terms of covenantal authority and means of appropriating justice.

Show me in the New Testament where the "slaughter of women and children"=ok. Show me where Christ, our teacher and leader, gave us permission to act violently towards anyone.

We, the Church, absolutely do not share the same covenantal provisions that Israel had in place.

 

I'm all for adding measures to add security and vigilance. We need to make sure we can head off incidents (non-violently) before they happen.

Please note my exorbitant comments directed at appropriate policies and procedures. I've served in several large church contexts and have developed these plans. They are vital and needed.

What I object to is the use of violence as a means of justice and retaliation. Jesus clearly taught not to be retaliators.

 

This is just plain mean and you should apologize. Just plain mean.

 

Lets assume for a moment all churches have armed guards. Does anyone for a moment believe that the end result wouldn't be an unfortunate error, and an accidental or premature shooting of an innocent? Just think for a moment what the backlash and poor reflection on Christianity that would be. I think the idea of all churches arming themselves would please Satan.

 

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

 

Again I don't want to step in and speak for JC but,

I completely disagree that this there is an inconsistency. If anything when we allow inform officers of the State we are doing our duty since it is their responsibility from God to bear the sword (to use Paul's terminology.)

 

Assume for a moment that those who are armed in the Church use the weapons as often and effectively as they use their Bibles.

 

Exactly! I really think some people just love guns, because as you make the point it isn't rational reasoning.

 

Killing unborn babies is mean....

Are you saying that protecting the widows in the church is mean?

Or, are you saying that me pointing it out is mean?

AJ

 

Why is it when you start an abortion thread you resent others making a comparison to other killing, but yet you do the same here?

 

For what it's worth I think your point is a strong one that stands on its own. I mean seriously, this is like saying that because every year a handful people die (which is tradgic) from loose lug nuts on their tires that we should require every car to be inspected weekly for loose lug nuts.

Just nuts imho.

 

lol..it is the "Sword of the Lord" afterall...hehe...

make everyone who wants to carry a gun to pass an extension theological review and test. Might work out to a stalemate. :tongue3:

 

I am trying to give you an honest answer here.

1. No other killing (except abortion) is "legal" within our country. Capital punishment is not the same.

2. War is not murder, which is different from killing.

3. If you think that defending the life of widows in your church by killing the attacker that is trying to kill them is wrong, then you are a coward.

AJ

 

Because there is no other comparison.

AJ

 

I'll bet you that the churches that have had a pastor shot in the pulpit or members shot in the parking lot have a lot different view than some who have posted on this thread. I'll bet these churches now have a security guard or guards who are armed guarding the premises.