Wednesday, 10 June 2009
-
Church Invites Members to Bring Unloaded Guns to Service
Not too long ago, there was a feature post about whether or not guns should be allowed in worship services. Here's a news article that takes it one step further: Gun Loving PastorA Kentucky pastor is inviting his flock to bring guns to church to celebrate the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment.
New Bethel Church is welcoming "responsible handgun owners" to wear their firearms inside the church June 27, a Saturday. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.
"We're just going to celebrate the upcoming theme of the birth of our nation," said pastor Ken Pagano. "And we're not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms — without that this country wouldn't be here."
The article goes with usual discussion about the constitution and God and our country. There will be a security check at the door, and guns will be required to be unloaded. Also, they say the event was planned months before Dr. George Tiller was murdered and bringing a canned good for a friend is encouraged.
Here's the part that I want to focus on:
He said the point was not to mix worship with guns, though he may reference some passages from the Bible.
"Firearms can be evil and they can be useful," he said. "We're just trying to promote responsible gun ownership and gun safety."
Even IF one feels bringing weapons into a worship service is okay, how can one set up an event such as this, reference passages from the Bible, and still say the point is not to mix worship and guns?
So, let's pretend someone in your church brings up this idea.
Would your church support "Bring-an-unloaded-gun-to-church Sunday?"
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: BookMark61@xanga
- Name: Brett
- About Me: Theology, sociology and psychology fascinate me. Why do we hold the views we do?
-
True Premium
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 13 Views: 0 7556 Comments: 0 571 View all posts by BookMark61@xanga
Comments (78)
@Theophilus166@xanga - Please note that there is a difference between self-defense and defense-of-others. I highly suggest you differentiate before a bunch of mothers with children start ripping into your comment and tearing you... ...
... too late: @Lynnflo@xanga - What do you think, Theophilius... she's got a point, eh?
@Ork58 - Perhaps the sole purpose of a gun is not killing in today's society, where marksmanship/sports comes into play. But if you want to defend guns on the premise of 'our heritage', then sure- go back to 1776 or 1865. Guns were definitely not created for sport, they were created to kill game, use in self-defense, and for war. That looks like killing to me.
I see your point, but a gun will still always mean killing to people, since that's what people have used historically to kill. Just because there are Nascar races nowadays doesn't mean that the primary use of cars has suddenly switched from transportation to racing. Racing exists, but the fundamental use of a car is still transportation. As the fundamental use of a gun is still to kill.
I do agree that simply owning or carrying a gun does not make one a cold-blooded killer, and other weapons can be used for murder, etc. I have hunted on our family farm ever since I was 13 years old, and harvested over a dozen deer in my lifetime. I believe guns should be allowed, but I'm all for more training, licensing, and regulations. A gun is still the easiest, quickest way to kill; and requires little or no training from an individual to do so; unlike most other weapons.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - I don't think that your answer squares with the Catholic faith in any real sense. According to the Council of Trent, they are an effective means of preventing violations of the fifth commandment. Anything can be used for good or for evil. If ever anybody comes into my house to try to harm my family, I will make sure that that doesn't happen. And I will do it by discharging a firearm.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.
From the Roman Catechism (from the Council of Trent):
If a man kill another in self-defence, having used every means consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this Commandment.
-@Lynnjynh9315@xanga - @Lynnflo@xanga - I don't think we have a right to use violence self-defense. I think we have at our disposal a large number of peaceful methods, but I don't see violence as a God-given means of defending ourselves. I'm not going to differentiate between 'mothers with children' and others. Jesus didn't use violence in his own defense, the apostles didn't use violence in their own defense, and for the first 300 years, the church didn't use violence in their defense.
This pastor has really lost his marbles I reckon - what has guns got to do with worship? Unless you plan to gun-butt your pew neighbour as a sign of peace leave it at home. Jesus didn't break bread with a Kalashnikov yea? Nevermind it didn't exist then but guns have never been a symbol of peace or love - last I remembered it was a dove. And for the record, guns don't kill people - idiots with guns do.
I don't think that it is such a good idea, although I don't have a problem with concealed-weapon permit holders bringing their concealed guns to church. I know of two men off of the top of my head that bring their guns to church because they have the permit. I'm glad they carry their guns with them in church.
@Theophilus166@xanga - But wouldn't you say that the times have changed?
@Theophilus166@xanga - Then you'd also say that Jesus wouldn't use violence to protect his children? He gave his life for us- so I find it hard to believe he'd draw a line at violence. Jesus didn't offer us up to the devil- so please try to find me one place and scripture where God decided not to protect us.
@Lynnjynh9315@xanga - Exactly. Jesus laid down his life for us. That's what I believe we're called to do in the face of violence. Not stand by and do nothing, but lay down our lives for those we love. In John 10, that's what Jesus said he came to do. Not to kill the aggressor, but to lay down his life. In John 15, he said that there is no greater love than one willing to lay down his life, and it's repeated in I John 3:16. Jesus told us to love our enemies, and rather than return evil for evil, to do good to them. Does that somehow not apply if they're trying to hurt us? And if it doesn't apply if they're trying to hurt us, when does it apply?
You asked me for a reference in which God does not protect us, yet you're arguing for our right to protect ourselves. I believe that God can protect us in the face of violence, if he so chooses. Yet when we take up our weapons to defend ourselves, not only are we violating his command to love our enemies, we're showing that we don't trust Him to protect us. If Jesus told us to do good to those who try to harm us, and to love our enemies, we must conclude if we really trust God and take Him at His word, we will renounce violence against our enemies.
@EvrybdyClapUrhands@xanga - I'm not sure what "the times have changed" even means in regards to guns and violence. Violence happened then, it happened now. To not use violence back then seemed like a foolish thing, and to most it still seems that way. But that was the way of Jesus.
@Theophilus166@xanga - You asked me for a reference in which God does not protect us, yet you're arguing for our right to protect ourselves.
WRONG. I'm trying to understand why you seem to think WE should offer the lives of OTHERS up to the aggressor. I never said anything about our right- existent or not- to protect ourselves. I was specifically talking about our right to protect the ones we love. I can remember no place in the Bible where God seems to think that some moral code against violence is more important than the lives of his people. God never offered up the lives of his children- why is it that we should?
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Glad you caught the canned food comment!
@LoBornlite@xanga - "...the Bible does not advocate rallying around any weapon other than faith."
I like how you worded that.
@Lynnjynh9315@xanga - God seems to have no problem allowing the children he loves be killed at the hands of evil people. It's what happened to His son, the disciples, and countless believers throughout history.
It's also not fair to refer to my view of not using violence as "offering up the lives of others to the aggressor." It's simply a straw man argument. I believe that we as Christians are to do everything we can to protect people against those who try to harm them - as long as we don't use violence. Violence simply isn't a tool at the disposal of the church. Nowhere in the New Testament are christians encouraged to use violence. They are, however, told to love their enemies and be willing to lay down their lives.
Your commented that there isn't "some moral code against violence is more important than the lives of his people." These arguments you offer are simply based on your own view of God, rather than scripture. You haven't addressed Jesus' commands to love our enemies. You simply say that life is important (which I agree with) therefore we can use violence to defend it (which is clearly NOT the message of Jesus in the New Testament.) In light of all the New Testament scriptures about loving our enemies and doing good to those who do evil (Romans 12), how in the world can you justify violence? It seems to be an argument based on human logic rather than scripture.
if you think about all the potential negative things that guns can cause it seems a bit insensitive and selfish to be wrapped up in celebrating our rights
yes, we have certain rights and it is something to be happy about
and yes, there are responsible gun owners that also help promote and uphold gun safety and education
but what about all the tragedies and accidents that are associated with guns? is this celebration done in love? or more for selfish/self-absorbed reasons?
Why a gun?
Why not a rose to symbolize America?
@Faerie_In_Combat_Boots@xanga -
I think they should use cheeseburgers to symbolize America. :)
@Lynnflo@xanga -
I do agree with you that I think this is a bad idea, but more in the sense that it's mostly going to be distracting to the service, and about something God probably isn't too interested in. I suppose one could even attempt to make the "idolatry argument".
But as far as safety goes, I doubt it would be any less safe that it normally would be without all the guns. Sure, "what if" somebody was able to sneak in a couple bullets... but what if they had been able to sneak in a loaded gun during any other service? It doesn't seem like it would be any harder. If someone indeed had nefarious motives, it's not like this will present an opportunity they were lacking before. It's pretty easy to get a gun ANYWHERE, assuming the place doesn't have metal detectors and/or they don't pat you down and search your stuff first.
The second amendment doesn't support use of personal firearms.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - Right, it doesn't. But good luck convincing people of that.
@MysteriumFidei@xanga - I understand the position on self defense, but these are separate issues. Just because I oppose guns, that does not mean I oppose people defending themselves. I know you would say, well what if I need to defend myself from someone with a gun. I am not expressing a practical idea here, it is a personal opposition to guns. I know the law says people can have them, I know they cannot just be removed, but that doesn't mean I am going to just give up my moral opposition. The Church supports self defense, of course, as Scripture does. But Jesus didn't have a position on guns, as far as I know. I think if you asked him, he would say this rock can kill, but it was created by the Father. This knife can kill, but it can also help to feed the hungry. This gun was created by man to kill and I don't approve.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - "Just because I oppose guns, that does not mean I oppose people defending themselves."
What's the point of being pro-self-defence if you cannot use effective means to do so? It's like saying, "Yeah, women should be allowed to protect themselves from rapists, as long as they don't use pepper spray or anything that harms the rapist." Where did these rules come from? I understand if you have a personal problem with guns, but if it's a personal issue, then you shouldn't be trying to invoke the teachings of the Church in your defence. The Church has no problem with law-abiding citizens doing whatever they can to protect themselves.
@MysteriumFidei@xanga - I don't recall invoking the teaching of the Church. I quoted the 5th Commandment, which hasn't changed, as far as I know. Please show me where I did so.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The above is the 2nd amendment. It seems pretty clear to me that their intent was gun-use for only a well regulated militia. This is for obviously practical purposes; by allowing people to purchase guns and use them for warfare, the states saved alot of money that would've otherwise went to purchasing guns for the militia men.
@Theophilus166@xanga - I know you aren't commenting this stuff to me, but I thought I would give my opinion :)
God did have a big problem when His children suffered from the hands of the evil. God had to forsake His ONLY Son. That wouldn't be easy, and it's clear that it pained Him to do so.
"I believe that we as Christians are to do everything we can to protect people against those who try to harm them - as long as we don't use violence." What are we to use if we don't use violence? The Bible does clearly say that we are to seek justice. Who knows, maybe a gun would be used in the serving of that justice. What do you suggest our police officers to use? Is that not the same thing?
@EvrybdyClapUrhands@xanga - It's rather sad that we don't know what else to use other than violence. Study the life of Jesus. Study Gandhi. Study Martin Luther King. They all had a number of nonviolent methods. We can talk. We can negotiate. We can boycott. We can stage sit-ins. We can simply refuse to fight back. Could it lead to our death? Yes. But it could if we use violence as well. We all know that wars have resulted in countless deaths. It's also fair to point out that more people died a couple days of race riots in the 60's than in the entire ten years of MLK's nonviolent approach.
As far as police officers, I think that it's best if we as Christians leave violence to the state. I think that's exactly what Paul was saying in Romans 12-13. At the end of chapter 12, he tells people to love their enemies and do good to those who practice evil, "leaving room for God's wrath." Then at the beginning of chapter 13, he discusses the state as one of the "agents of God's wrath." So if we want to leave room for God's wrath, it means leaving the punishment of evil to the state.
@lomal@xanga - agreed. that is the point after all.