This isn't that uncommon anymore. One of the larger Baptist churches in my area hosted a get together with all interested churches in the area to discuss church security--everything from locking doors so that anyone arriving once the service started would have to come in through the foyer, which would have a deacon or ussher watching to greet them, or warn others if it's a shooter, to having armed deacons and members if a church so desired.
We did all of this after the Unitarian Church shooting in Knoxville which happened while I was living there.
As for the "turn the other cheek" question, since we got only a short clip of the pastor's answer here, and I don't know what else he said, I'll give my own.
In the context that Jesus said "turn the other cheek" He was addressing various misunderstandings of the Old Testament as they had been interpreted by the Pharisees. He opens this part of the Sermon on the Mount by saying that He is not here to destroy the old Law of Moses, but to fulfill it. He then goes on to quote parts of it and then address the wrong interpretations and give new ones. E.g. Warning that Murder begins with hatred in one's heart for one's brother, and Adultery with lust, and that one is already in sin by indulging in these thoughts, not only by acting on them.
Some parts require some contextual understanding, such as the command against swearing which requires an understanding that Jews at the time considered an oath in God's name to be unbreakable, but thought there was weasel room in oaths by the earth, the Temple, Jerusalem, etc.
Similarly, in the Turn the Other Cheek command, people were using the Eye for an Eye and Tooth for a Tooth language of Moses' law, which had been intended to limit punishment to that which fit the crime (e.g. no death penalty for smacking one's social better), but people were using it to justify avenging themselves for every insult, and so Jesus tells them to take the insult (a slap on the cheek) and to take another on top of it.
This doesn't mean that Jesus taught that the government is not supposed to exact a fitting punishment for a crime. Neither is He teaching that one cannot defend oneself against an actual, life threatening attack--such is not spoken of in this instance. The closest Jesus gets to this is in telling the Apostles, at one point, that when He sends them out the next time, they are to take a sword with them.
Yes, He chastises Peter for drawing on the soldiers arresting Christ, but in context this seems to be aimed more at not being a violent person, submitting to God's Will, and not trying to bring about Christ's Kingdom by force of Arms. Remember, Jesus told him to have that sword, presumably for defense against bandits, but not to use it at this time or in this way.
Finally, there's that opening part of the relevant part of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus reaffirms the Law of Moses which recognized self defense in appropriate situations.
So I'm assuming you're unhappy because the church has taken steps to protect its congregation? It's legal and they train regularly in the facility they protect. Carrying in a church in Minnesota is also legal.
Shootings in churches are even rarer than shootings in schools. I'd be worried much more about those self-appointed vigilante-attitude parishioners than I would about a bad guy.
So they're rare occurrences when we talk about how to stop them, but they're so common that people can't go to church without fear when you want a new law. I finally understand, There really are 5 Lights!
As for your worries, you sound pretty pitiful saying that. The well adjusted deacons and ushers who have been training together aren't going to suddenly snap and start shooting. If one guy was unstable, it would have shown during the time they spend together and somebody would have been trying to get them help, not just giving them a gun and putting them on the door.
Seriously, you should think before you speak--better to be silent and thought a fool/chicken/wee lamb than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
"The well adjusted deacons and ushers who have been training together aren't going to suddenly snap and start shooting."
Who's not thinking before speaking now. You think well "adjusted deacons" are immune to the ills that affect police officers and other citizen gun owners? That doesn't make much sense.
Immune? No. But the occurrence of spree shooting cops is so small that I don't think anyone is suggesting disarming them because of such a danger. As for the church situation, notice that I didn't suggest that they'd be immune to problems, but that if someone was having a problem or developed one, the training and working together would expose this, and seeing as it's a church where they all seek counsel, they'd be in a situation where someone could intervene and give them the counsel they want and need--a difference from what's happened with some cops who were swept under the rug until they became shooters.
Greg, I'd like to mention again that you cannot claim kinship with all 100,000,000. That number includes the ones who own a gun that's stored away in the attic and hasn't seen the light of day in years. It also includes the ones who disagree with everything you stand for.
You tell us that we cannot claim kinship with all gun owners because most of them are "good people" who agree with you on gun control and hate the likes of Greg and me.
Of course, if one of those people pulls that gun out of the attic and kills someone with it, on purpose or accident, suddenly they're a gun nut and WE must answer for their crime, because we are responsible for it too.
"Shootings in churches are even rarer than shootings in schools."
Do you have a source to document your assertion? Keep in mind we are in the middle of a nationwide push to enact gun controls laws (universal background checks) using a single school shooting in which the proposed legislation would have had no effect on the crime. However there seem to be some churches that have decided to not wait for the police to show up after the shooting starts. Be it hiring a security guard or enlisting trained volunteers, it can be a credible deterrent. I understand you seem to think that anyone that chooses to defend themselves or others of being vigilantes. Though if you look at the training excercise, they did give the simulated assailant a chance to surrender. Self-defence isnt vigilantism. Can you explain why you'd be more worried about the security guards in the church? Is it just your belief that they will act under the philosophy that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail? These parishoners you seem to fear, have a vested interest in everyone's safety since their families would likely be attending the same service they are securing. Nothing at all like the emotional detachment you would get from a hired security guard or a responding police officer. As for being self appointed, these groups fall under the supervision of the head of the individual church.
No, I don't have a source for that other than my own daily research. Do you think the liberal anti-gun media is reporting on school shootings every chance it gets and overlooking church shootings?
No, the media love to report on everything bad about guns. But buried in the reporting are the pesky little facts about how the whole gun control thesis is wrong.
This isn't that uncommon anymore. One of the larger Baptist churches in my area hosted a get together with all interested churches in the area to discuss church security--everything from locking doors so that anyone arriving once the service started would have to come in through the foyer, which would have a deacon or ussher watching to greet them, or warn others if it's a shooter, to having armed deacons and members if a church so desired.
ReplyDeleteWe did all of this after the Unitarian Church shooting in Knoxville which happened while I was living there.
As for the "turn the other cheek" question, since we got only a short clip of the pastor's answer here, and I don't know what else he said, I'll give my own.
In the context that Jesus said "turn the other cheek" He was addressing various misunderstandings of the Old Testament as they had been interpreted by the Pharisees. He opens this part of the Sermon on the Mount by saying that He is not here to destroy the old Law of Moses, but to fulfill it. He then goes on to quote parts of it and then address the wrong interpretations and give new ones. E.g. Warning that Murder begins with hatred in one's heart for one's brother, and Adultery with lust, and that one is already in sin by indulging in these thoughts, not only by acting on them.
Some parts require some contextual understanding, such as the command against swearing which requires an understanding that Jews at the time considered an oath in God's name to be unbreakable, but thought there was weasel room in oaths by the earth, the Temple, Jerusalem, etc.
Similarly, in the Turn the Other Cheek command, people were using the Eye for an Eye and Tooth for a Tooth language of Moses' law, which had been intended to limit punishment to that which fit the crime (e.g. no death penalty for smacking one's social better), but people were using it to justify avenging themselves for every insult, and so Jesus tells them to take the insult (a slap on the cheek) and to take another on top of it.
This doesn't mean that Jesus taught that the government is not supposed to exact a fitting punishment for a crime. Neither is He teaching that one cannot defend oneself against an actual, life threatening attack--such is not spoken of in this instance. The closest Jesus gets to this is in telling the Apostles, at one point, that when He sends them out the next time, they are to take a sword with them.
Yes, He chastises Peter for drawing on the soldiers arresting Christ, but in context this seems to be aimed more at not being a violent person, submitting to God's Will, and not trying to bring about Christ's Kingdom by force of Arms. Remember, Jesus told him to have that sword, presumably for defense against bandits, but not to use it at this time or in this way.
Finally, there's that opening part of the relevant part of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus reaffirms the Law of Moses which recognized self defense in appropriate situations.
So I'm assuming you're unhappy because the church has taken steps to protect its congregation? It's legal and they train regularly in the facility they protect.
ReplyDeleteCarrying in a church in Minnesota is also legal.
Shootings in churches are even rarer than shootings in schools. I'd be worried much more about those self-appointed vigilante-attitude parishioners than I would about a bad guy.
ReplyDeleteOf course you would, since you fear good citizens more than thugs.
DeleteSo they're rare occurrences when we talk about how to stop them, but they're so common that people can't go to church without fear when you want a new law. I finally understand, There really are 5 Lights!
DeleteAs for your worries, you sound pretty pitiful saying that. The well adjusted deacons and ushers who have been training together aren't going to suddenly snap and start shooting. If one guy was unstable, it would have shown during the time they spend together and somebody would have been trying to get them help, not just giving them a gun and putting them on the door.
Seriously, you should think before you speak--better to be silent and thought a fool/chicken/wee lamb than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
"The well adjusted deacons and ushers who have been training together aren't going to suddenly snap and start shooting."
DeleteWho's not thinking before speaking now. You think well "adjusted deacons" are immune to the ills that affect police officers and other citizen gun owners? That doesn't make much sense.
Mikeb, with 100,000,000 gun owners, at least, in this country, if many of us were on the edge of snapping, the whole country would be dead by now.
DeleteTennessean, David Warner does make a delicious villian, doesn't he.
Immune? No. But the occurrence of spree shooting cops is so small that I don't think anyone is suggesting disarming them because of such a danger. As for the church situation, notice that I didn't suggest that they'd be immune to problems, but that if someone was having a problem or developed one, the training and working together would expose this, and seeing as it's a church where they all seek counsel, they'd be in a situation where someone could intervene and give them the counsel they want and need--a difference from what's happened with some cops who were swept under the rug until they became shooters.
DeleteGreg, Absolutely.
Greg, I'd like to mention again that you cannot claim kinship with all 100,000,000. That number includes the ones who own a gun that's stored away in the attic and hasn't seen the light of day in years. It also includes the ones who disagree with everything you stand for.
DeleteCame back for the last word?
DeleteYou tell us that we cannot claim kinship with all gun owners because most of them are "good people" who agree with you on gun control and hate the likes of Greg and me.
Of course, if one of those people pulls that gun out of the attic and kills someone with it, on purpose or accident, suddenly they're a gun nut and WE must answer for their crime, because we are responsible for it too.
What a Delicious double standard.
"Shootings in churches are even rarer than shootings in schools."
ReplyDeleteDo you have a source to document your assertion? Keep in mind we are in the middle of a nationwide push to enact gun controls laws (universal background checks) using a single school shooting in which the proposed legislation would have had no effect on the crime.
However there seem to be some churches that have decided to not wait for the police to show up after the shooting starts. Be it hiring a security guard or enlisting trained volunteers, it can be a credible deterrent.
I understand you seem to think that anyone that chooses to defend themselves or others of being vigilantes. Though if you look at the training excercise, they did give the simulated assailant a chance to surrender. Self-defence isnt vigilantism. Can you explain why you'd be more worried about the security guards in the church? Is it just your belief that they will act under the philosophy that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail? These parishoners you seem to fear, have a vested interest in everyone's safety since their families would likely be attending the same service they are securing. Nothing at all like the emotional detachment you would get from a hired security guard or a responding police officer.
As for being self appointed, these groups fall under the supervision of the head of the individual church.
No, I don't have a source for that other than my own daily research. Do you think the liberal anti-gun media is reporting on school shootings every chance it gets and overlooking church shootings?
DeleteNo, the media love to report on everything bad about guns. But buried in the reporting are the pesky little facts about how the whole gun control thesis is wrong.
Delete