TexasCHLforum.com

armed when legal includes church

still suprised at the number of Pro-gun in Church people on these boards, logic is a REAL THING.
Other message boards I've been part of are very "Its a church man, show some respect"

I just don't see the difference in that or any other "gun free zone". Seems like if you are going to declare it off limits anywhere and not have armed guards and metal detectors to back that up then you are just advertising a free fire zone for the lawless. A lot of people like to argue the spiritual points of pro or con on this but being able to defend yourself or others really knows no boundaries. However, I would certainly respect others rights to do it differently. I likely would not worship there however.

I feel uncomfortable carrying in church, but I do.

cougartex wrote:I feel uncomfortable carrying in church, but I do.

I feel VERY comforted standing in the pulpit while carrying. I had a preacher friend who hollowed out a Bible and put a 1911 in it (instead of a 1611 KJV, it was a 1911 lol). With the amount of mentally ill, panhandlers, etc coming to churches for help...and sometimes having "issues" while at services, I feel much better with one.

in 30 years I have seen people threaten me because I wouldn't marry them; throw things because I didn't give them money; a mentally ill woman who thought I was preaching about her (she had paranoia) and was coming to church to "get me."

So, while wearing a gun may not always be comfortable, I do hope you are comforted by it.

BTW, the first church ever to be established in Masterson (panhandle) TX was because the preacher wore a gun. The cowboys didn't want a church....it would put an end to the bordellos and saloons eventually. Every preacher was lassoed out of the pulpit, tied up, and set on a train. This one came, announced there would be services that night....pulled back his frock coat and pulled his 45. Cocked it and set it on the podium top.....the first church was established!

fickman wrote:I carry in church, but there are some situations I would not use force.

I've hashed this out with a buddy of mine for a long time. I feel a strong conviction to protect my family (biological and church), but if I feel like we are being attacked because we are Christians or because of our faith, then I would not take action.

I hope this doesn't stir up a hornets' nest.

I also wouldn't carry if I am going street preaching or on certain kinds of mission trips where any assault against me would be because of the work I am doing or my identity in Christ.

Why?

Because I have real convictions about the legitimacy of being persecuted for my faith, and possibly even martyred. What if Steven was carrying a concealed weapon and had killed Saul? In the same way, Christ scolded Peter for attacking the guards when they came to arrest him in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus told his followers to expect persecution.

So - here's a standard that's hard to uphold because there are nuances that may be impossible to discern - the motives of the attacker. If I feel like I'm being randomly selected as the victim of a crime by an opportunist, then I would defend myself.

If I feel like I'm being singled out because of my identity in Christ, then I would hope to show the calmness and faith of the disciples when they faced persecutions, knowing that God is sovereign and in control. Being persecuted for the faith is, though hard to believe and understand, a privilege and honor. Jesus told S/Paul during his conversion that he would "suffer greatly for [Jesus'] name."

Well, I guess I probably came across as a nut or a wacko, but this concept is hard to share in an impersonal forum on the Internet. I'm curious if anybody else has thought this through with the same earnestness.

fickman, I too wrestle with these same questions. Honestly your post is an almost exact echo of many of my thoughts on this matter. I minister to a certain people group who still carries around the image of the "crusader," thus I feel it is inappropriate to be armed while sharing the gospel with them, and I try to keep a very low profile about my CHL. For if these people ever find that out (and word travels fast in their community) I think my ministry among them would be severely damaged. I'm not really concerned about my safety while ministering to these people, but the ministry location is a concern for me, as it is in a rough area of town. So I'll either leave my weapon in my vehicle or just not bring it at all. It's a really tough decision, but ultimately it's about priorities. My life is a very important thing, but there are other things more important than safety.

What I try to guard against, however, is being envious of those who do suffer for their faith, and inviting the same upon myself purely for the experience/glory of it. I don't think I should shy away for suffering for my faith, but neither should I seek it out, whether actively or passively. I'm not judging your motives here, only my own. When it comes to a church setting, the factor I mostly consider is the safety of my wife and children. I have an obligation for their safety. In a church active shooter scenario, my instinct/plan would be to defend first then sort out the theological stuff later. Maybe that is shallow, I don't know, but again as a father there are different priorities that surface. I am called to sacrifice for my family, and that may mean emotional and psychological, as well as physical. Whatever someone's reason for attacking my church, if I allow my family to remain in danger IMO that feels immoral, therefore I must act. Even if the guy is not actively targeting my family, it's just a matter of time or odds, so I don't think I would hesitate to stop him. It's an ugly tactical scenario, though, as others have hashed out (and I won't get into here).

Sorry, Keith B, if I am in violation of religion rules. My emphasis here is the moral dilemma raised in certain situations. My bottom line is that there is a hierarchy of moral considerations.

A shooter in a large church in Texas has to top the nightmare list. Our church runs 3000. At any given time at least 10 percent are armed. Given the fact that we have multiple services it would be safe to assume that at least 100 people would be armed during a service.

Bg comes in and and starts shooting ....

My fear is if anything did happen have those 100 people prepared themselves to deal with the threat beyond strapping on a gun. If not, it could all go south real quick.

marksiwel wrote:still suprised at the number of Pro-gun in Church people on these boards, logic is a REAL THING.
Other message boards I've been part of are very "Its a church man, show some respect"

Is it just one of the voices in my head or was there a recent church shooting in California that didn't make the news?

I believe you are correct, frazzled.

Only 2 or 3 were injured, no one killed so not really news worthy of the paper space or air time when they had the Alabama University shooting to talk about.

frazzled wrote:... was there a recent church shooting in California that didn't make the news?

Look at my message at the bottom of page three of this thread.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

frazzled wrote:... was there a recent church shooting in California that didn't make the news?

Look at my message at the bottom of page three of this thread.

- Jim

Thanks. A gang hit in a church? Yerghh.

frazzled wrote:

seamusTX wrote:

frazzled wrote:... was there a recent church shooting in California that didn't make the news?

Look at my message at the bottom of page three of this thread.

- Jim

Thanks. A gang hit in a church? Yerghh.

It was posted here in the forum http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 98&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

fickman wrote:So - here's a standard that's hard to uphold because there are nuances that may be impossible to discern - the motives of the attacker. If I feel like I'm being randomly selected as the victim of a crime by an opportunist, then I would defend myself.

If I feel like I'm being singled out because of my identity in Christ, then I would hope to show the calmness and faith of the disciples when they faced persecutions, knowing that God is sovereign and in control. Being persecuted for the faith is, though hard to believe and understand, a privilege and honor.

Thank you. That's my feeling as well.

Although I have to say, in an emergency, we're going to have to do some pretty fast discerning.

FWIW, I agree. I came to the same conclusion, it depends on the BG's intentions... which is a guess at best.
I have peace knowing I control my choice whether to defend myself or not.
So, I carry always.
Happy Trails! Nick

chabouk wrote:

fickman wrote:So - here's a standard that's hard to uphold because there are nuances that may be impossible to discern - the motives of the attacker. If I feel like I'm being randomly selected as the victim of a crime by an opportunist, then I would defend myself.

If I feel like I'm being singled out because of my identity in Christ, then I would hope to show the calmness and faith of the disciples when they faced persecutions, knowing that God is sovereign and in control. Being persecuted for the faith is, though hard to believe and understand, a privilege and honor.

Thank you. That's my feeling as well.

Although I have to say, in an emergency, we're going to have to do some pretty fast discerning.

Keith B, I'm trying to keep my response in the realm of motivations and responses without getting into theology so as to stay within the spirit of the rules as much as possible...

fickman wrote:I carry in church, but there are some situations I would not use force.

I've hashed this out with a buddy of mine for a long time. I feel a strong conviction to protect my family (biological and church), but if I feel like we are being attacked because we are Christians or because of our faith, then I would not take action.

I hope this doesn't stir up a hornets' nest.

I also wouldn't carry if I am going street preaching or on certain kinds of mission trips where any assault against me would be because of the work I am doing or my identity in Christ.

Why?

Because I have real convictions about the legitimacy of being persecuted for my faith, and possibly even martyred. What if Steven was carrying a concealed weapon and had killed Saul? In the same way, Christ scolded Peter for attacking the guards when they came to arrest him in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus told his followers to expect persecution.

So - here's a standard that's hard to uphold because there are nuances that may be impossible to discern - the motives of the attacker. If I feel like I'm being randomly selected as the victim of a crime by an opportunist, then I would defend myself.

If I feel like I'm being singled out because of my identity in Christ, then I would hope to show the calmness and faith of the disciples when they faced persecutions, knowing that God is sovereign and in control. Being persecuted for the faith is, though hard to believe and understand, a privilege and honor. Jesus told S/Paul during his conversion that he would "suffer greatly for [Jesus'] name."

Well, I guess I probably came across as a nut or a wacko, but this concept is hard to share in an impersonal forum on the Internet. I'm curious if anybody else has thought this through with the same earnestness.

Fickman, unless the shooter enters shouting something like "Allahu Akbar," what means do you have of knowing whether the he is a crazy man venting on his former pastor and/or church family, or a gangbanger extracting gang revenge (as in the recent California church shooting), or a whacked out meth user, or a deranged ex-spouse of a current member, or a religiously motivated killer persecuting Christians? Remember, you have exactly .5 seconds to make this determination before you respond by either giving yourself up as a martyr, or attempting to escape, or taking down the shooter.

I understand the martyr's dilemma, and as a Christian I've had the same kind of thought process myself, but there is a distinct difference in my mind between being martyred for the faith while on mission in Muslim, or Hindu, or Animistic countries, on the one hand, and being gunned down while in church here in the U.S. for indeterminate reasons on the other hand. The first is clear cut martyrdom, and the second not so much.

I'll give you an example (and I feel it necessary to point out for the benefit of others that you used to attend the same church I do, so you might be at least marginally aware of some of what our church has been up to): We have partnered with International Justice Mission to fight against sex slavery abroad in SE Asia and domestically in the DFW area. For the uninitiated, there is a thriving sex slavery "industry" in Fort Worth. I'm not talking about common prostitution, but actual slavery for prostitution purposes. The people who do this are very, VERY, bad men. They have guns, and they have no particular moral compunction against using them, regardless of where. The point is, if they decided to shoot up a church for partnering with IJM, are the shooting victims martyrs, or merely victims of a revenge killing? After all, they die because they are members of a church engaged in a dangerous mission field which they support, but their killers are not religiously motivated and are just extracting revenge on behalf of a criminal enterprise. At the time of the shooting, there is no way to make any kind of determination, and the only logical (and in my opinion, religiously defensible) position is to respond as if it is the latter.

I've already decided what my reaction will be if my church gets shot up, and martyrdom isn't part of that plan. If, down the road, I am called to serve in a mission field in a dangerous country, particularly one where possession of a firearm is not allowed, and martyrdom is the result, then so be it. Even so, it is hard to ignore that if a Christian believes what the words of Jesus say, then His instructions to the disciples in Luke (22:36) to go on mission with a sword in their possession are an indication that God does not expect all believers to be martyred.

So in that light, I believe that a decision to respond proactively is fully justifiable, on religious grounds, on moral grounds, and on legal grounds. It isn't that common in the life of a religious person (regardless of which religion) when the world presents a such a clear choice, in which the legal worldly requirements are so clearly unified with religious moral requirements.

That's why I carry in church.

You also said (above):

I also wouldn't carry if I am going street preaching or on certain kinds of mission trips where any assault against me would be because of the work I am doing or my identity in Christ.

Again, how do you know if the assault against you is because of the work you are doing, or because of your religious identity? What if it is a common mugging? What if it is because some drug dealer thinks you're a competing drug dealer trying to take over "his corner?" Yes, you are there because of a desire to do ministry, but the attack has nothing to do (at least in the mind of the attacker) with your religious identity. (I won't go into a discussion of the demonic, except to say that a religious person has a responsibility to resist it by all means available.)

That's why I would carry while ministering to the homeless in Fort Worth (for example).