Church Security

[Baptist Believer]

People can kill each other without guns but nothing is as deadly and as easy to use as a gun.

Yes. That's why one of the early Colt revolvers had the dual nicknames of "The Equalizer" and "The Peacemaker." The firearm allowed those who were not as physically strong or experienced in fighting a good opportunity to defend themselves if they were attacked. It made everyone fairly "equal" on those terms and provided an opportunity for those who who could now defend themselves to live in "peace."

It's much harder to kill with knives, strangulation, or other ways. There is not even an argument there -- that is just self-evident.

Sure. It's also much more violent. While knives may give an attacker second thoughts, it also takes quite a bit of skill to fight with a knife and requires that both parties get very close where a stronger and more skilled opponent can often gain control of the knife and use it against the defender. Strangulation is the ultimate "hands on" means of defense and it generally takes quite a bit of strength to use. It also takes time... time that your hands are occupied and your attacker is doing everything they can to hurt you.

That's why people arm themselves with firearms. If you have to draw one, it usually shuts down (statistically about 90% of the time) the violent encounter, preserving the life and well being of both the attacker and the defender.

I do not see the answer to a few shootings in churches to be Christians getting armed with guns.

No one said it was an answer. But it is certainly a way to minimize the casualties and love others.

 

[John Toppass]

This thread has degenerated into arguments (debate requires facts from both sides) between two groups, who are not going to change the others mind.
One group uses only opinion and fear to fuel their arguments and paranoia; the other group has multiple resources of facts available to them. The paranoid group will not look at or even try to find any facts available so they rely on their fears to make their point. The facts are out there all you have to do is look at them.

I resign myself from this useless debate(?)

 

[Marcia]

This thread has degenerated into arguments (debate requires facts from both sides) between two groups, who are not going to change the others mind.
One group uses only opinion and fear to fuel their arguments and paranoia; the other group has multiple resources of facts available to them. The paranoid group will not look at or even try to find any facts available so they rely on their fears to make their point. The facts are out there all you have to do is look at them.

I resign myself from this useless debate(?)

I have not been convinced that because less than .0001% of churches experience shootings, churches need to have armed people in the congregation during worship services.

If I don't have a gun in my home, I sure don't want it in my church, especially during the service.

There are no statistics that show we should all arm ourselves.

 

[THEOLDMAN]

We have a man who is armed at church. It doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I feel safer knowing he is there and prepared to deal with any potential threat. We have had drug users and bums walk into the church during services and you never know their intentions.

Did you invite them to Sunday dinner at your house ?

 

[Baptist Believer]

I have not been convinced that because less than .0001% of churches experience shootings, churches need to have armed people in the congregation during worship services.

That's fine.

If I don't have a gun in my home, I sure don't want it in my church, especially during the service.

That's certainly your choice. And since your state laws apparently prohibit firearms in church, no one who disagrees with you has a choice at your church. So you're in good shape there.

There are no statistics that show we should all arm ourselves.

I don't think everyone should arms themselves, but I think there is solid statistical evidence (as well as substantial anecdotal evidence) that it is wise for some people to carry firearms for the protection of society. On that, I suppose, we'll just have to amicably disagree.

 

[DHK]

I don't think everyone should arms themselves, but I think there is solid statistical evidence (as well as substantial anecdotal evidence) that it is wise for some people to carry firearms for the protection of society. On that, I suppose, we'll just have to amicably disagree.

The statistic that I am most familiar with is: the area of the country that has the most guns also has the most gun fatalities (per capita).

The ownership of a gun does not guarantee safety or better protection. In fact it just may make things worse. Take a look at this website for example. Here is a quote:

A young father of three from Alberta is facing a long list of charges for allegedly taking the law into his own hands.
Police say the Bashaw area farmer grabbed a shotgun, followed a thief who stole a quad fro his yard and shot him twice.

(The thief was injured; no one killed). Read the full story here:
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l.../edm_father_090331/20090331/?hub=EdmontonHome


Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I will repay. "The I will protect my family with any means possible," excuse if often another way of saying: I will take vengeance into my own hands, as this farmer did. Or it is another way of committing murder. Murder and vengeance are both wrong. I don't find the concept of one arming themselves in the Bible.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The statistic that I am most familiar with is: the area of the country that has the most guns also has the most gun fatalities (per capita).

I’m not sure what particular statistic you are referring to, but it stands to reason. It’s hard to have gun fatalities without the presence of guns. But the real question with the statistic is what kinds of “fatalities” does the statistic cite? Hunting accidents? The fatal shooting of a person committing a violence crime against an innocent person? Suicides? Accidental shootings?

Statistically, it is much more dangerous to have a swimming pool than a firearm. Yet we don’t have folks agitating for a ban of swimming pools.

The ownership of a gun does not guarantee safety or better protection.

No guarantees at all. I don’t think anyone has tried to make that case.

In fact it just may make things worse. Take a look at this website for example. Here is a quote:

(The thief was injured; no one killed). Read the full story here:
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l.../edm_father_090331/20090331/?hub=EdmontonHome

The story you cited is someone who is using a firearm to attack a thief, not a violent criminal. The legality varies from country to country and, in the U.S., state to state. In Texas, under certain circumstances, it is legal to use a firearm for property crimes, but most conceal-carry folks wouldn’t except in very unusual circumstances. In fact, my concealed handgun license instructor strongly advised us not to use firearms for property crimes, even though we went through the situations where it would be legal, because of the ethical and legal issues surrounding it. He stated he wouldn't draw his firearm for property crimes and I think most, if not all, of the people in the class agreed during our discussion of the law.

I wouldn’t even draw my weapon for a crime against my property. I would let them steal my vehicles, give them my wallet, etc., but not consider drawing my weapon unless I believed I (or others) are in immediate mortal danger. Otherwise, I’d try to be a good witness and file a police report.

But the context of our discussion is church security with the specific instance of a shooter or shooters attacking members of the congregation.

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I will repay.

The only ones talking about vengeance (revenge) or retaliation (also revenge) in this thread are those who oppose the use of handguns for self-defense. We are not advocating revenge (which would be going to the shooters home or place of worship and shooting his loved ones), but self-defense. Self-defense is the use of appropriate force to counter or end a violent attack and turn the situation over to the authorities when they arrive.

Seems strange to me that those who love to quote the “Vengeance is mine saith the Lord...” against folks who defend themselves are more than happy to contact the police when they believe they have been the victims of a violent crime.

"The I will protect my family with any means possible," excuse if often another way of saying: I will take vengeance into my own hands, as this farmer did.

I think that’s a false characterization of those who have participated in this thread.

Or it is another way of committing murder.

Murder is premeditated intent to end the lives of others. Those who respond in self-defense have not pre-meditated anything except perhaps strategies to prevent loss of innocent life.

Murder and vengeance are both wrong.

I agree. But no one is advocating either in this thread.

I don't find the concept of one arming themselves in the Bible.

I see it in a number of places as we have discussed previously. It is certainly not required, and one is under no obligation to exercise their right of self-defense.

 

[DHK]

Christians will always be a minority; what I am speaking about is not Christendom, per se, but Christians--those that truly follow Christ and know him as their Saviour. Christ promised that they would suffer persecution. Be thankful for the nation that you live in. It is likened to paradise by many in this world. The increase in guns and violence in general will only demean that reputation. When Christians respond to violence with violence it goes contrary to Biblical teaching and Biblical character. It is not a demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit.

Be thankful that you don't live or have to put up with situations like this where Christians do not have arms and cannot defend themselves:

"At its height in August-October 2008, over 50,000 persons were displaced and forced to run to the jungles as gangs burnt over 4,000 houses in 300 villages in the Kandhamal district of Orissa," said Dayal, who is also a government advisor. "Hundreds of churches were destroyed. Many girls and women were molested and raped, including a Catholic nun."

The violence reportedly spread to other districts and other states, including Karnataka, where over 30 churches were destroyed and violence still continues, according to AICC and other rights groups. Recently, "Christmas could be celebrated in Orissa only after over 6,000 Central Reserve Police personnel were posted to the state. Even now their presence is required as the [local] State police have proved to be partisan," Dayal explained.

There were more Christians martyred for their faith in the last century than in any other century in the world.

http://www.worthynews.com/4390-india-alliance-urges-parties-to-halt-anti-christian-violence

 

[Baptist Believer]

Christians will always be a minority; what I am speaking about is not Christendom, per se, but Christians--those that truly follow Christ and know him as their Saviour. Christ promised that they would suffer persecution.

So are you saying that the two men who apprehended the man who shot the Illinois pastor were wrong in their response?

Are you advocating complete passivity in the face of violent attack?

The increase in guns and violence in general will only demean that reputation.

So the two men who exercised force in a violent attempt to defend themselves, the pastor and the congregation were wrong to do so?

When Christians respond to violence with violence it goes contrary to Biblical teaching and Biblical character.

So those two men went contrary to biblical teaching and character?

It is not a demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit.

I don't recall passivity being part of the fruit of the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Be thankful that you don't live or have to put up with situations like this where Christians do not have arms and cannot defend themselves:
There were more Christians martyred for their faith in the last century than in any other century in the world.

Martyrdom is certainly an option for Christians. But usually martyrdom is at the hands of governments, political powers, warlords, mobs, etc. for a church's stand for Christ.

I think there's a difference between those situations and a unstable person charging into the worship center and opening fire.

 

[DHK]

I don't recall passivity being part of the fruit of the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-23)

What does your Bible say compared to mine?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is violent to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
--This is your version, along with:

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance, passivity: against such there is no law.
--Note: you would have me to add that word where I have not added it.

I never said anything about passivity. I said violence begets violence. I also said that violence is not exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit. I said nothing about passivity. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't change the Bible to make it mean something it doesn't. In fact don't change the Bible at all.

 

[Baptist Believer]

What does your Bible say compared to mine?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is violent to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The scripture says, "patient toward us" (NASB).

--This is your version, along with:

Nope, not my version.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance, passivity: against such there is no law.
--Note: you would have me to add that word where I have not added it.

You made a reference to self-defense as "not [being] a demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit." I was just wondering what the fruit of the Spirit had to do with avoiding self-defense.

I never said anything about passivity.

Fair enough. But I couldn't come up with a much better way to express what I thought you were advocating while you were making the case against self-defense and for martyrdom.

I said violence begets violence.

In cases of revenge or retribution, that is certainly true. In cases of self-defense, I don't think it does at all. Do you think the two men who apprehended the guy who shot the pastor in Illinois are creating more violence? Do you think the police officer who shot the shooter in the nursing home in North Carolina the other day is somehow creating more violence (that it will inspire others to shoot up nursing homes so they can get shot by a police officer too)?

I also said that violence is not exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit. I said nothing about passivity.

The fruit of the Spirit is simply the character traits of the Christ-like life expressed in one's personality and character. Defending oneself and others is an expressing of loving our neighbors and ourselves, including loving our enemies (the attacker) because we are attempting to limit their destructive rampage. The use of appropriate force in self-defense does not make someone a violent person.

Don't put words in my mouth. Don't change the Bible to make it mean something it doesn't. In fact don't change the Bible at all.

I'm not trying to do any of that. In fact, you're the only person who has been changing the Bible texts to make a point. I'm simply asking questions regarding your position.

And by the way, you avoided the question I asked previously:

Were the two men who used violent force to take down the shooter at the Illinois church a couple of weeks ago wrong to do what they did?

 

[corndogggy]

I don't find the concept of one arming themselves in the Bible.

Have you never read the old testament? Do you realize how much violence is in it in the name of God? Do you really think that they were unarmed? :BangHead:

 

[corndogggy]

There isn't one. Jesus rebuked Peter and told him to put up his sword.

Matthew 10:34-36, Jesus says that he does not come in peace, but of the sword

 

[JustChristian]

Matthew 10:34-36, Jesus says that he does not come in peace, but of the sword

Do you really believe Jesus came so that His followers would start wars and participate in violence? Incredible. He said "Love your enemy." How does that fit into your interpretation?

 

[corndogggy]

Luke 22:35-38. Jesus tells the disciples that whoever does not have a sword, sell his cloak and buy one. They point out that they have two, and Jesus says that's enough.

So, Jesus and his merry men were in fact armed for self defense.

 

[JustChristian]

Luke 22:35-38. Jesus tells the disciples that whoever does not have a sword, sell his cloak and buy one. They point out that they have two, and Jesus says that's enough.

So, Jesus and his merry men were in fact armed for self defense.

So you're saying that was the focal point of His ministry rather than peace. Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

[Marcia]

Luke 22:35-38. Jesus tells the disciples that whoever does not have a sword, sell his cloak and buy one. They point out that they have two, and Jesus says that's enough.

So, Jesus and his merry men were in fact armed for self defense.

I agree, but it was a specific instance at a certain point in history. This is not general instruction to all. Narrative is not prescriptive. (I am not against self-defense btw).

 

[DHK]

Luke 22:35-38. Jesus tells the disciples that whoever does not have a sword, sell his cloak and buy one. They point out that they have two, and Jesus says that's enough.

So, Jesus and his merry men were in fact armed for self defense.

You don't seem to understand what the verse is teaching. Try to look it up in some commentaries or some other translations. Study it out.
First of all you have only quoted a portion of the verse. That is called taking a text out of context to make it a pretext, just to prove your own position. You are not rightly dividing the word of truth.
Second: The part that you omitted: Jesus told them to take their purse (bag) and their wallet (scrip) with them.
Now look at the wording of the verse:

Luke 22:36 And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword. (ASV)
Here is the sense of the verse: He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none (a purse or wallet), let him sell his cloak and buy a sword.

He wasn't telling them all to buy a sword.
He was telling them all to take their purse and wallet with them. Be prepared for a different kind of living. It will be different after the crucifixion; different after the resurrection. There will be persecution. They need to be prepared. He wasn't telling them to take a sword.

However, if they were so penniless that they had no money, no purse, no wallet; then they were to sell their coat (outer coat), and with the proceeds buy a sword. With that sword they would at least be able hunt for wild food if they were not rich enough to buy anything in the market. They would be driven into the wilderness, persecuted for his name's sake.

The sword was not to take on the Roman Army.

 

[corndogggy]

With that sword they would at least be able hunt for wild food if they were not rich enough to buy anything in the market. They would be driven into the wilderness, persecuted for his name's sake.

When have you ever heard of a sane person who planned to hunt wild game with nothing but a stupid sword unless they were highly trained? Swords are good for one thing only, killing people. If he had said a bow and arrow or a spear, maybe... but a sword... no.

 

[corndogggy]

So you're saying that was the focal point of His ministry rather than peace. Sorry, I don't buy that.

I never said that. All I'm saying is that in extreme circumstances, you need to defend yourself and I think that Jesus did. If a church had a designated security guard that brought a handgun to church I wouldn't consider that to the focal point of their ministry no more than I would consider it to be the focal point of Jesus's ministry for bringing along two swords.