Self defense and security teams?

[JonC]

Luke 22:34-48
And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

My question to those who don’t think security teams are good would be this, why did Jesus tell his disciples to sell their garments to buy swords?

It was not to stop His crucifixion. He healed the servants ear in the garden.

I don’t think it was for cutting bread.

Also worthy of note.
Amongst the twelve of them present, two was sufficient. It was not necessary that everyone be prepared in that way.

While I agree with every other Scripture that allows for and compels protection of ourselves and others, Jesus, Himself, giving the instruction, makes it a pretty clear point and removes the “Old Testament not applicable” argument.

There are reasons other than attacking other people for a sword.

One is when traveling people carried swords to protect from animals. If this is what was in mind then the command could be related to dispersing with the gospel.

Of course, people also carried swords as a status symbol, snd they carried swords to protect against bandits.

So a doctrine from that passage can't be obtained to defend either position (although I am sure noth assume otherwise).

 

[Ben1445]

There are reasons other than attacking other people for a sword.

I am not suggesting offense. Only defense.
Churches have the right and responsibility (at least where I am) to protect their own. That makes us the defenders and not attackers.

One is when traveling people carried swords to protect from animals. If this is what was in mind then the command could be related to dispersing with the gospel.

I think it is unlikely where I live to have animals walk in the door. (We have had chipmunks running around the building during services, but nothing I would call security on.) I have seen enough evidence of large animals coming into buildings that I would say it is not out of order to prepare for such an event.

Of course, people also carried swords as a status symbol,

Status Symbols are clearly not what Jesus was teaching. He taught us to serve each other. The greatest would be a servant.

snd they carried swords to protect against bandits.

I would consider anyone interrupting church with the intent to harm, a bandit. I don’t know what else you are looking for.

So a doctrine from that passage can't be obtained to defend either position (although I am sure noth assume otherwise).

I think you should be able to read carrying a weapon as meaning discretion to use it as implied.
In each of your scenarios, the weapon is used for defense purposes except in the case of status, which we have decided is not what Jesus intended.
I think that you can easily say that the defensible position from the verses is defense.

John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
This is why we didn’t stop Jesus from being crucified and also why we don’t go out waging holy war.

A team for security is just good sense. A good plan works by preparation and previous planning. In the case of wildlife of the animal or human nature, I would suggest that it is better to have a plan than to hope for the best and wing it. If you are going to have a plan, someone is going to have to plan it.
Proverbs 11:14
Where no counsel is, the people fall:
but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
Multitude- enter the team. One person planning is good. A multitude planning is safer.
We organize the services. They have order. We plan them. Why should our love thy neighbor command end when his life is threatened by someone else?

Also, as semi-public facilities, we have some responsibility to maintain a safe environment to the best of our ability. If we are negligent with the safety of our attendees, there will also be a poor testimony to those who would like to visit, or to those who are just looking for a reason to bad mouth churches.

A lot of this is just my opinion. Enough of it is derived from the basic scriptural principle of loving your neighbor as yourself.

 

[JonC]

I am not suggesting offense. Only defense.
Churches have the right and responsibility (at least where I am) to protect their own. That makes us the defenders and not attackers.

I think it is unlikely where I live to have animals walk in the door. (We have had chipmunks running around the building during services, but nothing I would call security on.) I have seen enough evidence of large animals coming into buildings that I would say it is not out of order to prepare for such an event.

Status Symbols are clearly not what Jesus was teaching. He taught us to serve each other. The greatest would be a servant.


I would consider anyone interrupting church with the intent to harm, a bandit. I don’t know what else you are looking for.

I think you should be able to read carrying a weapon as meaning discretion to use it as implied.
In each of your scenarios, the weapon is used for defense purposes except in the case of status, which we have decided is not what Jesus intended.
I think that you can easily say that the defensible position from the verses is defense.

John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
This is why we didn’t stop Jesus from being crucified and also why we don’t go out waging holy war.

A team for security is just good sense. A good plan works by preparation and previous planning. In the case of wildlife of the animal or human nature, I would suggest that it is better to have a plan than to hope for the best and wing it. If you are going to have a plan, someone is going to have to plan it.
Proverbs 11:14
Where no counsel is, the people fall:
but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
Multitude- enter the team. One person planning is good. A multitude planning is safer.
We organize the services. They have order. We plan them. Why should our love thy neighbor command end when his life is threatened by someone else?

Also, as semi-public facilities, we have some responsibility to maintain a safe environment to the best of our ability. If we are negligent with the safety of our attendees, there will also be a poor testimony to those who would like to visit, or to those who are just looking for a reason to bad mouth churches.

A lot of this is just my opinion. Enough of it is derived from the basic scriptural principle of loving your neighbor as yourself.

No offense taken at all. I can understand both positions when it comes to using violence.

I absolutely agree Jesus was not referring to carrying swords as status symbols. I just noted that is one reason people in that time carried swords.

The two more logical reasons are to protect from animals, to protect from bandits, or both.

What I mean is that you cannot say the verse advocates defending from men wanting to harm people anymore than I can say the verse does not.

There are a lot of things I believe are "good sence" (fire drills, tornado drills, security, preventive maintenance . . . to name a few).


I am, however, saying that I do not believe it is right to have armed security prepared to kill intruders in order to protect the congregation. I do believe churches should use security measures short of lethal violence.

I am not defending my position, just stating it.

 

[Salty]

What I mean is that you cannot say the verse advocates defending from men wanting to harm people anymore than I can say the verse does not.



I am, however, saying that I do not believe it is right to have armed security prepared to kill intruders in order to protect the congregation. I do believe churches should use security measures short of lethal violence.

I dont think that security teams would want to hurt anyone- that choice is left up to the intruder.

So an intruder comes into a church bldg - and kills 10 in attendance..
An armed security would have prevented that - first they would attempt to injure the individual - if need be they should attempt to kill him to save the lives of those 10 innocent and potentially more.

 

[JonC]

I dont think that security teams would want to hurt anyone- that choice is left up to the intruder.

So an intruder comes into a church bldg - and kills 10 in attendance..
An armed security would have prevented that - first they would attempt to injure the individual - if need be they should attempt to kill him to save the lives of those 10 innocent and potentially more.

I like to think that no Christian would want to hurt even an intruder. Given posts on this board I am not confident thst is the case.

But I do get your point. And I agree the security team, if armed, are not there looking to shoot anybody. They exist to stop a threat.

And I agree that ten people being killed in a church would be horrible.

It is horrible when missionaries trying to share the gospel are murdered. And I am sure that Operation Auca would have gone much differently had they been armed and willing to kill their attackers. Jim Elliot and his fellow missionaries could have gone home to their families.

I get the argument for the use of violence.

I do not believe people in a congregation should shoot to injure as odds are a bystander will be shot (shoot center mass, especially in stressful situations).

But I do get the arguments on both sides.

Like I said, I'm giving rather than defending my opinion.

 

[Cathode]

No offense taken at all. I can understand both positions when it comes to using violence.

I absolutely agree Jesus was not referring to carrying swords as status symbols. I just noted that is one reason people in that time carried swords.

The two more logical reasons are to protect from animals, to protect from bandits, or both.

What I mean is that you cannot say the verse advocates defending from men wanting to harm people anymore than I can say the verse does not.

There are a lot of things I believe are "good sence" (fire drills, tornado drills, security, preventive maintenance . . . to name a few).


I am, however, saying that I do not believe it is right to have armed security prepared to kill intruders in order to protect the congregation. I do believe churches should use security measures short of lethal violence.

I am not defending my position, just stating it.

The intent of security is not to kill but to stop a threat.

Like winning a race at the slowest possible speed.

As men we think and plan in a particular way to protect and be on watch, but only by grace can we carry out what we must do in the moment.

For those who live by the spirit, subjugating their body to the spirit, they will be lead and guided by the spirit.

This doesn’t just apply to security or emergencies. Many times we will be given insight that totally bypasses and avoids certain circumstances.

Many times grace gives us insight and ability to achieve impossible successes, successes that would not happen otherwise.

The main intent of the Christian is to do God’s Will above all else, to live by it and in it. So even pathetic action augmented by Grace in God’s Will works powerfully.

Weak Human nature and even the laws of physics don’t apply at times when living in the Divine Will.
Although we train and make plans as men, it is nothing without reliance on God’s Grace.
Even the most powerful and best prepared can be undone by a simple oversight and stupidity, but with Grace, God covers for everything.

It is only in looking back do we realise that we had no earthly business in expecting those outcomes, and it is important to recognise it, and thank God for it.

If to die or live Grace will cover the circumstance. The Grace of immolation granted, no torture will break you. All of them had a burning desire to shed their blood for the sake of Christ and His Church well beforehand.

I remember one guy saying that how can you face tortured martyrdom if you can’t even stand to take cold shower.
And yes there is truth to it, we must callous the body, but Grace can also supply for what is lacking in us.

So long as our hearts are set on God’s Will being done nothing can truly harm us.

Jesus loves us and does not want us to be anxious but to live in His care and peace no matter the circumstance.

The temptation is to think and act in purely human terms, as men we fall into this trap all the time.

In vain do we build and in vain do we keep watch, if the Lord is not our help.

 

[Cathode]

Do you believe that self defense is a divinely given right? Therefore, is it wrong or right to have a security team for your church?

On another thread, Oseas3 seemed to be saying that it was wrong to have a church security team. When asked, all he would do is post Bible verses. Well, I have plenty of verses that say it is right to protect your church, pastor, home, etc. with physical violence if need be. Note the following points:

David wrote, " Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight" (Ps. 144:1). When I was young, an idiot told me, "Well that was just spiritual fighting." Wait, isn't this the David who was a mighty man of war, winning many battles in a long life of war? Of course it is.

Then we have Jesus, who used physical violence to drive the wicked thieves out of his own house: "12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves" (Matt. 21:12-13).

I have been a martial artist for over 50 years now, and have taught self defense to many. I believe this is biblical. I am currently on our church security team, and guard our pastor several times a month. I would willingly put myself between an attacker and our pastor and take a literal bullet for him. To anyone who opposes this kind of team, you have forgotten that Satan uses humans to do his dirty work. Since I joined the team, we have had various crimes of violence and larceny committed on our church plant. In this day and age, I recommend all churches to have a security team.

Last week a man came into a church in Wayne, Michigan, with a gun to shoot members with. He injured one before the security team got to him. Yesterday a youth was shot in a church parking lot. The list for just this year is long.

Years ago I preached in a country over near India. They had a full time security force. Members had been beaten up by Muslims on the way home from church. Much had been stolen from the hospital the ministry had, including by Muslim women in those burkas, which can hide a lot, so they had a fence all around the property.

Tell me what you think and I'll get back to you--maybe on Saturday.

The first real defence is prayer and fasting and being open to the guidance of Grace.
You can be given inspiration but ignore it, this was a painful lesson for me at times.
You realise what these moments are.

I was powerfully shown in street ministry what God’s protection means. I settled hostility by action as a rule, but allowing God to act as defence was something foreign.

If we act purely as men, then we will be left to our own devices and that is never good.

Prayer and fasting can suspend the laws of nature. If you are putting together a team of Ostiarius, then that team should pray and fast first of all and submit yourselves to God’s Holy Will.

Fasting should be either one meal a day or on plain bread and water at each meal.
Wednesday’s and Friday’s are the ancient traditional fast days.

Donate the cost of the meals you miss to charity. So you were going to eat that $30 steak and sides, but instead you didn’t and then gave that money to charity.

“Go and assemble all the Jews who are in Susa; fast on my behalf, all of you, not eating or drinking night or day for three days. I and my maids will also fast in the same way. Thus prepared, I will go to the king” Esther 4:16.

Fasting is a preparation for the day of want or need, that God will act powerfully for you.
Prepare by fasting.

It is not just food or set days that you can fast. You can find something to deny yourself each day, denying your will for another’s. This is particularly powerful. Suffering without complaint is powerful at drawing down grace as well, this draws down powerful graces of healing.

When you prepare by fasting, you set aside a great store for the day of need, God will act very powerfully hearing your prayer.

 

[Cathode]

In 250 Ad pope Cornelius writes to the bishop of Antioch incidentally giving the number of clergy in Rome.
Numbering forty-six priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two ostiarii.

This was during a time of terrible persecution by the Roman Pagans.

There is mention at about this time of the martyrdom of Romanus who was an Ostiarius/ door keeper.

During bad times, the Church did institute security measures and personnel.

 

[Salty]

During bad times, the Church did institute security measures and personnel.

Do you mean the Roman Catholic church?

 

[John of Japan]

I like to think that no Christian would want to hurt even an intruder. Given posts on this board I am not confident thst is the case.

It depends on the intruder. If he is simply there to cause trouble, the police will be called and he will be escorted out. If he comes in with a gun or knife and starts attacking people, we will take him down. I don't carry, but I would take a bullet for my pastor or a fellow church attender.

But I do get your point. And I agree the security team, if armed, are not there looking to shoot anybody. They exist to stop a threat.

And I agree that ten people being killed in a church would be horrible.

In the Charleston church shooting of 2015, nine innocent church goers were shot to death at a black church, . The motive was not persecution, but simple racism. If only they had one security person who carried, the bad guy would have gone down and the precious believers would have been saved.

In the West Freeway Church of Christ shooting in White Settlement, Texas, the shooter killed two worshippers before being taken down by a church security team member. The killer had a shotgun, and was preparing to kill more when he was shot by a former cop.

It is horrible when missionaries trying to share the gospel are murdered. And I am sure that Operation Auca would have gone much differently had they been armed and willing to kill their attackers. Jim Elliot and his fellow missionaries could have gone home to their families.

I fully agree that the missionaries killed seeking to reach the Aucas should not have defended themselves. It was a form of persecution, even though the actual reason for the attack was not that they were missionaries, but simply suspicion. In case of persecution we are to rejoice, not fight back (Matt. 5:10-12). And the missionaries knew what they were getting into, since the Auca tribe was known to be violent.

On the other hand, I would defend anyone anywhere from a violent attack in obedience to Prov. 24:11-12, "If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"

I get the argument for the use of violence.

I do not believe people in a congregation should shoot to injure as odds are a bystander will be shot (shoot center mass, especially in stressful situations).

But I do get the arguments on both sides.

Like I said, I'm giving rather than defending my opinion.

In some states it is illegal for someone without a special, extra license to carry a gun into a church. In Wisconsin, it is even illegal for a retired police officer to carry a gun where there is a church school (in the same building) without an extra, special certification. Wisconsin is liberal with a very wacko liberal governor--he recently said we should say "birthing person" instead of "mother!"

Back to the subject, I don't recommend the average church member to be carrying, especially without letting the responsible leaders know and being trained. Church security is not like other kinds.

I believe in a God-given right to self defense. I'm going to attach for you to peruse a PDF of a pamphlet I wrote which was published many years ago. It is a biblical defense of the right to self defense from violence.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't think so.

I simply do not believe security teams (armed security) at a church is right.
But I have been in churches where it did feel safer.

What should the church do to an enemy seeking to do harm? Lovingly kill them?

At the same time I have been in areas where I felt safer with security. But how I felt has no bearing on whether it was right or wrong.

You reap what you sow, so any trying to kill others should expect that to be done to them in return

 

[JesusFan]

Can you share why you think a security team is wrong? As for armed security, almost none of us are armed (except for my fists ).

Let me explain more about what our security team does.

1. It prevents crime. Surely this is a good thing! Our head is a retired cop, so he can make arrests. We are trained to liaise with the police in an emergency--we have had crimes committed on our grounds.
2. We can guarantee the security of an attendee in case of a medical emergency, or a natural disaster. (We have plans for each of these.) Folks can feel safe at our church.
3. In a recent meeting, we were taught that we should be friendly and greet all visitors especially, but also church members. We wear tags to show who we are, and wish to give an impression of safety and Christian love.
4. We all are trained in CPR and first aid. We have an EMT and a couple of nurses on the team. We have had quite a few incidents when we had to administer first aid and call an ambulance.
5. We handle far more than violence: lost kids, people wandering the halls not knowing what to do, providing oversight for an adult with a child not their own (a church can be destroyed by false or true accusations), etc. etc.
6. In case of a violent incident, our goal is not to harm them. We are trained to control rather than injure. We would only seek to injure in case of an armed attack.

I believe this is a biblical position. Here is just one passage: "11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain. 12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?" Prov. 24:11-12). Again, the security team of the church at Damascus kept Paul safe (Acts 9:25). Again, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Should we not keep the temple safe? The church is also the temple of God (in 1 Cor. 3:16-17, the 2nd person pronoun is plural). Should we not guard God's holy temple?

Thinking having security training and having martial arts training and or gunmenship vital, as those trained can stay cool under pressure, can react quickly, and key here is using appropriate force, as someone screaming but just standing there should expect to be grabbed, knocked down, but someone shooting a gun off at others should expect bullets heading their way

 

[John of Japan]

Thinking having security training and having martial arts training and or gunmenship vital, as those trained can stay cool under pressure, can react quickly, and key here is using appropriate force, as someone screaming but just standing there should expect to be grabbed, knocked down, but someone shooting a gun off at others should expect bullets heading their way

In a nutshell.

 

[Ben1445]

It is horrible when missionaries trying to share the gospel are murdered. And I am sure that Operation Auca would have gone much differently had they been armed and willing to kill their attackers. Jim Elliot and his fellow missionaries could have gone home to their families.

My understanding is that they were armed and yet not willing to kill their attackers.
While there are similarities, I don’t think this would be a good model of the discussion. These were missionaries in someone else’s territory. There was no church established, and they had not established any kind of assembly at that point to be protecting. This would be a better discussion for personal protection while sharing the gospel instead of in church.

 

[JesusFan]

My understanding is that they were armed and yet not willing to kill their attackers.
While there are similarities, I don’t think this would be a good model of the discussion. These were missionaries in someone else’s territory. There was no church established, and they had not established any kind of assembly at that point to be protecting. This would be a better discussion for personal protection while sharing the gospel instead of in church.

Just cannot see the Lord stating in the bible to us that self defense and protection is forbidden by Him, as He is the God of the Just war and that whatever one reaps they will also sow

 

[JonC]

My understanding is that they were armed and yet not willing to kill their attackers.
While there are similarities, I don’t think this would be a good model of the discussion. These were missionaries in someone else’s territory. There was no church established, and they had not established any kind of assembly at that point to be protecting. This would be a better discussion for personal protection while sharing the gospel instead of in church.

We are all missionaries in somebody else's territory.

But I get the arguments.

I am not trying to change anybody mind, nor am I defending my opinion (I am simply stating it).

 

[Marooncat79]

God

Guns

Guts

Made America free, let’s keep all 3!

Seriously, I am very too close to being a Pacifist

 

[Salty]

We are all missionaries in somebody else's territory.

But I get the arguments.

I am not trying to change anybody mind, nor am I defending my opinion (I am simply stating it).

Interesting statement - Should we defend our opinions? If not - then its more of a preference
(I know, maybe we should start a new OP on this)

 

[JesusFan]

It depends on the intruder. If he is simply there to cause trouble, the police will be called and he will be escorted out. If he comes in with a gun or knife and starts attacking people, we will take him down. I don't carry, but I would take a bullet for my pastor or a fellow church attender.

In the Charleston church shooting of 2015, nine innocent church goers were shot to death at a black church, . The motive was not persecution, but simple racism. If only they had one security person who carried, the bad guy would have gone down and the precious believers would have been saved.

In the West Freeway Church of Christ shooting in White Settlement, Texas, the shooter killed two worshippers before being taken down by a church security team member. The killer had a shotgun, and was preparing to kill more when he was shot by a former cop.


I fully agree that the missionaries killed seeking to reach the Aucas should not have defended themselves. It was a form of persecution, even though the actual reason for the attack was not that they were missionaries, but simply suspicion. In case of persecution we are to rejoice, not fight back (Matt. 5:10-12). And the missionaries knew what they were getting into, since the Auca tribe was known to be violent.

On the other hand, I would defend anyone anywhere from a violent attack in obedience to Prov. 24:11-12, "If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"


In some states it is illegal for someone without a special, extra license to carry a gun into a church. In Wisconsin, it is even illegal for a retired police officer to carry a gun where there is a church school (in the same building) without an extra, special certification. Wisconsin is liberal with a very wacko liberal governor--he recently said we should say "birthing person" instead of "mother!"

Back to the subject, I don't recommend the average church member to be carrying, especially without letting the responsible leaders know and being trained. Church security is not like other kinds.

I believe in a God-given right to self defense. I'm going to attach for you to peruse a PDF of a pamphlet I wrote which was published many years ago. It is a biblical defense of the right to self defense from violence.

Did not the Lord use one of his angels to kill off 185000 of the enemies of his people?

Think key here self defense and appropriate force, as the security should treat someone just yelling different from someone standing up and emptying his gun on the crowd

 

[Cathode]

Do you mean the Roman Catholic church?

Yes, but especially in Roman times because of wide spread persecutions.