| Author | Post |
|---|
junkyardboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2007 05:52 pm |
|
i know that a far worse loss of life was averted but:
does it make anyone else uneasy that the church would find it necessary to have armed security at a worship service?
in this age of inclusiveness do not the christian, the muslim, the hindu, the jew, all of us, ultimitely worship the same god.
thanks for your thoughts.
peter
____________________
have we been abandoned by God?
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/dr_john_macarth.html
http://www.valleybible.net/position_papers.php
|
guitarist63
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2007 08:26 pm |
|
I can't agree with armed security at a church service.
I used to work for a multicultural library and got to know a little about some of the other faiths. The little I found out was sufficient to convince me of the lie that there is one God for all the world's faiths. The Hindu religion has many gods so clearly that religion does not agree with the monotheistic faiths - Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It goes without saying that these three do not agree with each other either.
Last edited on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 10:48 pm by guitarist63
|
truthseeker
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 795 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2007 03:59 pm |
|
Hi Peter,
I think if the church of a couple hundred which we attend had armed security I might be puzzled, but I can understand where a high-profile mega-church might feel it necessary, though I cannot define for you the precise numerical dividing line. It might be compared to the small local merchant who has no security other than 911, as compared with the large department store which has its own security people.
I think I would be inclined to define persecution as being arrest by the government, to which an armed response would not necessarily be appropriate, but I don't have a problem with self-defense against a madman. One presumably is not giving up life and limb when turning a second cheek to be smitten. There is probably some cultural understanding of that admonition, of which I am not educated, which has been lost to general knowledge in our day.
TruthSeeker
|
Seeking God
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jakarta, Indonesia |
| Posts: | 220 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 03:31 am |
|
Hi junkyard,
I live in Indonesia,
Here we have 5 different "endorsed" religions, which is:
Islam, Christians, Buddhist, and Hindoos.
My opinions about are other religions worship the same God? Could be.
They recognize the one true God.
But without Christ, no one will come to the Father, because He is the only way.
So, It's a challenge for me to share the good Word to my fellow countrymen.
Just my opinions...
|
copinghubby
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 09:49 am |
|
All,
"Does it me uneasy that a church would find it necessary to have armed security at a worship service?"
No, not if they feel they have a need for them. If you fealt threatened or fealt that there was a threat of violence against you, would you feel uneasy if you armed yourself or took protective measures? No! I would think that the church has a duty to provide a safe haven for those who chose to worship. If that means protecting them with armed gaurds, then I would welcome them. I feel sad that they are in a position where they feel they need to have armed gaurds, but I would hope it is to protect their members.
"In this age of inclusiveness do not the christian, the muslim, the hindu, the jew, all of us, ultimitely worship the same god."
There can only be one God. By his nature, God is omnipotent. He is infinite. Because we are human and can not conceive or comprehend an infinite being, is it probable that many "religions" would emerge that worshiped God in different ways? Yes, I think it is not only probable but has happened, that is why there are so many religions in the world. Are there some religions that do not worship the one, true God? Of course.
I will repsond more fully tomorrow (or today since it is early) when I have more time and am not so tired.
~Peace
|
copinghubby
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 09:50 am |
|
junkyardboy,
great discussion topic.
|
junkyardboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 08:11 pm |
|
thanks all for some great comments.
does anyone have some scripture to help establish their position?
perhaps mega churches are not God's ideal for worship and growth if they need armed guards?
____________________
have we been abandoned by God?
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/dr_john_macarth.html
http://www.valleybible.net/position_papers.php
|
TimM
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rural Midwest, USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 09:04 pm |
|
I don't have references with me, but I've read some of the discussion over this issue that arose as the number of Christians in the Roman Empire grew, and especially after Christianity became the state religion.
The early attitude of the Christians was that service in the military was incompatible with faith in Christ, but this was in significant degree because the army was a thoroughly pagan institution. One had to offer pinches of incense to the gods and to the genius of the emperor in order to get onto a military base, for instance; so discussion of the legitimacy of killing in battle almost didn't arise. One had already betrayed the faith by enlisting.
Of course, this changed with Constantine; and the change, which transformed the Christians in a moment from a persecuted minority to the rulers of the Empire, left the Church in an awkward position. Did the Empire need to disarm (and be overrun by its enemies), or could Christians legitimately bear arms?
There were a variety of opinions in the 3rd and 4th centuries, but insofar as there was a consensus position, it went like this: Clearly we are instructed not to kill, and to turn the other cheek. This means that in a very large number of situations, use of force is forbidden. For instance, using force in self-defense is unacceptible to Christians. When attacked, we should not resist, but we should love our attackers and die.
What the fathers regarded as more problematic was violence in defense of another. In general, the belief was that if a madman is attacking other people and one is standing with a sword, it is not an act of love to allow innocents to be slain. One rather acts in love by resisting the attacker and defending the weak.
To me, this seems a sensible position, though I have to admit as well a willingness to act in self-defense to a degree the fathers would have deplored. It's a position which is at minimum a slippery slope, though. The corollary immediately drawn by many was that for Rome to maintain the legions was proper and Christian, since the legions existed in order to protect the innocent civilians of the Empire from the the depredations of the barbarians; and one has now opened a door to permit any sort of military action sanctioned by the Emperor.
Obviously, not everyone has bought this viewpoint; but often the pacifist sects have been minorities within militarized states. Even within state churches associated with imperial power, there have been expectations of strict non-violence in particularly religious settings. For instance, traditionally a Russian priest was required never to have shed blood. Being in an accident in which another was killed was reason to be removed from the priesthood.
Odd, the facts one picks up, isn't it?
Tim M.
Last edited on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 09:11 pm by TimM
|
Seeking God
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jakarta, Indonesia |
| Posts: | 220 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 03:00 am |
|
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (Joh 14:6)
On megachurch issue,
My church was once only have 30 people, but now we have 1000 people attending our service. Sometimes we are aghast, and unprepared for such a change, there is so many coordination to be done, and thus a systematic structure was made to make it happen. Right now, we are struggling, and striving to make His Church as His Kingdom, and not some other Mega Crowd Appeasing Corporate.
On Security Guards,
As we need to make our visitors (the lost) feel safe while coming to our service, we provide security guards, because once we have purses, wallets, and valuables stolen. In my opinion, security guards are OK, since they don't necessarily beat people up, they only hand the criminal to the police (hence no violence taken).
|
junkyardboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 03:12 am |
|
thanks tim for your thoughtful comment.
however i noticed all references were to govermental settings.
i.e. military, defense of others in a public setting, etc.
but what about a gathering of believers for the express purpose of worship, study and praise.
what does believing you need armed guards say about the sovereignty of God and our willingness to be used by Him in any circumstance, even mass tragedy.
does not our response illustrate the God we believe we serve.
this question may be coming to a church near you sooner than we think, given the times we live in.
thanks,
peter
____________________
have we been abandoned by God?
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/dr_john_macarth.html
http://www.valleybible.net/position_papers.php
|
TimM
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rural Midwest, USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 04:42 am |
|
junkyardboy wrote: i noticed all references were to govermental settings.
i.e. military, defense of others in a public setting, etc.
but what about a gathering of believers for the express purpose of worship, study and praise. That's what the Roman Empire believed itself to be after 310 AD. It's why the question was so crucial to the Roman/Byzantine state.
We may be so used to modern secular states that it takes some work to think ourselves into an understanding of the Empire as the ultimate mega-church.
That said, there is no reason why their answer should necessarily be ours. Sympathetic as I am to the efforts of the Romans and later the Russians to build genuinely Christian states, there is something unsettling to modern ears about the fact that even in my grandparents' time the daily prayers of the Russian church included a petition, "For our divinely-protected emperor, and for the Christ-loving army."
Tim M.
|
junkyardboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 07:44 pm |
|
it seems we may have a difference or misunderstanding as to what we mean when using the term church.
to me the church is the living body of Christ being continuously transformed into His image. it is any and all believers that call upon Christ to be saved and then surrender to the revealed will of God in the Holy Bible to be transformed to and for His glory.
it is NOT the old roman empire, the new roman empire, any state or goverment run or sanctioned church... past, present or future.
as it is God's sovereign right to do with us as He pleases, to give and to take as He desires... is it proper for the church to protect itself using armed undercover security guards?
or are the words of Job no longer of effect....
"thou He slay me yet will i trust him"....?
____________________
have we been abandoned by God?
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/dr_john_macarth.html
http://www.valleybible.net/position_papers.php
|
guitarist63
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 07:59 pm |
|
We have the Church of England here. Yes, I agree, state corrupts the church when it becomes involved. I was happily a member of the Church of England until May this year and found that there were plenty of Christians there who were doing all I'd expect Christians to do - evangelism, demonstrating by practical works in the commmunity that their faith was not mere words. I am now in a small church, one of the Evangelical Alliance here in UK.
Seeking God's church's use of security guards seems sensible for such a large congregation. I don't have such a problem accepting that as I do the idea of armed guards, ready to shoot to kill, if required to do so.
I think I'm right in saying there is more of an acceptance of the use of guns, including the defense of private property, in the US than we have here in the UK. It's always going to be a difficult subject from a Christian perspective.
Last edited on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 10:45 pm by guitarist63
|
junkyardboy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 12:08 am |
|
it is interesting to note that just today on the national news:
churches arming themselves, along with the office of homeland security involvement in this enterprise.....
when did the call of God to His church ever involve her physical safety?
____________________
have we been abandoned by God?
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/dr_john_macarth.html
http://www.valleybible.net/position_papers.php
|
Seeking God
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jakarta, Indonesia |
| Posts: | 220 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 03:01 am |
|
Actually,
The book of acts records that in a time when The Church of Jerusalem had about 5000 men as its members (I think that would include them as a mega church by our standard) and having a severe persecution. And how they face persecution was they flee to another place. (My guess is that Peter learned his lesson, and tells these men so they wouldn't fight back but flee).
I somehow agree your point, in a sense that the church should be more aware of her spiritual enemies, like Internet Porn, divorces, gluttony, etc. We are fighting against an unseen force. Thus we need to arm ourselves with every spiritual armor and weapon.
Of course, just my opinion
Last edited on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 03:04 am by Seeking God
|
hans45
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Dallas, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 109 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jan 24th, 2008 03:57 pm |
|
| (IMHO) I see nothing wrong with armed security in a worship facility. I don't recall or think there is anything Biblical that teaches against it. If someone were attacking one of your family members, deadly force, to me, is totally justified. If someone slaps my face, ok I should turn the other cheek. If someome comes at me or my family with a weapon you can be assured I have no problem using deadly force. A person that comes into a church with robbery intentions more than likely will be armed. There are churces in the Dallas, Texas area that have armed security. They don't get robbed. Most folks never want kill another person. I don't believe for one minute that God wants us to just "turn the other cheek" when someone starts throwing lead around the room. I know for a fact, there are many licensed handgun carriers in my church. Some probably carry inside the church. "Thou shalt not kill" pertains to murder. Last edited on Fri Jan 25th, 2008 03:42 pm by hans45
|
Current time is 03:11 am | |
|
|
|
RSS