Isn’t there an issue that is totally being missed here? That issue in my opinion is related to the right to property vs. the right to bear arms. Irregardless of an endorsement or denunciation on the part of readers within the context of theology and patriotism, irregardless of religious history: we as a state and a country are currently secular. Even if you think differently, there is no Taliban that runs this republic. That being said, the constitution is set up to protect both the autonomy of property owners and gun owners, as long as doing so doesn’t negate the autonomy of another party. So, we currently have the right to buy assault rifles, handguns, whatever. But property owners have the right to deny your right to a CCL on their premises if it is against their wishes. “I own the property (or “we the board, presby, body of members, are responsible and liable for this property”) and I (we) prohibit or allow the exercise of that particular right while upon these premises. That is their right as property owners just as it is someones right to get a CCL.

If your opinion is that these people are wack-jobs, then campaign within your church community and government to change it. But don’t complain and give irrational opinions about an issue that is clearly within the province of law for both parties, your wasting our time.

Miss Pamela,

I’m not trying to push Christianity, but I couldn’t help responding to your idea of setting aside all earthly defenses while in church. In the New Testament, doesn’t the Messiah (Jesus, not Barack) take a whip into a Temple and drive out the crooks (moneychangers) that had set up shop? To my humble mind, it sounds like a warning that even places of worship can be scenes of criminal activity, and we should be prepared to confront it.
God Bless (am I still allowed to say that?)

Merc Man,

What really shocks me is that you somehow believe that passing a law that restricts the law-abiding will prevent criminals from engaging in violent acts.

——————————–

Most all criminals were law-abiding before that day became criminals. No one is beyond breaking the law, not even you.

Many who possess firearms only APPEAR to be law abiding citizens, it is just that they have never gotten caught or prosecuted for their crimes, some include men who possess guns and are violent people, they are violent against their wives and girlfriends, some are drunkards who have no business possessing fire arms and many are drug users.

I have been around on several occasions when one’s have had to hide people’s guns from themselves on several occasions, even a couple of police officers after they got drunk and stupid.

Many, including those who are violent against their wives are not mentally stable enough to own a gun, but they all do. For most people, it only would take all the right pieces in the right places to murder someone with a handgun if one was conveniently accessible.

Anyone who truly loves guns for just the sake of guns and there are lots of these type people out there in this country, they always appear to be not quite all there upstairs if you know what I mean. (lol).

Someone that I know recently had a date with some one and guess where he took her on a first date? A firing range to shoot guns! That is most definitely a big flying REDFLAG!.

The theological basis of self defense is based on the Biblical instruction that our bodies are God’s temple, and we are responsible for stewarding God’s temple. That responsibility includes the need to stop evil individuals from destroying our bodies - using deadly force, if necessary.

The opposite of the stewardship, self-defense principle is pacifism. Ms. Dolan articulated that principle when she urged us to “set aside all earthly defenses, physical and psychological, and give our whole selves over to God.” So, theologically God commands us to defend ourselves and others, or he doesn’t. Whichever principle is God’s will should be applied consistently. Pacifism’s abdication of the responsiblity of self-defense does not apply in church, and self-defense apply everywhere else. If pacifism is God’s will, it is a correct principle everywhere.

Armed, responsible worshipers have already saved innocent lives in churches in this nation and around the globe. I don’t believe the heroes who exercised their responsibilities to defend against evil with force were sinning. On the contrary, they were following God’s will.

Wow, suddenly the conversation took off!

I stand by my assertion: That having a “bring your guns to church day” strikes me as an unnecessary conflation of patriotism and faith is true. It’s my feeling that both the church corporate AND the church local need to be very, very careful when they start equating patriotism and faith.

Further, I stand by the principle that historically, weapons do not belong in a house of worship, and that the gravest sacrilege imaginable is committing a murder in a house of worship.

I don’t want to get into the principle of pacifism, and what it really means as opposed to it’s popular understanding. (I am not a pacifist, by the way)

What is jumping out is the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the giving up of “earthly defenses” while in the church.

I appreciate what Pamela is sharing here. It does not refer to the abdicating of responsibility. Nobody is suggesting leaving the flock unattended.

All effort is made to insure it is a safe place for those within so we may, as much as is worldly possible, experience safety and refuge in the place built for being in the presence of God.

If that means a law and sign at the door prohibiting firearms or if it means metal detectors then so be it. Nobody enters with a weapon. Each church as a body may determine for themselves what action is appropriate to insure that safe place.

The rules of sanctuary are old and time honored.

If your proposal for sanctuary is to arm those within, it occurs to me as more of an ambush than an act of power and strength.

Why would you bring your women and children into a space that is so unsafe you feel compelled to conceal a weapon on yourself? To me, that occurs as irresponsible.

The only “Truth” content in this conversation as well as the article is the truth of media attempting to persuade popular opinion. The article hints of leftist leaning in subtle ways (”the pastor this article interviews is a pretty far-out, the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh character.), as if a persons escatological beliefs provides its own credibility, almost as if there was some consensus theologically about what Christians “should” believe. This is bullshit, there is consensus, consensus among those on the left, and among those on the right, and they both try to pass themselves and their separate beliefs as being the genuine article, but the truth is that neither group can stand the idea that they both may have points that are totally untenable for the rest of the world, and so they call us (the moderates) extreme or uneducated. If educated means that elevated position upon which a few percent of the peer-reviewed, scientific community sit, then perhaps it is you who are uneducated to be so pompass as to espouse your presuppositions as the facts of this human life. The truth is that there is no easy answer, no general sweeping conclusion that can be set into law, this is the simplicity that humans covet, but wisdom must be chased and hunted down most of the time.

This whole discussion embodies two groups(one including a paper), and their mutual effort to persuade the body politic into advocacy of their presuppositions by using so-called “trends that are entirely sensational. Would you call the church-shootings a “trend”… go to Darfur and see a real “trend”. It has nothing to do with the “truth” of our laws concerning guns and property. If it did, then why would you care? Who’s business is it what people decide to do with their time and property so long as they do not violate the autonomy of another.

In a relative society it is true that given the right set of circumstances any person could commit criminal behavior. But the truth is that given those circumstances it would not require the possession of a firearm. So do we then deny all the arguments for possessing weapons for purposes such as civil liberty, self-defense and sportsmanship from the possibility that a crime could be committed with a firearm? On the flip-side, just because our constitution gives us the right to bear arms, specifically so that we could defend ourselves from a despotic form of government, does that then lead to the irrational conclusion that civilians should have the right to possess the same weapons as the modern army? The answer is no to both on the principle of autonomy.

The great victory that the media is achieving by this article among others is in its duality, us vs. them, tribalist vs. globalist. There can be no compromise, which happens to be necessary for the perpetuation of our plural society.

Spirituality is a funny thing. Just because I’m praying and listening for the still small voice in my heart, doesn’t mean that the fella who walks in with evil on his mind and in his heart is. Oh I’m sure he’s listening alright, but it ain’t to the voice of God.

I don’t see how submitting to the violence that one would bring on the people is in anyway spiritual, moral or ethical. And while we may seek to give ourselves wholely to God, we shouldn’t loose sight of the fact that this is still the world of the physical.

I would say do not confuse the act of violence that deprives with a violent act that preserves. The two are not compatable. The former is an action that inflicts a violent act on others against their will which comes from a source of anger, fear and hatred of others. The latter is an violent act motivated from love of others.

Should we stand helpless as sheep at the slaughter, allowing the evil amoug us to murder us freely? How is that an act of love, if the purpose of spiritual growth is to act with love in all things. We are taught to love our enemies (those who would hate us). I don’t believe that means we should allow them to freely kill us. And the greatest problem with the mass murderer types is that they rarely murder only those who are the focus of their hate, they murder many who are in no way connected to the fantasy they are acting out and forcing the innocent around them to participate it.

When asked why he chose non violence to resist the British, Gandi, another apostle of non violence said that non violence would work against the British because they were decent chaps, the method wouldn’t work against the Russians.

In the end, when someone walks into a church and begins shooting people, I doubt it is God they are looking for, and that is certainly not the time to try to discuss it with them.

So, if an armed assailant enters church and starts shooting– which has happened several times in the last 12 months– your advice is to simply allow people to be murdered en masse?

The reasons gunmen pick churches and schools is because they are easy, soft targets.

I am a liberal and grew up thinking guns should be out of reach except to law enforcement. But I know now that law enforcement cannot protect me or my church from lawless predators. The question I would like you to answer is how churches should protect themselves.

It’s not like people are going to openly carry firearms in churches; it would be that trained, law abiding persons might or might not be exercising their concealed carry permit.

to the extent that mass shooters are uncertain as to whether or not there are people operating with concealed carry, is the extent that a shooter will avoid a church, school, or other location.

Logic. Think it through. And give us an answer, please.

==
According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, churches around the country are holding “church safety” seminars that sometimes include encouraging people to show up armed on Sunday. “As more shootings at houses of worship make headlines,” it states,

churches around the country are stepping up security, training their staff on how to detect and confront violent assailants, and asking congregants with licenses to carry guns during services.

Sorry, but the dynamic is the same no matter where guns are prohibited - unarmed people can be slaughtered at will. A person committed to killing is not detered by gun prohibitions.

Your idealistic sensibilities regarding the “sanctity” of the church viz guns are misguided, and as has already been pointed out above, can get you and others around you killed.

Regardless of your “feelings” on this issue, facts are facts, prey are prey, and predators are predators, and your noble sentiment is about a half-bubble off-center.