The Handgun Challenge
Posted by admin on Dec 13th, 2007
2007
Dec 13
For those watchdoggies out there who agree with Chris P when he said:
Anyway I can see what kind of Christ you worship, the kind that blows people away.
I have a question.
You are living in a culture that only exists by virtue of men with large guns standing by to make sure that evil men don’t hurt you. Your taxes pay for them, and you live the comfy, nerfy lives you do only because of them. How can you justify statements Chris P made while living in the exact same scenario multiplied by millions of times?
December 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Luke 22: 36-38:
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
It also doesn’t seems like this church had a pacifist slant to begin with, if a church with a fierce theology of pacifism had armed guards, I’d object, but this is a church that appears to allow people who serve in the armed forces and the police etc. to be in leadership, so it doesn’t seem to be contrary to their beliefs, I could be wrong of course.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I like Derrik Webb’s song:
“How can I kill the one’s I’m supposed to love?”
What was Chris P.’s entire statement? What did he mean?
December 13th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
We could easily re-hash that as “How can I not protect the ones I love”. But its really neither here nor there. The question still remains: if you live in a society that only exists by virtue of police officers and soldiers complaining about a security guard is straining at gnats while swallowing several herds of camels.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
It’s kind of like the people that claim the Bush administration is “taking away their rights”. If it were really as bad as they said, they wouldn’t even be able to say what they are saying.
We live in a world governed by force, for the most part. It’s been that way for a long time. I don’t think God wants to use violence, but it He is able to bring about good from bad circumstances.
Also, I would think that properly trained security guards would only turn to violence as a last resort. I guess one argument people would use is that if we trust God, we shouldn’t need security guards. We have other forms of protection on church buildings, though. I doubt that these people’s churches leave their doors unlocked at night.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Yeah but according to Romans the purpose of the government is for protection and justice. Is this the role for the church? Not saying that gaurds where bad, it turns out that it was a really, really wise dicesion. It prevents all sorts of crimes. I am sure this was not what New Life expected when they start having guards. Although I have been to many large churches I never new they had security but it does make sense there is a lot of money in churches like tv, electornics ect…
By this logic
“if you live in a society that only exists by virtue of police officers and soldiers complaining about a security guard is straining at gnats while swallowing several herds of camels.”
The only place I could protest the wars of America would be in Switerland. Also then I could never complain of the off duty cops at high schools and there abuse of power.
If church start arming like secular governments then we will be fighting like the church was in 16-18th centuries. Not good.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Gentlemen,
I think you should look at this.
Thanks.
See this also
I can’t stay. But you might give some credit for this.
So long.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I saw a very gracious and balanced approach posted on CRN and for that I am grateful. Tragedy should bind us together, always.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Kyle,
Well, part of the problem is when you define the church as a building. The Western church is a bit of an anomoly because we actually have nice building with fancy sound systems that we have to worry about. Our brothers in sisters in many other places are lucky if they have a building with a roof over it.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Stanley Hauerwas:
I rarely, if ever, have agreed with Chris P.
But I think he is right on this one.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Yeah but we are talking about New Life church. Not the complete body of Chirst. We are talking about the visible church not the invisible church. Building are where the church meets not the church, so when we talk about New Life church we can rightly talk about the building and the stuff in the building along with the people in the building because that is where the local church meets for worship.
Good quote Dave, Amen!
December 13th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Kyle,
Well, I’m not exactly what point you’re actually arguing now, really.
My point, that I been making poorly, is that it seems to me that western churches wouldn’t need to worry so much about security issues if we weren’t so busy storing up treasures on earth. I’m not saying that sound systems and other things are wrong, but just that the more stuff we have, the more complicated our life becomes.
I do agree with the quote Dave posted, but I can’t say I agree with Chris P. because he was putting words in peoples’ mouths. No one said what he said they were saying.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Sorry… should have been a bit more clear.
I agree - no one is saying that they believe in a God that “blows people way.” And Chris P continues his intellectual dishonesty.
But I do agree with his concerns about what played out with a church security guard killing someone.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Thanks Rick
December 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
This is a silly thread. Whether we like or not the Bible seems to allow the idea of arming yourself up to the working of the Holy Spirit’s work in your conscience. I personally don’t know how I feel about using force to stop people but the Bible doesn’t seem to address it all that plainly. Jesus never said anything to the Roman Soldier about leaving the army (that we’re told anyhow). So, if you don’t think churches should have armed security guards, don’t go to one that does.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Jesus never said anything to the Roman Soldier about leaving the army
I am not going to make this a post about pacifism, so I will ignore the true implications of this comment.
But do you really not see a difference between an army and a church?
December 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I am not sure either!:)
You said that I was defing the church wrong. I am sure we meant the same thing. I agree with all of that! Although there will still be crazies who want to kill and will christians there always are. Also I know James White office was broken into a couple of times and he does not have some lavish office with gold toliets! So I think guards are good or at least someone to watch over the things of the church, we are stewards regardless of the size and wealth of the church.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I find myself, in strange territory. I actually agree with Joe.
I think I have backslidden. Don’t get used to it!
December 13th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Here’s what I know:
1. I’m not sure I can find anything in the Bible that says it is wrong to defend the innocent
2. I can find verses that talk about turning the other cheek and about defending the helpless.
3. I am not sure how I feel about this situation and I certainly don’t know what I’d do in that situation until I was there.
4. This to me seems to be a clear situation for grace and to him who it is sin, it is sin type of thing.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Joe is correct. However, lets understand that a civilization is fundamentally built on the defense of the innocent through the use of (and the threat of) deadly force. If you take the stand that it is wrong for a Christian to defend the innocent through the use of deadly force then you are essentially counting on non-Christians to sin in order to keep you from being raped, murdered, mutilated, and other wise victimized. I would think that would be an untenable situation for anyone who believes sin is, well, sin.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Let’s assume for this argument that the guy who did this was captured and was sentenced to death . What would the Christian response be?
December 13th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
What is the original context here - was Chris P. making a critical comment against New Life having security?
If that is the case, at some point I think ya just let stupidity play itself out…
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Lets save the death penalty argument for a thread that’s about the death penalty.
Its bound to de-rail from the conversation.
And yes Chris P. was being critical of the presence of an armed guard.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Tim
It is the sole reponsibilty of the government to “bear the sword” God judges poeple and nations through governments.
Romans 13
3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Chris
The death penalty is a great question! I am not sure.
1.The bible does say that the death penalty is justified in the case of murder. Which is just, the child rapist that raped and buried alive Jessica down in FL deserves death.
2.On the other hand there is redemption for people in jail. If they live the Lord might grant them repantenace. The movie about “tookie” called Redemption starring Jamie Foxx made me think twice and see that people can gain redemption even if there crime was horrific.
So I think both poistion are very valid for any christian or person. What do you all think about the death pen.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Tim,
OK, if he says NL should not have had an armed guard does he propose an alternative? Should they have canceled their meeting instead? Should they have allowed the guy to kill as many as he wanted? What alternative does he offer?
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I though I heard that they are not armed all the time, but on that day see brought the gun because of the shooting at YWAM?
December 13th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Here’s the logical fallacy in your argument Kyle (if you’re arguing that Biblically the church was wrong).
The government who has “the sole reponsibilty[sic] of the government to “bear the sword†God judges poeple and nations through governments.” has given citizens and organizations the right to partake in that responsibility. In other words the government has said that as long as people will be licensed then they are in effect our representative in this situation. So your argument can be used for both sides of this discussion.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Kyle,
The scriptures are clear that the government is to “bear the sword.” But it does not say that the responsibility is solely their’s.
Besides, even if you take the argument to your extreme, I would argue that the government has sub-contracted their responsibility by legally allowing armed guards. The fact that the government allows such a thing is tacit approval on their behalf, therefore they are maintaining their responsibility.
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I think Joe and I are making the same point…
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Neil,
I believe he agrees with the article posted by Silva in which it is posited that armed guards are an affront to God because God has willed Christians to die by random acts of violence. Interestingly enough no commentary was found on the evils of doctors or seatbelts.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I am not saying the church is wrong. i think they are very wise to have stewards(security). And yes it is the soley responsibilty of the governments to carry God’s wrath in this world. Always has been always will be. Even in the OT the nations where the judgement of God. Outside of speacial intervention on God’s part.
Cops are part of the government. But it is not the churchs duty to burn people at the stake it is the governments! If it is not please so me in the bible?
December 13th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Kyle,
You lost me
December 13th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I didn’t see Silva attached to that anywhere - but YIKES! - that’s one sick blogger… I wonder what disturbers God more; that a church had an armed guard, to that someone abuses his word so…
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
So the church should have:
a) hired a government employee, or
b) let someone kill thei people as he wills
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Kyle, I think whatever you are arguing may be very clear to you but not so much to the people reading your writing.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Kyle,
I assume your logic goes like this:
1.It’s the gov’t’s role, and their only to enforce with guns (bear the sword)
2. Cops work for the gov’t so that’s w/i the realm
3. Security guards are hired by private companies, therefore they have no biblical right to carry the sword.
Let me know if I misrepresent your logic.
1. I think the logic faulty since the Bible does not state that it is only the governments role - you are reading that into the Timothy passage
2. By legally allowing and condoning private companies to provide gun-carrying-guards, the government is by extension fulfilling this role - in other words, even though she was not paid by the govt, she was acting under their authority.
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I feel dirty even arguing this…
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
She probably has a license that says something to that effect as well.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
My point exactly Joe - assuming she was licensed to carry the firearm, she was acting under the government’s authority.
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
True pacifism is a road fraught with hypocrisy. If you believe it wrong to have armed guards on a church campus, then if you call the police to shoot an intruder you are using them in the same capacity.
There are some nuances about this issue, but to protect women and children seems to be Biblical. If you are willing to detach completely from the world and its trappings, study the Amish. They would never carry firearms to protect their children and they genuinely forgave the man that murdered ten of their girls. Until you are willing to allow your children to be that vunerable, and you will forgive their murderer, you might want to protect them.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Tim,
That was at CRN, but I don’t think that Silva posted that tripe. I went round and round with the author yesterday (see for yourself).
Careful. Wouldn’t want someone to accuse you of bad research…
December 13th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
True pacifism is a road fraught with hypocrisy.
True pacifism?
I don’t get it… you say true pacifism is fraught with hypocrisy, then give an example (the Amish) where their true pacifism is not hypocritical.
True pacifism is not hypocritical. Pacifism, when not lived out in a full and true way, can be and often is hypocritical.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
That was my point. It is all or nothing. The Amish have made a legitimate commitment. The hypocrisy is not in the concept, it usually surfaces in us as we compromise.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I think the guard was wise.
I think the guard was right in stopping the perp(she did not kill him btw).
It is never the responsibility of the church to carry of the judgement and the wrath of God.
I am not saying that a christian is not allowed to defend himself or other people when attacked.
That passage was from Romans btw and it is pretty clear that governments are used as the wrath of God.
If you read the previous post in this one you will see I think that it is wise to have guards to protect what God has given us.
She was protecting people and acted wisely in protecting the church. I have never stated that she was wrong in doing this. But it in NEVER the reponsiblity of the church to judge the world through force.
Please tell me what I am saying wrong and where my theology is wrong on this one?
thnx guys
December 13th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Neil why do you make fun of me and why do you think I am not who I say I am.
I didn’t see Silva attached to that anywhere - but YIKES! - that’s one sick blogger…
Was this about me.?
December 13th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Relax Kyle, he was talking about the dude at endtheapostacy. SHeesh
December 13th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
OK:). I just know a lot of you guys can get a little unfriendly.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I have to run for the evening, but I will add this one thing before I go. I think that one can be a pacifist and still resist. Nonviolent resistance isn’t just automatically make one a complete doormat. Also, I find it interesting that Ghandi said that it is better for a person to be violent than to be cowardly. True non-violent resistance means being truly willing to die to protect others.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
SJ,
I didn’t mean that he wrote it as the author, I meant that he linked to it approvingly.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Kyle,
Thanks for the correction - Romans… Doh!
And Joe is right, what I found “sick” was that blogger using Psalm 139 against the security guard.
Nothing against you….
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Jesus Christ did not condone the use of violence. The church and the civil governments of the earth are not the same thing.
I asked before, what about the church in nations where they are not allowed to defend themselves? What about the churches in this nation that do not have the wherewithal to hire armed security. Obviously they are not big enough or important enough. As Chris L said, THEY are holding back this present darkness, so I guess the rest of us can go home.
The only reason any of this gets publicity is the fact that it is a mega church and Ted Haggard was the pastor there. Every newspaper article mentioned Ted and his transgressions, even in the first reports of the shootings.
The only reason any of you care is that CRN is involved.
Any chance to dogpile. Don’t ever accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
One day the authorities who bear the sword will turn it on the genuine church.
Let the government do its work and let the church do theirs.
And you accuse the odms of being roman catholic. You folks, along with the rest of evangelicalism are heading for the biggest Roman,i.e. Babylonian revival ever.
http://www.loveyourenemies.org/sword.html
December 13th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Chris P,
All of your concerns were already addressed in prior comments IN THIS THREAD.
But, then again, you’re not really all that concerned with a legitimate discussion, are you?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Chris P.
You use logic so poorly. Your question, “What about countries where they’re not allowed to defend themselves” is logically flawed and borders on being dumb.
By that logic we could also say it is wrong to meet in any building and advertise our meetings. Maybe your anger at this site blinds you to thinking through what you write, but I believe you are far smarter than this comment sounds.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
As we showed above - the guard, if licensed, was acting as a government agent by proxy…
Neil
December 13th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Chris P. - Your comments are without mercy and the hints of prophetic insights are…incredulous.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Rick,
You’ve been gone from NY too long
December 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Actually, I had already started an article on the shootings before I saw the thing at CRN. I found out about it because my in-laws (from Colorado) were talking about it when I got home from work on Monday, and I saw the woman on the news. (if you read the first article, I mentioned some of this)
It was the article at CRN that led me to scrap most of the original article because of the nasty and callous tone.
I’m not sure what your deal is right now, dude, but you need to dial it back a few notches…
December 14th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Here’s another one for you guys to chew on, it’s a big subject in our Bible Study ministry from time to time.
Most of my Christian friends and myself are in the US military.
Our job is to kill people and break their stuff, ultimately.
There are some Christians out there who would say we’re not saved, just because of who we work for, and our job description.
I don’t want to kill, and I know MURDER is a sin, but what about fighting a war where other men are trying to kill me and my friends? That’s not murder, not as defined by the 10 commandments at least. Any cursory reading of the OT and NT will show the difference between killing and murder.
I work for the government, does that mean it’s not murder for me to kill those I fight against? Since the government has the sword, and I work for them, it’s not wrong for me to kill those I’m told to, is it?
This guard who shot this man, she did her job, she saved countless lives, and put herself in the line of fire to do it. That’s Kingdom servanthood, right there. Her skills with a gun, and her cool/calm persona (all given by God, by the way, who gives all gifts and good things) enabled her to be in the right place at the right time to save lives, to which I’m sure all the saved lives thanked God endlessly for His MERCY. If this is so, how can this be wrong, it was obviously orchestrated by God for His infinite purposes and love. She works for the government vicariously, is she justified in her violence, in order to be a saving force of God?
Is anyone willing to come out and say “This was not of God, she was not used by God, she sinned”? Is anyone willing to say “She was used by God, but she sinned by shooting”? I think this one would be a bit more problematic.
How is that situation different from all of us troops fighting for the lives of those who sit in this country all comfy in self-righteous judgment against violence?
What’s worse, to hate your brothers, or save a life by ending another?
Maybe because I have to think about these things everyday, it’s very close to my heart, and so I might be biased, but can anyone make a real case against defending the innocent?
Just some thoughts and reflective questions.
Joe
December 14th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Joe,
You make some very good points. I think that where we are to “lay down our arms” is when we are specifically being oppressed by the powers of this present darkness - our government, in particular - as a direct result of our faith, particularly when given the choice between renouncing the faith or accepting persecution.
Aside from that, self defense, or in defense of the innocent - be it personal or on behalf of the government - is not scripturally prohibited.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Joe C,
Well you kind of open a can of worms with these questions.
First, I would start with this. Up until Augustine came up with the Just War Theory, Christians typically did not serve in the military as a rule. There are actually stories of whole legions of the Roman army getting saved and laying down their weapons and refusing to fight.
I’m not saying that we need to make a blanket statement that it is always wrong for Christians to be in the military. My dad is actually a retired Army chaplain, so I have respect for people in the military. I just think a Christian really needs to check his heart before signing up for the military.
As far as carrying and using weapons, it seems that is something we can leave up to a person’s conscience as well. I don’t think anyone should condemn this woman for what she did. It was probaby a situation that most people would have reacted in the same way given the chance.
So I guess my answer is I don’t know all the answers to your questions. We all have to search our hearts.
One good book I would recommend on this subject is The Powers That Be by Walter Wink. It’s a pretty quick read, but it gives a good overview on the historic Christian perspective on violence and use of force.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:08 am
I wasn’t a Christian when I signed my life up. I love the Military, it’s great, but it is modern day slavery. Under punishment of imprisonment, you serve once you sign the dotted line. If you don’t, you go to jail. If it’s a time of war, and you run away, you get put to death. Does it sound familiar to any parts of the Bible? Paul wrote something to Philemon about it I think…=)
Consider this then, and tell me if it changes the field a bit:
A couple points to bring up. It’s obvious from this that if you’re in a certain binding circumstance when you become a Christian, stay. If you can get out, get out. But God puts us in certain circumstances. Also, we should not become slaves of men, so I would agree with you in saying that a Christian needs to give MUCH thought to joining the military. But for those of us who have become Christian after being in the military, the course for us is clear in these verses I think.
I am a slave of the United States Government. The only difference being, I joined of my own free will, (bond servant is a better term), and I enjoy fighting for my country and for the innocent lives inside of it. Now I find myself years later, a Christian, under a yoke. But it’s my job, and I’m paid for it, and I work with my hands, and provide for my family. What’s my course of action, you know?
Just a little perspective.
Joe
December 14th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Joe C.,
I pretty much agree with what you’re saying, but I think I would be careful in extracting too much out of that text in Philemon. It seems to me Paul is being pretty specific about applying that to slaves and free men. You have to remember that slavery, or some form of it, was very common in those days. It was probably pretty common for slaves to become Christians. Paul is telling them to not run away or revolt.
I think that’s a bit difference for us who actually do most of the choice of our vocation. I mean if someone who owned a strip club or adult bookstore got saved we would expect them to get a new line of work, wouldn’t we? It seems that we can use common sense, and I think we always have to evaluate what we are doing in light of Scripture.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Joe C. - Great questions. I think your “If you cannot get out then stay - If you can get out - do” is solid advise. My personal opinion is I have no government but Christ’s. I could not be paid to represent militarily the interests of the US government.
Having said that I also want to say I admire those belivers who do put their lives on the line and my position in no way detracts from them. Many soldiers have led others to Christ as well, a testament to God’s wonderful grace.
God bless you Joe C.!
December 14th, 2007 at 10:42 am
The Military is a cess-pool of immorality and antichrist, believe it or not. It’s a ripe harvest field, and I’ve seen many come to the faith, and many be trained to be fruitful and disciple makers too. It’s for this reason I stick around as I do, I feel called to minister in this respect. Plus, I work at the military chapel as a musician, so…that’s helpful to my congregation (I hope).
Phil you make a great point about the porn shop owner. I never thought of it that way. Where do we draw the line though? Porn is evil because of the adultery and lust is causes, and the denigration of the human body and God’s design for sex. But the military…what about it? Can we get some labels on it that prove it’s sinful just like a porn shop, and I shouldn’t stay? I just really don’t know.
I think Paul IS being specific in the verses I cited, but as I showed you, we in the military really are slaves to the system. Since there really is no modern day Biblical slavery, because stuff changes in 2000 years, how does that verse apply to us now, and what can we learn from it?
Paul was calling these slaves not to revolt, rebell against their masters, be un Christ like. This is no different than what I’m dealing with. How can I be a light in a dark place? What’s my calling? Am I to stay or go? What is good for God?
Rick, you said something interesting…
My government is Christ’s as well. But as a job, I serve the country I live in, I can’t help that right now.
With that said, I respect your opinion, and I think it’s the best one for a Christian to take if they’re NOT in the military already. However…
Someone has to fight for the country we are free in, right?
Otherwise we’d all be…
British, Confederates, Mexicans, Spanish, German, Nazis, Communist, or Facist Muslims.
Who here would want to be any of those? I’d rather be an American hypocrite and be free, than be any of those. Well..the Brits, Mexicans, and Spaniards aren’t so bad =)
But most of all, and first of all, I will be Christian and serve Christ. If my country refuses to let me do that, then I’d rather die. If the military keeps me from practicing my faith in all aspects, then I’ll go to jail. That’s my line. I think it’s Biblical.
Love,
Joe