Church Security

[blackbird]

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.

I agree with you, Marcia---arming ourselves in church is NOT logical nor sound

and I will repeat--------I am not antigun----I have more than I need now

and #2

If you were a member of my church and I found out you were "packin' heat" to church services-------I would politely ask you to leave your firearm at home next time and from henceforth

Now---the person carrying "heat" may say to me---"Its my right!!" to which we will see which he is willing to do------honor the request of his pastor as a man(or woman)-----or ignore him out of paranoia

 

[thegospelgeek]

Luke 22:36 (NKJV)36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

I do not think that Jesus wanted them to carry a sword (defensive weapon/tool of that date) to cut bread with.

Take the verse and the life of those whom Jesus spoke to and you see that he is NOT telling them to use force against force. What he is telling them is to be ready, for difficulties await.

Look at the history of the early church. Throughout the book of Acts you will see diciples beaten, stoned, and put to death. Not once did they retaliate or even resist. Any argument to do so comes only from the flesh.

What was the results of the persecussion of the church in Jeruselm?

 

[abcgrad94]

Christ himself used violence in the temple to drive out the moneychangers. They were making the temple a house of merchandise, and he overthrew their tables and used a whip to drive them all out. I wonder what he would have done if those moneychangers had been there to kill the Christians instead of just fleece them?

 

[JustChristian]

Christ himself used violence in the temple to drive out the moneychangers. They were making the temple a house of merchandise, and he overthrew their tables and used a whip to drive them all out. I wonder what he would have done if those moneychangers had been there to kill the Christians instead of just fleece them?

I will never believe that He would have done anything more than what He did. What does using a whip to drive out the moneychangers entail after all? You don't have to strike someone with a whip to use it to drive them out. You can snap it a few time and threaten to hit them and most people get the message. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus ever administered corporal punishment. That would have sent the wrong message about His objective for coming. Everyone wanted Him to use force to defeat the Romans. He made it very clear that He would never do that.

 

[OldRegular]

Christ himself used violence in the temple to drive out the moneychangers. They were making the temple a house of merchandise, and he overthrew their tables and used a whip to drive them all out. I wonder what he would have done if those moneychangers had been there to kill the Christians instead of just fleece them?

I would say that the money changers in the Temple are representative of some of the activities that take place in the "churches" of today: restaurants, gymnasiums, weight rooms, handball courts, bowling alleys, dramas, living Christmas trees, evangelists peddling their wares; anything that can be thought of to limit the worship of God.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Sorry about bailing out of this thread for a while. I've been tied down with projects at work.

Here's Part 1 of 2 in response to preachinjesus:

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.

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.)

Okay, I can respect your ideals. But the Bible is full of examples of warriors who served God.

What is the job of the military? To kill the other guy.

This is a gross oversimplification. Furthermore, it’s fundamentally inaccurate. The job of the military is to achieve goals through the application of force.

To be blunt, in simple combat with conventional weapons, the goal of soldiers is not to kill their opponent in the field, but to wound them enough to take them out of action. Why not kill them? Because it takes no effort for the opposing force to deal with the dead in the heat of battle, but it takes at least two (often many more) of the opposing force to treat the wounded, thereby reducing the amount of force the opposing force than level at our troops. But that’s not really the point of our discussion. I only go into it to point out that you don’t seem to know as much as you think you do about these issues.

I don't believe violence ever solves anything.

Solves? No, violence doesn’t ultimately reconcile enemies.

But the appropriate use of force (violence) does aid the innocent and guilty.

I thank God that governments around the world stood up against the Axis powers and defeated them. My mother and her family were imprisoned by the Nazis in a camp in Poland and were eventually liberated by the Red Army. While I don’t have much love for the former Soviet Union, God did use them on that occasion to do something good, something that has directly affected my life.

And regarding the guilty: When I was growing up, I was forbidden to fight by my parents and our school district. My parents were very strict and I knew that I would never hear the end of it if I were involved in a fight. My school district was very liberal and believe the way to eliminate violence was to ensure that those who defended themselves in fights were punished as severely as those who attacked. You were automatically expelled if you were ever in a fight. My parents supported that view, and I actually believed it too. I was advised to “walk away” and “avoid those people” instead of defending myself.

Generally being the largest in my grade (I’m built like an offensive lineman) and people knowing I wouldn’t fight them, I became the regular target of attack for those who felt unsure of themselves (which was much of elementary school, all of junior high, and most of high school) because they felt good about themselves going after someone much larger than themselves and getting away unscathed. I had personal belongings destroyed and stolen, I was punched in the face more than I can count, and I faced a tirade of verbal assaults every day. In short, my life was very difficult. A number of my former tormentors are now dead, having been involved in violent crime, or in prison, or have had very difficult lives because there were no real consequences for their violence during their formative years.

Wherever conceal-carry laws have been enacted, violent crime rates have dropped. And in the rare cases where a concealed weapon holder has had to draw their weapon, only 10% have had to pull the trigger because in 90% of cases, the attacker surrenders because they don’t want to get shot.

Protection is different than retaliation.

You’re playing word games.

What you are labeling “protection” is a part of self-defense.

Retaliation, which is acting in kind toward the other person, is something that no one has advocated. As I mentioned before, in the case of a spree shooter entering a church, ending the violent incident through physically taking him down through unarmed means, or ending his life by use of a firearm is self-defense. Going to a place where his loved ones gather and shooting them indiscriminately would be retaliation.

Your persistent use of the word “retaliation” is only clouding the real issues and is a dishonest discussion tactic.

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.

Can you show me a place in the New Testament where we are told to eat breakfast? You’re artificially isolating the New Testament from the Old for the sake of your argument, and it severely distorts the teaching of scripture.

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

We’ve covered this. You are not supposed to retaliate. And no one is talking about retaliation except for you.

[Regarding the image of Christ as a warrior]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.

You’ve missed the point. The point is that Christ (Whom you portray as a passivist Who calls us to be passivists) really isn’t. In fact, if we believe that Jesus is a Person of the Triune God (like the historic Christian church has always affirmed), and that the three Persons of the Triune God (including the Father God of the Old Testament) are in complete loving harmony, then you really have to reconsider what is going on in the New Testament. The fullness of the Godhead, including the God Who is known as “The Lord of Hosts” (that is, The Lord of Armies) throughout the Old Testament, dwelt in Christ in bodily form.

There is certainly a time for martyrdom and there is a time for the use of appropriate force.

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.

You’re really twisting the scripture here. This passage (Matthew 5:38-48) is talking about retribution and loving your enemies:

The slapping of the cheek was more of an insult than violence. Notice that the passage specifies the right cheek (the right hand was used for social interaction, the left hand was used for hygienic purposes), so for the person to be hit in the right cheek by another person, it was an insulting back of the right hand to another person’s right cheek. And we are not to return insult for insult.

Your citation of “steals your cloak (mugging)” is not found in the passage. It is a fabrication.

Regarding lawsuits (a non-violent action), it is mentioned in the passage. Jesus instructs us to be generous and look after the legitimate needs of our “enemies.”

[FONT=&quot]You’ve really given nothing here relevant to our discussion.[/FONT]

 

[Baptist Believer]

Here's Part 2 of 2 in response to preachinjesus:

[Regarding concealed weapons in church meetings]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.

Your reasoning here, as in other places, is very sloppy. If not one knows the weapons are there (that is the whole point of carrying a concealed weapon), then there is no threat of violence.

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

“Some” might say it, but that’s a very different thing than actually explaining how that could be true. If you want to take a shot at it (no pun intended), be my guest.

Perhaps my point is that we can never prevent people from being harmed when the intent of an attacker is so focused.

The sad reality of life is that the bad guy gets to take the first action. If someone wants to do something, they have the first move and everyone else has the opportunity to react. I don’t think anyone is living in a fantasy world where they think they can react fast enough to stop the first shot.

When we respond with further violence we only prolong the effect and incur more damage.

Not really. You seem to think that there will only be one shot. What about the next move? What does the attacker have in mind? At Wedgwood Baptist Church in 1999 (please note the spelling of Wedgwood, there’s no “e”), the attacker fired more than 100 rounds over the course of a couple of minutes before he took his own life. He shot 14 people who were pinned down and seven of them died.

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.

All options are “limited in scope” since we are not God.

I’m guessing your “6 to 10 more options” is referring to the number of bullets in a handgun. You’ll be happy to know, my handgun is capable of holding 16 rounds, although I usually only load 14 rounds because of the ammunition I use for defense. I could carry additional loaded magazines if I wanted, but that’s much more than I’ll probably ever need. If I’m close enough to take the shot, then I’m close enough to hit the target.

Regarding your “not awfully smart” comment, I’d be careful about continuing your insulting assumptions about those who carry firearms. You’re not exactly doing a great job with your reasoning on this thread.

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

With all due respect, I don’t think you have thought it through or looked at the evidence. Every state where conceal-carry has been made legal, the violent crime rate has dropped. And conceal-carry citizens are society’s most law-abiding citizens. You can find all sorts of statistics on that if you care to look.

Actually most situations (according to my police friends and soldier friends) are over before our minds can wrap around what is going on.

I think you misunderstand what you have heard. More initial acts of violence ARE indeed over before you can react, but what happens after the first shot? Is there a second shot and where is that one going? Are there multiple targets?

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

Actually, we are discussing a number of different incidents, but we can still use the recent shooting of the pastor in Illinois as an example.

It is highly doubtful that anyone could have prevented the first shot or two. But did you notice that people did have time to react after the first shots were fired? After the pistol jammed (not sure exactly when that happened in the sequence of events), two or more church members used force to disable the attacker, with the result that the two of them and the attacker were injured by knife wounds.

So the attack WAS NOT over before others had time to react.

Unless an attacker’s first action involves taking their own life (like a public suicide or a suicide bombing), bystanders often have an opportunity to take control of the situation, especially if they are prepared.

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?

You’re not talking about a gun safety course at that point. A gun safety course instructs you on how to handle a gun properly.

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.

Yes, there are ways to create space and opportunities for a proper response. Of course, you’re talking about a one-on-one attack. You’re assuming that the shooter in a congregation is initially targeting me, not anyone else, and is focusing all of his efforts on me. In truth, that is highly unlikely to be the case. Since it is unlikely that I will personally be the target of the initial attack, I have time to respond and the space between me and the attacker is likely not closing anywhere close to the rate you suggest. In fact, I may be the one who goes on the offensive so that the shooter will have to respond to me instead of picking off elementary age children.

Things move way too fast to think like you're suggesting is possible.

You’re just not thinking these things through...

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

If that’s your reasoning, then I must conclude the opposite.

Your being condescending. What do we truly know about Cornelius? We don't know how long he stayed in his profession.

Ah, the argument from silence.

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.

So it was okay for him to continue his use of force and threat of force for the emperor until his commission ran out, then do something else? If the use of force is wrong for Christians, then why didn’t wouldn’t he obey the call of Christ and face the consequences from the emperor? What happened to obeying God, not man?

No, what is more likely is that there is no conflict. Jesus didn’t take soldiers to task for their profession. John the Baptist didn’t tell the soldiers to leave their profession. I don’t think you have the right (or scriptural authority) to suggest that soldiers should leave their profession.

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?

No one is suggesting being vigilantes. Please focus on the real issues instead of erecting straw men.

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.

Don’t flatter yourself. You are selectively using and misusing scripture. You’ve also tried to isolate the New Testament for this discussion.

Many people here are using scripture, including me in the very post you're responding to, won’t you at least acknowledge that?

 

[Baptist Believer]

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.

Okay, your reasoning here makes certain assumptions...


1.) The presence of firearms in the congregation is dangerous, and therefore undesirable.


2.) Persons who have conceal-carry permits only carry firearms to church.


3.) That church shootings are the only danger in church environments.


4.) That arming oneself is based on fear regarding things which are very unlikely to happen.


Responses to those assumptions:

1.) Modern firearms are not inherently dangerous when handled according to safety rules drilled into everyone by various groups (especially the NRA) and by concealed handgun licensing instructors. You must demonstrate the ability to handle a weapon safely to obtain a concealed handgun license.


2.) Most people with conceal handgun licenses carry everywhere they are legally allowed to carry. Which, in Texas, is most places. I have certain security concerns regarding our congregation’s safety, especially considering we have had to ask a mentally-troubled individual to leave our congregation because of violence against two of our youth. That person has gun violence and shooting fantasies which have manifested themselves in posed photographs of himself being distributed to members of our congregation. And yes, the police are involved, but there’s not that much they can do unless he acts on those fantasies.


3.) The church I am a member of sits in the middle of a neighborhood where a rapist has been attacking women, off and on, for more than a decade. On at least one occasion, police have gotten a glimpse of the rapist on one of our hallway security cameras while cutting through our building in his successful evasion of police officers. Therefore, I am always with my wife when she goes to the church facilities, especially after dark. I spend hours waiting for her to get out of various rehearsals so she and others won’t be out there alone.


4.) Most people take a great amount of comfort in denial. “It can’t happen here” is the mantra of those who don’t prepare. The problem is, it can happen anyway. And beyond all of that, when there are recognized, verified threats to the safety and well-being of the congregation (as in my case) and the congregation does not have an opposition to self-defense, it is prudent to be prepared to handle emergencies as they arise.

 

[Baptist Believer]

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.

Nope.

That action was to prevent Jesus from being taken prisoner and crucified. Peter had a history of that behavior (see Matthew 16:21-23). Peter didn’t want the Kingdom to come through the cross, he wanted it to come through power. And that’s something completely different than self-defense.

If you bother reading the entire passage in context (and pay attention to everything Jesus said instead of just cutting Him off after the first two phrases), you’ll understand what Jesus is saying.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I will never believe that He would have done anything more than what He did.

I see you already have your mind made up, so I guess there’s not must use in having a discussion. But I’ll give it a try anyway.

What does using a whip to drive out the moneychangers entail after all? You don't have to strike someone with a whip to use it to drive them out.

By the same token, you don’t necessarily have to shoot if you have to draw your weapon.

You can snap it a few time and threaten to hit them and most people get the message.

Yep. Most people give up immediately when a weapon is drawn.

The Bible doesn't say that Jesus ever administered corporal punishment. That would have sent the wrong message about His objective for coming. Everyone wanted Him to use force to defeat the Romans. He made it very clear that He would never do that.

Absolutely. And that’s why the example of Jesus giving Himself as a sacrifice is not directly relevant to the issue of self-defense.
The act of self-defense (or defense of innocents) has nothing to do with an attempt to bring in the Kingdom of God through force.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If you were a member of my church and I found out you were "packin' heat" to church services-------I would politely ask you to leave your firearm at home next time and from henceforth

Now---the person carrying "heat" may say to me---"Its my right!!" to which we will see which he is willing to do------honor the request of his pastor as a man(or woman)-----or ignore him out of paranoia

It is within your right as a leader of the congregation to ask that church members not carry firearms on the premises. If you don't want them to do it, then they should respect your wishes and/or go elsewhere.

My pastor, minister of music, and a few key people know that I am a few others are usually armed. Beyond that, no one else knows. If the leadership of the church decided they didn't want people to be armed, then I would abide by their decision.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Has anyone presented a biblical argument in favor of arming ones self? Sure take precautions, be diligent, don't create situations where one creates a danger. But is there any verse I can use to justify packin a .44 in the church?

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

If Jesus was against self-defense, why was Peter was carrying a sword in the first place? And notice that among the 11, there were 2 swords (Luke 22:38)? If Jesus had a problem with it, why didn’t He say something about it long before that moment and ordered them to get rid of their swords?

Jesus did not condemn Peter for having a sword, but that he used it inappropriately... that is, Peter was trying to prevent Jesus from following through with the cross. Remember earlier, when Jesus told His disciples that He would be crucified and Peter protested? Jesus strongly rebuked Peter for opposing God’s plan.

When the disciples were sent out as evangelists, first the 12, and then the 70, they were told to take nothing with them.
We find no evidence of any of the Apostles in the Book of Acts carrying any weapons. In fact the opposite is true. They allowed themselves to be tortured, imprisoned, and to suffer gladly for Jesus sake. It was an honor to suffer for the Lord.

Yet the church has also recognized, throughout almost every age, that martyrdom for all is not the right thing for everyone. That’s one of the reasons Christians have worshipped in secret when under threat from outside forces, and Christians developed codes (including the ever-popular icthus/ixthus symbol or “Jesus fish”) to identify themselves to each other so that they would not fall into the hands of those who would harm them or their families and friends.

 

[preachinjesus]

[FONT=&quot]You’ve really given nothing here relevant to our discussion.[/FONT]

With this summary comment I say thank you sir and I shall take my leave of you now.

Blessings on your journey.

 

[DHK]

Jesus did not condemn Peter for having a sword, but that he used it inappropriately... that is, Peter was trying to prevent Jesus from following through with the cross. Remember earlier, when Jesus told His disciples that He would be crucified and Peter protested? Jesus strongly rebuked Peter for opposing God’s plan.

He was condemned for even the very use of it. Otherwise the statement "Do you not know that I could have called 12 legions (72,000) angels from my Heavenly Father," would have no meaning.
Jesus is omnipotent. All power is given unto him in heaven and in earth. He had access to that power then, just as he did now. He went to the cross willingly, and willingly laying aside that power for a short period of time. He didn't have to lay aside that power. No one forced him to go to the cross. He did it out of love.

He said:
John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

The swords were purely symbolic. Two swords could hardly ward off an entire Roman army. It was symbolic of another dispensation of another change of life that they would be living once Christ had died. He would no longer be there in the flesh for their protection. Besides that, he did not tell them all to take up a sword. The rendering of the KJV is poor.

The ASV puts it a bit better:
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.
--If you have your purse take it, and if you have a wallet take it. But if you are so poor and penniless that you don't have either, then sell your coat and buy a sword, so that at least you will have that (when you are driven in the wilderness by persecution to fend off the wild animals).

"All who live Godly shall suffer persecution." That is a promise. And the early believers did. They never attacked others. But Paul did say that he fought with wild animals. He, at times, was driven into the wilderness because of persecution.

 

[Baptist Believer]

With this summary comment I say thank you sir and I shall take my leave of you now.

Okay, your choice. Thank you for laying out your opinions for us to consider.

Please think though your characterizations of those with whom you disagree. We are not a bunch of trigger-happy nuts who will fire into crowds of people in an attempt to be a hero. Many of us have thought through these issues over the course of years. And a number of us have training and significant practical experience in tactical matters.

It took me nearly 10 years to decide to obtain a concealed handgun license after God convicted me of my responsibility to others in this regard. God had to change my heart in this matter and help me work through what Jesus is actually saying to His disciples regarding the use of force. But I'm not a Paige Patterson-wanna-be who has an unnatural obsession with guns or killing. I've had my fill of those folks.

I detest the use of force or violence, but realize it is occasionally necessary when everything else is ineffective. And since we are supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves, I need to also look after my neighbor's safety in an appropriate fashion. I won't even consider killing anyone for trying to steal property (unless it is something like nuclear weapons) or for many other crimes. But in the situation where life is in imminant danger, I will consider it.

 

[Baptist Believer]

He was condemned for even the very use of it. Otherwise the statement "Do you not know that I could have called 12 legions (72,000) angels from my Heavenly Father," would have no meaning.
Jesus is omnipotent. All power is given unto him in heaven and in earth. He had access to that power then, just as he did now. He went to the cross willingly, and willingly laying aside that power for a short period of time. He didn't have to lay aside that power. No one forced him to go to the cross. He did it out of love.

Peter had been told that Jesus must be captured, suffer and die, but Peter didn’t want any part of it. He was opposing God’s plan and presumed to protect Jesus. Peter was condemned for not recognizing that Jesus was doing exactly what He intended to do and didn’t need Peter to protect Him... but He didn’t condemn Peter for having a sword. And he did not say that Peter shouldn’t use his sword to defend himself or others.

He said:
John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Yes, absolutely.

The swords were purely symbolic.

Peter cut off the ear of the servant with a symbolic sword? Was it a symbolic ear that Jesus symbolically healed?

Two swords could hardly ward off an entire Roman army.

Well, they weren’t facing the entire Roman army, they were facing a small group of soldiers and other individuals. I think Peter though the revolution to bring the Kingdom of God to fruition was about to start, and he was going to draw the first blood.

It was symbolic of another dispensation of another change of life that they would be living once Christ had died. He would no longer be there in the flesh for their protection.

So your argument relies upon dispensationalistic viewpoints? I’m sorry, I tend to interpret literally unless there is a compelling reason not to do it. I don’t see any reason why we should believe the swords (or anything else) was purely symbolic.

Besides that, he did not tell them all to take up a sword. The rendering of the KJV is poor.

Certainly. Not everyone is to take up a sword.

"All who live Godly shall suffer persecution." That is a promise. And the early believers did.

Certainly.

They never attacked others.

Please note that no one is advocating attacks on others. We have been talking about self-defense.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Christian Self Defense

Many Christians were told as children that all forms of conflict are wrong. Their religious instruction included the command never to respond when others tried to hurt them emotionally with words, physically with fists, or relationally with lies and rumors. They were to accept abuse because it was from God’s hand to form character in them (most notably, humility). When they were bullied at school, they were told they were being persecuted for righteousness’ sake, even when the abuse had nothing to do with morality. Complicating matters is that many came from homes that either avoided conflict completely. (Or, they witnessed violent and abusive conflict; either way, they never saw conflict handled constructively.) In their environments, conflict was swept under the rug, and they were schooled in the ways of peace-faking, not peacemaking. They didn’t witness how well-handled conflict can bless an individual or an entire family, and they didn’t learn that conflict will be a part of every life lived well. As a result, these children as adults often have disastrous marriages, entered into with naïve beliefs and stunted relational abilities.

In stark contrast to this way of life, both the Old and New Testaments are replete with conflict, often accompanied with God’s approval and favor. However, Paul’s admonishment "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (Romans 12:18) has been taken to mean that we should never “disturb the peace.” Here’s something we need to know: this is absolutely true, when it applies to actual peace. Where there is real peace, we are to keep peace. But where there is not peace, we are to make peace, and that can require conflict. Peace is not merely the absence of tumult; peace means that things have been made right, and where they have not been made right, it is wrong to pretend perpetually that there is peace, justice, respect, and goodwill (see, for example, Jeremiah 6:14).

Parents who teach their children that all conflict is wrong are telling their kids that being a punching bag will somehow show others Christian love. True peace, true justice, true respect, and true goodwill become distorted for these kids, and they often become doormats. Even when they reach adulthood, a deceitful boss is likely to sniff them out, employ them, and mistreat them, knowing they won’t speak up or push back. He knows they won’t point out real problems or walk into conflict, because they mistake retaliation for self-defense.

“Turning the other cheek” does not mean we aren’t allowed to defend ourselves. It means, for example, that we are not to return an insult with an insult—it means we aren’t to respond to evil with evil. When I share this with Christian Nice Guys, a palpable sigh usually fills our conversation. Then a common anger, mingled with shame, comes out of men when they think about what they allowed others to do to them without resistance.


Follow link for the rest of the article

 

[thegospelgeek]

Christian Self Defense

Many Christians were told as children that all forms of conflict are wrong. Their religious instruction included the command never to respond when others tried to hurt them emotionally with words, physically with fists, or relationally with lies and rumors. They were to accept abuse because it was from God’s hand to form character in them (most notably, humility). When they were bullied at school, they were told they were being persecuted for righteousness’ sake, even when the abuse had nothing to do with morality. Complicating matters is that many came from homes that either avoided conflict completely. (Or, they witnessed violent and abusive conflict; either way, they never saw conflict handled constructively.) In their environments, conflict was swept under the rug, and they were schooled in the ways of peace-faking, not peacemaking. They didn’t witness how well-handled conflict can bless an individual or an entire family, and they didn’t learn that conflict will be a part of every life lived well. As a result, these children as adults often have disastrous marriages, entered into with naïve beliefs and stunted relational abilities.

In stark contrast to this way of life, both the Old and New Testaments are replete with conflict, often accompanied with God’s approval and favor. However, Paul’s admonishment "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (Romans 12:18) has been taken to mean that we should never “disturb the peace.” Here’s something we need to know: this is absolutely true, when it applies to actual peace. Where there is real peace, we are to keep peace. But where there is not peace, we are to make peace, and that can require conflict. Peace is not merely the absence of tumult; peace means that things have been made right, and where they have not been made right, it is wrong to pretend perpetually that there is peace, justice, respect, and goodwill (see, for example, Jeremiah 6:14).

Parents who teach their children that all conflict is wrong are telling their kids that being a punching bag will somehow show others Christian love. True peace, true justice, true respect, and true goodwill become distorted for these kids, and they often become doormats. Even when they reach adulthood, a deceitful boss is likely to sniff them out, employ them, and mistreat them, knowing they won’t speak up or push back. He knows they won’t point out real problems or walk into conflict, because they mistake retaliation for self-defense.

“Turning the other cheek” does not mean we aren’t allowed to defend ourselves. It means, for example, that we are not to return an insult with an insult—it means we aren’t to respond to evil with evil. When I share this with Christian Nice Guys, a palpable sigh usually fills our conversation. Then a common anger, mingled with shame, comes out of men when they think about what they allowed others to do to them without resistance.


Follow link for the rest of the article

Interesting article. Thanks for the link. Sorry to tell you that , for me, it strengthens the argument against guns in the church. he keeps saying that Christians should not be passive and depend on God, but to take matters into our own hands. yet he fails to give scripture to support it. He does speak of "being wise as serpents" but ignores the "harmless as doves".

Again, I don't see anyone in the NT defending one's self. Can I be passive when under attack? I think so but don't know for sure. Can I be passive when other's are under attack? Probably not. However, I pray that my attempts to defend others would not take the life of anyone.

I am fine with concealed carry. I do not think the Church is the place to do so.

 

[DHK]

So your argument relies upon dispensationalistic viewpoints? I’m sorry, I tend to interpret literally unless there is a compelling reason not to do it. I don’t see any reason why we should believe the swords (or anything else) was purely symbolic.

Sorry for using the word "dispensation." I didn't know it would be a stumbling block for you. I wasn't speaking of dispensations, strictly speaking. Look at the context.

In verse 35 he contrasts the past to the present:
Luke 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you forth without purse, and wallet, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. (Don't be offended if I say that is the past dispensation, the past period of time. I am not using the word as a dispensationalist would. The word simply means "a period of time," and that is all. In the past he sent them out with nothing.

But now:
Luke 22:36-37 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.
37 For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment.

1. Note that part of the reason for the sword is symbolic of a battle which will end in his death, and in a fulfillment of prophecy. (verse 37).
2. If you are going to take the sword literally as representative of taking up arms in this day. If that is your text or reasoning on why you can take up arms today, then be sure to follow through with the rest of the verse. Before you buy arms, sell your coat (the most expensive thing you own). If your house is the most expensive thing you own sell it before you purchase a gun. That is the principle involved here. Follow through with the proper interpretation if you are going to use this verse as a pretext for buying arms. Otherwise don't use it. You can make the Bible say anything it wants.

Psalm 14:1 says "There is no God."
You are doing the same thing to this passage, by taking Scripture out of context.

Now look at the real teaching of Jesus concerning this subject.
Matthew 5:9-12 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.
--Guns don't bring peace; they bring violence.
--Only the gospel can bring peace to man's heart. Christ is the Prince of Peace.

10 Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
--Blessed means happy. If you want happiness look forward to persecution. What have you to lose? You will gain the kingdom of God.

11 Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
--Happiness is fulfilled in when men and women suffer for Christ sake; not when they take up arms. Suffering evil at the hands of others is just part of the Christian life. All who live live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution," is a promise to all Christians, not to just some. The problem is, there are not many Christians who want to live Godly lives.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.
The prophets of the OT all suffered greatly; most of them martyred. Read about them in Hebrews chapter 11. Persecution brings reward. Nowhere do we read in the Bible about resisting it with arms. Jesus never taught such a theology.

 

[Marcia]

Because I wanted too.

It seems like you didn't want to address my points and instead said, "I'll pray for you." That's a non sequiter to what I posted. So I can only conclude you must not have had a good answer to what I said.