Church--Carry or no carry?

1). Just where in the Bible are we encouraged to carry weapons inside of church?

1 Timothy 5:8 - If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is wrse than an unbeliever.

That provision includes safety.

Luke 22:36 - He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one".

Christ later affirmed this is exactly what He meant when two of His men returned with swords, and He declared, "That is enough".

There is nothing in Biblical study that would lead a Christian to believe he should disarm himself.

2). Actually, we are not at war with an entire culture bent on our destruction, but parts of several cultures that often include some bastardized Muslim beliefs as justification for their actions.

Well, we can all think what we choose. I have opinions based on intel I receive from sources in the Middle East and that is what I believe.

3). As for the Mr. Rogers and being impotent, I am not sure that is the case or a valid claim..........

Mr. Rogers was used not as THE Mr. Rogers, but as the icon he became and which has become the stereo-type of the nice guy. I could just as easily said Casper Milktoast, or whoever. The point was and is that there is more to being a Christian than being a nice guy and smiling and getting along with everyone. Sometimes doing the right thing means NOT smiling, but frowning, and NOT going along.

I apologize for getting evangelical here. It wasn't my intention. There is another place where this sort of thing is discussed routinely by men who carry weapons to worship daily, and by pastors who do the same with biblical support. Any interested in getting references for this, send me an email.

For now, just remember how silly you will feel if you leave your blaster in the car (to please a misled Pastor) the day an active shooter decides to pick your service as his statement.

Gabe Suarez
Suarez International USA, inc.
http://www.suarezinternational.com
 
This is a very interesting thread. Both positions are well argued. My own decision: I see no problem with going armed, whether it be in church or in my own home. SC law has two interesting provisions:

1) CWP holders can only carry in church if they have the church leader's permission. Several months ago, one of our members was in the midst of some domestic upheaval. Her estranged husband (neither a member nor a previous visitor) drove into the parking lot and announced his intention of "speaking" with his wife (who had expressed a desire to avoid any such confrontation, and was NOT coming out to speak with him). Upon being advised of this, the husband made some threatening comments. A deacon apprised the pastor, and also noted that one of the members had a sidearm in his vehicle, had gone to retrieve it, and would stand watch outside. The pastor replied with a heartfelt "Thank God!" The pastor has since made a point of knowing who among his flock is ready and equipped to stave off violence aimed at his congregation.

2) A very old law (I don't think it was ever repealed) actually required churchgoing men to bring their rifles with them! In the good ol' days, a Southern Baptist church was not a place to stir up trouble!
 
1 Timothy 5:8 - If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is wrse than an unbeliever.

That provision includes safety.

Luke 22:36 - He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one".

Christ later affirmed this is exactly what He meant when two of His men returned with swords, and He declared, "That is enough".

There is nothing in Biblical study that would lead a Christian to believe he should disarm himself.
Click to expand...

With all due respect neither of those passages is as cut and dried as you say. For instance there is plenty of room for debate about whether "that is enough" is an affirmation of what they were doing or an exclamation that they didn't understand what he was saying.

Likewise the Timothy passage is set specifically in the context of Paul's monetary ministry to widows and orphans via the church "widow's list" that gives them physical provision with food and money.

As for a Biblical basis for carrying in defense of the church, read the old testament accounts of what was kept in the temple. It includes shields and weapons for the temple's defense. They are there for a reason.

Honestly I can go either way. If carrying a firearm has become a spiritual stumbling block to you in the development of your relationship with God then you are sinning. Repent. On the other hand if you feel God has called you to carry in order to protect yourself and his children, then by all means carry. If you do not you are sinning as well.

The will of the Lord is situational. In one case he may wish you to do something one way, in another similar situation he may wish the opposite. Pray and consult him to discover what his will for you is in this case. It is permissable to carry in a church provided the it is in keeping with the laws etc, but it still may not be right and the will of God.
 
Hhmmm. Well said, well said...
If carrying a firearm has become a spiritual stumbling block to you in the development of your relationship with God then you are sinning. Repent. On the other hand if you feel God has called you to carry in order to protect yourself and his children, then by all means carry. If you do not you are sinning as well.
Click to expand...
 
Gents,

This is one of those threads where we are going to disagree about alot of things.

One of the points of disagreement is the idea that Christians must unconditionally submit to the law. I don't believe this is bliblical. The law says you can't carry a gun in church. Ok, what will you do when the church is targeted by evil men. How will you feel when you cannot defend the family because you left the gun at home?

Let's take it farther...What if the law told you that you could not go to church any more, or told you that your kids must be indoctrinated in other more mainstream religions? You going to obey??

Were Joseph and Mary sinning when they disobeyed Herod and escaped to Egypt? Was Rahab condemned when she disobeyed her king? Were the founding fathers sinning when they failed to obey King George? What should a Christian have done in WW2 Germany? Obey? There comes a time when the law of man is not in accord with the law of God. At this time the Christian is no longer bound to obey. Eventually you must choose who you serve.

Two, when Christ told His men, that is enough, He clearly meant that two swords were enough. He was not correcting them. If He was correcting them, He would have said He meant something else. An example is when He tells them to beware the leaven of the Pharisees. His men began asking about why they should beware of the bread of the Pharisees. He quickly corrected them by expalining that He meant the doctrine of the Pharisees, not the figurative leaven. Yet when His men brought swords, He didn't correct them.

Third, I don't see how carrying a gun or a knife, or wearing a seat belt, or locking your doors at night, or saving money, or anything of the sort can in any way interfere with your walk. Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic about this. I think the passages ARE very clear and specific if we read them literally.

Finally the issue of provision in Timothy. Are you saying that financial provision excuses us from the other things we must provide? We must provide food, shelter, spiritual guidance, safety, etc. None of these things are left in the hands of others, but in our own hands.

There are Christians who are bothered by the idea of personal combat and think we should all be pacifists. There is nothing in the bible to agree with that. Some Christians are against gun ownership. Again there is nothing in the bible about that either, but rather to the contrary (Luke 22). What about killing? Is killing a sin? Or is murder the act that God condemns? You see the scriptures are clear if you read them. In the end, it looks like we are going to disagree on these points, as you will not convince me nor I you.

God Bless,

Gabe Suarez
Suarez International USA, Inc.
http://www.suarezinternational.com
 
Gabe,
Well, I was hopeful that you would actually have some specific references to weapons in church. As I noted above, such a topic had been covered previously and nobody seemed to actually have a church reference. What you have quoted are generalized statements that have no direct church references. They neither substantiate or refute the interpretation you made that, "There is nothing in Biblical study that would lead a Christian to believe he should disarm himself." The Timothy verse is a great King James New Testament Biblical reference for weapons in the home and protection of the family, but has no explicit church reference. Jesus is quoted for saying a lot of things that are generalized references which would no doubt never be applicable in church. Also as I recall, the reference to the term of 'household' is a loosely based translation, not direct, and has 3 or 4 other possible interpretations that all basically cover the same gist, unless looked at specifically, and are inclusive of meaning "home" (which may or may not have broader interpretations of home land), abode in which one resides or is currently residing (with or without the household actually being the property of the person being addressed - in other words, a guest in a home becomes part of that 'household' while present and potentially could expect to be protected by the head of household or aid in the protection of those within the household. This is a contextual interpretation. Also, the 'household' can be expanded to where a family currently is located as a group even if they are not actually in their own physical home structure).

It has been too many years for me to dredge up the various plays on language that came as a result of the King James translation and subsequent language updates that were geared at keeping text and meanings in a more commonly understood vernacular. One of the more commonly discussed interpretive translations that has been called into question is the notion that God created Eve from Adam's rib Some folks actually believe men have one less rib than women because of this translation. It is bizarre reasoning as genetically, the removal of a rib or other body part does not pass on to offspring. Anyway, the term is more correctly noted as 'side.' In other words, Eve was created from Adam's side. "Rib" is an overly specific mistranslation.

Few folks have the knowledge base and language skills to read earlier versions of the Bible in the original language. So here most of us are at the disadvantage of basing theological arguments on a secondary interpretation and translation, not primary. Notice I mentioned versions (see http://www.mtholyoke.edu/lits/library/guides/biblver.htm). The Catholic Church applied considerable influence in determining if the writings of various individuals remained in the Bible or were removed (see http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/160.battlebible.html). So the result is that our version of the word of God actually came down to what certain individuals determined to be proper for inclusion into the Bible. I would not doubt it possible that early books of the Bible that ended up not being included in the version most of us now read did actually make references to weapons in church.

As the argument made by you is based on interpretation and not any sort of explicit references to weapons in church, the notion a pastor is dead wrong for not allowing weapons in church is not supported and only carries comparable interpretive opinion that also is no explicitly stated. At least, that is, I have neither read or been shown a Biblical passage that explicitly stated that weapons were not to be brought into church.

MrAcheson brings up a neat set of points. First is the context of the passages which is very relevant. Passages taken out of context to substantiate events or situations beyond the original context is an invalid form of argument. What HE (MrAcheson, not God) did point out that is very interesting is the references to the Old Testament. I am not terribly familiar with that book and his suggested examples seem promising.

As for the misunderstanding of the Mr. Rogers comment, who was to know you didn't actually mean THE Mr. Rogers? I figured you must have meant THE Mr. Rogers given your condemnation of pacifistic religous leaders. Mr. Rogers was a Presbyterian minister and to my knowledge, guided most of his teachings benevolent behaviors of people to those around them and was not associated with any sort of more aggressive views. He would just about be a perfect poster child as a pacifistic Christian leader. I take it that you were not familiar that he was a minister or you might have otherwise picked a better namesake that would be a more appropriate generalized good guy not associated with in specific church contexts.

In support of your argument for there being Biblical justification for carrying in church, I have met one minister (and heard of a couple others about which I don't have direct knowledge) who obtained his CCW and who did carry in church. His argument was quite good. In the situational context of the church shooting in Ft. Worth mentioned by geegee, the minister I met felt is was his responsibility to look after his flock during services. Given that nearly everyone in the church during services is only looking foward to the minister, the minister is the only one who has line of sight views to the doors through which bad people may decide to enter during services. Moreover, he had a particularly good view and tactical advantage because the pulpit was considerably higher than ground level. So in reference to the Timothy passage, the congregation effectively constitutes members of the house(hold) of God and he is charged with that household being his as the representative of God.
 
A couple quick points:

1) There is not enough room in the Bible to tell us everything we are supposed to, or allowed to do, in detail. That is why often it focuses on what we are NOT to do. Therefore, it is a rather futile "Straw Man" to try to find a place in teh Bible that specifically tells us to carry a weapon in church, while ignoring the many scriptures that imply it as well as the lacking of scriptures that say that it is wrong.

2) Jesus himself carried a weapon into church. And he also kicked some ass with it. Remember the merchants selling stuff in the temple? Jesus got so furious he took a whip in there and tore the place up. You can imagine he was a scary sight to behold if an entire bazaar full of people fled from him, and merchants stood back as he destroyed their tables.

3) One thing to focus on is what Jesus or the Bible does NOT say. The Bible does not support weapons-control or anti-weapon, in fact it very often promotes the use of weapons for good.

4) Further, Jesus did not scorn Peter for having a sword, or even for using it. Jesus told Peter that "this is not the time to resist". That is a big distinction to understand. If Jesus were so anti-weapon he would have told the disciples not to even have a sword, and he certainly would not have encouraged them to go get them.

There is only one useful purpose for a sword. It is more of a "weapon" than even a gun, because at least a gun can be used to hunt. Swords are only truly effective at one thing: killing men.

That night, Jesus was holding a prayer vigil like nothing we have ever seen. That was about as holy a moment as we would ever witness. And yet he did not tell anyone to leave their sword at home.
 
One of the points of disagreement is the idea that Christians must unconditionally submit to the law. I don't believe this is bliblical. The law says you can't carry a gun in church. Ok, what will you do when the church is targeted by evil men. How will you feel when you cannot defend the family because you left the gun at home?
Click to expand...
Christians are not ordered to unconditionally submit to the law. God placed those who make the law in authority over us. We are ordered to submit unless those authorities order us to do something contrary to the will of God. All the examples I can think of this have to do with worship, forced idolatry, or death sentences. There are a few that are political like Rahab, but those are a case of following Gods direct orders for Israel inhabit the holy land. There is a dividing line, but I think you are putting it too far out with weapons laws or even self-defense. Unless God has literally told you to carry, then its definitely up for grabs.
I don't see how carrying a gun or a knife, or wearing a seat belt, or locking your doors at night, or saving money, or anything of the sort can in any way interfere with your walk.
Click to expand...
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart not on your own understanding." The Bible is pretty clear that we are first and foremost called to trust in and obey God. Perhaps that will involve giving away your savings to the poor or leaving a firearm at home. In the end we are always commanded to trust the Lord and his provision not upon ourselves or our own strength. If your firearm gets in the way of that trust then you need to seriously consider going without it for a while. Anything can be idolatry.
Are you saying that financial provision excuses us from the other things we must provide?
Click to expand...
No but it does not imply it either. You aren't reading the passage strictly or literally. There is wiggle room you are using which is fine by me since I'm not against carry in the slightest. There are definitely biblical passages which support self-defense. Ehud is commended for assassinating an obese Philistine ruler by stabbing him in the guts while on the toilet. I'm just warning against "I have a hammer so everything becomes a nail" mentality. In the end there are more important things than even your life. God has called people to lay their lives down so that he could work through their deaths. Be mindful of these things.

As for the defense of the temple, check where Solomon sets up the temple for the gold shields. Later these are replaced with more practical bronze ones after Shishak sacks Jerusalem. The shields and spears are used to defend the Temple when Joash is proclaimed King of Judah against Athaliah wishes (2 Kings 11, 2 Chronicles 39). 1 Kings 14 mentions temple guards (probably a job for Levites) and a temple guardroom as well.
 
Ok, and after all that, I still think its our duty as described in the Bible to protect those around us. In this day an age, the word "sword" would be replaced with pistol. If its acceptable for me to protect my family and those around me in the home and on the street - what changes in Church?

The Word has been translated many times, but there are study guides and computer programs that allow you to research the words in their original language. I urge you all to do that rather than accept what someone else told you. We all read the Word and interpret it through our knowledge, and spiritual inspiration.

Bottom line - I find no conflict at all with being armed at church, and strongly disagree with anyone who feels differently.

Gabe Suarez
Suarez International USA
http://www.warriortalk.com
 
I carry in church , my Pastor knows this and is comfortable with it. last Christmas I found out that I was not the only one . Two other Deacons carried and one of the Deacons wife has a ccw also.
 
In Georgia it's illegal. That said, I know a clergyman who carries during service. Theoretically, since it's his place of business, it's allowed. His rationale is that, in the Middle East, terrorists seem to gravitate toward Christian and Jewish holy sites as targets, and he sees it as his responsibility to protect his flock.

I've mulled over this, and I'm not sure if I'd feel comfortable doing so, even if it were legal.
 
Why should you act any differently outside of church than inside of church? You're not supposed to live by one set of rules for 45 minutes on Sunday then by another set of rules for the rest of the week. Disregarding the laws of the state (keep them separate, remember?), if you feel that you are justified in carrying a weapon day to day in your life you should also be comfortable with bringing it into the church. If you don't feel it's right to have it in church, then maybe deep down inside you don't think it's moral for you to carry the weapon daily. If you're doing something in your life that you wouldn't do in church, then it's probably something you shouldn't be doing at all. Something to think about.

I see nothing wrong with carrying in church.
 
While I personally see nothing wrong with CCW in a house of worship, being a retired vet, and having participated in a few military weddings, and funerals; consider this. The most recent volume of U.S.Army Drill and Cerimonies that I've seen,(2001), states that no ARMS, (to include swords/sabers), are to be carried into the church/chappel by members of the honor guard detail.

I don't really believe that the Lord minds, I speculate that it's cause for too much possible clang and clatter in the confined space that might detract from a profesional looking presentation.

Just some additional food for thought...
 
That night, Jesus was holding a prayer vigil like nothing we have ever seen. That was about as holy a moment as we would ever witness. And yet he did not tell anyone to leave their sword at home.
Click to expand...
Hadn't thought about that before - excellent point.
 
http://www.utahshootingsports.com/armedchurchincidents.htm

http://www.ggnra.org/newsletters/2000/sep/page6.shtml

Trapped in his bedroom, just beyond the study, the priest quietly unlocked his gun kit and took out a 9mm pistol. He flipped on a light and ordered the stranger to freeze and lie on the floor. The man stopped, then reached for his belt and charged. Duesterhaus fired. The man paused, apparently wounded, then ran into the hall. Total time elapsed: 15 seconds.

The outcome of this 1993 incident contrasts sharply with last month's brutal slaying of an unarmed Germantown priest, Monsignor Thomas Wells, during an apparent burglary overnight. And such attacks, although infrequent, have generated an unusual, chilling dialogue about whether priests and other clergy--as models of compassion and love--are justified in using violence for self-defense.

The idea of a priest or bishop owning a handgun shocks many Catholics. But some do, whether for hunting, target practice or self-defense, and church law allows it. But theologians and ethicists differ on whether priests should ever point a weapon at another person--and fire.

Duesterhaus, then 28, shot at the intruder, and he and three other priests living in the Holy Spirit rectory were unharmed. Wells, 56, who stayed alone in the rectory at Mother Seton Catholic Church, died after being stabbed repeatedly in a violent struggle.

Would the outcome have been different if Wells had owned a handgun? John M. Snyder, 60, a Catholic layman and chief lobbyist for the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, believes so. On June 9, the day after Wells's body was found, Snyder released a statement saying Wells "most likely would be alive today if he'd had a loaded handgun and knew how to use it."

The Rev. Aaron Joseph Coty, administrator of Mother Seton parish, finds abhorrent the idea that priests--or anyone, for that matter--own handguns. "You don't need weapons to defend yourself," he said. "There are other ways. You can talk with the person, reason with the person, get into a fistfight."

But the Rev. Robert J. Rippy, chancellor of the Diocese of Arlington, has a different view. "A priest, like any other citizen, has a right to self-preservation," he told the Arlington Catholic Herald after the Duesterhaus incident. "A person has a right to preserve their life from an unjust aggressor
Click to expand...
 
The Rev. Aaron Joseph Coty, administrator of Mother Seton parish, finds abhorrent the idea that priests--or anyone, for that matter--own handguns. "You don't need weapons to defend yourself," he said. "There are other ways. You can talk with the person, reason with the person, get into a fistfight."
Click to expand...
Dear Lord, save me from well-meaning "men of the cloth." OK, I'm a small man - 5'4", 130#, without a lot of unarmed combat training/experience - why yes, I do need weapons to defend myself - at least to do so effectively (keeping in mind that mindset is my number one tool). A person who has already decided to take from me/mine by force is generally not that receptive to pleasant or reasoned discussion but, if I have a weapon they might be somewhat more inclined to listen to what I have to say. But the real kicker here is the "get into a fistfight" - force is force, violence is violence - if it's OK for me to resist at all, then by extension it's OK for me to utilize whatever tools may make that job easier.
 
Once our church no longer meets in a school (in TX they're off limits even on Sunday), my husband & I will both carry in church, provided the new church building isn't posted 30-06 and I doubt it will be. I think enough folks remember the in-church massacre where some BG just wandered in and shot the place up during worship, a few years back in Ft Worth.
 
Though this doesn't directly address the issue of carrying in a church, with the current situation suffice it to say that I do carry in my synagogue. None of my co-congregants know, and I doubt that many would approve, but with the reality of Islamic terrorism, I do carry, particularly on major holidays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top