Detroit Pastors Packing Heat

DanM said:

Actually, you may be the pastor, but you may not carry if there is a prohibition on carry from your higher church management or ownership.

That being said, my question still is unanswered by your response:
For those of you indicating you are, will become, or know a pastor who carries . . . are or will the church-goers allowed to be lawfully armed as well?

Click to expand...

If/when I become a Pastor, as long as the Elders agree, I would like to publicly give permission for people to OC or CC. I'll reserve LGOC for confessing members :lol:.

MarineSgt said:

If/when I become a Pastor, as long as the Elders agree, I would like to publicly give permission for people to OC or CC.

Click to expand...

Is agreement from Elders required or an informal (non-binding) practice?

And, either way, if hypocrisy is exposed in the form of some in the church allowed to carry while others are not, what would be your plan to address it, so that either carry is allowed for all or allowed for no one?

After that, if no one is allowed to carry, how would you plan to address with your Elders the multiple irrationalities with your church being made a Criminal Empowerment Zone?

You introduced some complexities in your answer which require these follow up questions. I am merely curious, and appreciate your responses.

Bronson said:

Only if the Pastor is the presiding official. In some churches there is a board of directors or some equivalent that handles secular affairs while the Pastor/Minister/Priest only deals with spiritual matters.

Bronson

Click to expand...

Then the pastor can give "permission".

What about Amendment 1, whatever happened to that? Carrying arms is religious doctrine, at least in any Christian religion, therefore, the government is prohibited from enacting laws that restrict the exercise of those practices.

DanM said:

Is agreement from Elders required or an informal (non-binding) practice?

The form of "church government" at my church is that of a Presbytery or rather a group of Elders. At our church all of the authority is held with the Elders. Our Pastor is considered an Elder. If I'm not mistaken, according to MI law I could get permission from my Pastor to carry and that would be good enough. However, since our church is ruled by Elders it would be appropriate for me to ask them.

There are a few different forms of church government. I believe the Presbyter model is the most biblical model. There are also Episcopal, and Congregational (democratic). In the last two models it would more than likely be customary that the Pastor/Clergy could make this call on their own unless it caused a stir.

And, either way, if hypocrisy is exposed in the form of some in the church allowed to carry while others are not, what would be your plan to address it, so that either carry is allowed for all or allowed for no one?

I know some churches allow the Elders and Deacons to CC but don't give permission to the congregation. I would fight it tooth-and-nail to get permission for everyone to OC or CC, but ultimately the decision would not be mine.

It would be interesting if and when a membership is granted that it came with a permission to CC in church.

After that, if no one is allowed to carry, how would you plan to address with your Elders the multiple irrationalities with your church being made a Criminal Empowerment Zone?

I don't have a good answer for this one. If at first I didn't succeed I would probably bring it up again at a later date to see if any minds have been changed.

You introduced some complexities in your answer which require these follow up questions. I am merely curious, and appreciate your responses.

Click to expand...

I hope I answered your questions sufficiently. Feel free to ask any more questions!

stainless1911 said:

Then the pastor can give "permission".

What about Amendment 1, whatever happened to that? Carrying arms is religious doctrine, at least in any Christian religion, therefore, the government is prohibited from enacting laws that restrict the exercise of those practices.

Click to expand...

Yes, I feel it was unconstitutional for the government to prevent firearms to be carried in churches with the force of law. A church is already a private gathering, therefore the owners/leaders/members already have private property rights.

If the church meets in public, I don't see how they could stop someone from carrying. If a church is having a service in the local public park, is the whole park now a "church"?

IMO, yes. Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

It is Gods word which makes the rules for the church people and its leadership, ie. Luke 22:36, NOT the leadership. All they can have is an opinion. If that opinion contradicts what is in the Bible, (if that's the religion in question), then they have differed with God, and by default, they are wrong.

MarineSgt said:

DanM said:

. . . if hypocrisy is exposed in the form of some in the church allowed to carry while others are not, what would be your plan to address it, so that either carry is allowed for all or allowed for no one?

Click to expand...

I know some churches allow the Elders and Deacons to CC but don't give permission to the congregation. I would fight it tooth-and-nail to get permission for everyone to OC or CC, but ultimately the decision would not be mine.

. . . I hope I answered your questions sufficiently. Feel free to ask any more questions!

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you. Wanted to follow up on the churches you know of that allow Elders and Deacons to CC, but not others.

In what way do they justify that? Aren't all God's children equal? Aren't they all brothers and sisters, no one above anyone else? Isn't this practice of "selective" allowance of CC highly inconsistent with that philosophy? If the practices of a church's leadership are highly inconsistent with the religion's philosophy, isn't that church (as embodied by it's leadership) false? Should the church-goers be troubled by these signs and be concerned that they may be in a "false" church, so to speak?

If your Elders followed this "selective" model of CC allowance, would it trouble you that you may possibly be in a false church? Would this be an effective line of reasoning to bring to them, and if they failed it by retaining the "selective" policy would that be a good sign that they are in gross error with regard to one of the major fundamental concepts of Christianity, that being the equality of Christians in fellowship together?

If it's possible, could you get someone from one of these churches to answer these questions?

stainless1911 said:

IMO, yes. Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

It is Gods word which makes the rules for the church people and its leadership, ie. Luke 22:36, NOT the leadership. All they can have is an opinion. If that opinion contradicts what is in the Bible, (if that's the religion in question), then they have differed with God, and by default, they are wrong.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but if a "church" makes itself a gun free zone, Michigan law says that is A-OK. There are many churches that don't believe that the Bible is the word of God. They'll claim that the word of God is found in the Bible, but not that the Bible is the word of God. Essentially, they get to pick and choose what they feel is God's word and what isn't. How convenient!

ETA: I want to make sure we are staying OT about OC.

In Luke 22:36 Jesus tells his disciples before his arrest and crucifixion, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."

This verse is used in an sense that the journey to spread our faith is going to be difficult and dangerous. So plan wisely and take what you need to sustain and protect yourself...

Absolutely. It is about OC and CC, as well as the overstepping of A1 A2, and who the leadership of the church is. It would have been difficult, suspicious and inconvenient to carry the sword concealed. Somethings never chance.

The Bible is the word, as seen by the passage John 1:14, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

DanM said:

Yes, thank you. Wanted to follow up on the churches you know of that allow Elders and Deacons to CC, but not others.

In what way do they justify that? Aren't all God's children equal? Aren't they all brothers and sisters, no one above anyone else? Isn't this practice of "selective" allowance of CC highly inconsistent with that philosophy? If the practices of a church's leadership are highly inconsistent with the religion's philosophy, isn't that church (as embodied by it's leadership) false? Should the church-goers be troubled by these signs and be concerned that they may be in a "false" church, so to speak?

Sure, the Scriptures say that all believers whether Jew or Greek (Gentile or non-Jew), slave or free, male or female are equal co-heirs with Christ in their inheritance of God.

I think the matters to consider would be:
1. Is this a spiritual matter that the Elders/Leadership would have a say in?
2. I believe it is up to the leadership to make sure the gathering of believers is safe, if possible. I.E. having a service in a private home vs. in front of Taliban HQ.
3. I think it would be wrong for the leadership to restrict firearm possession or use outside of the gathering as (my belief) there is no explicit or implicit commands regarding the carry or use of weapons with exception to Luke 22:36. But in this context it looks to be as a command for the travel of a person or small group.

If your Elders followed this "selective" model of CC allowance, would it trouble you that you may possibly be in a false church? Would this be an effective line of reasoning to bring to them, and if they failed it by retaining the "selective" policy would that be a good sign that they are in gross error with regard to one of the major fundamental concepts of Christianity, that being the equality of Christians in fellowship together?

Having only the leadership authorized to carry would be a way to "ensure" safety while not upsetting the sheep...

If it's possible, could you get someone from one of these churches to answer these questions?

ETA: There is a reformed theology forum I participate in. I started a discussion about whether OC in the pulpit would be appropriate. There were some interesting responses! One gentlemen said that at his church that the leaders can CC, no OC. I think he mentioned that the regular members don't even know.

Click to expand...

The thing is that our culture is so individualistic. The Christians in New Testament times and other cultures in the world are more collective. Often decisions are made for the good of the whole. Our culture and Christianity can often clash. Great care is needed to see the balance.

MarineSgt said:

Sure, the Scriptures say that all believers whether Jew or Greek (Gentile or non-Jew), slave or free, male or female are equal co-heirs with Christ in their inheritance of God.

I think the matters to consider would be:
1. Is this a spiritual matter that the Elders/Leadership would have a say in?
2. I believe it is up to the leadership to make sure the gathering of believers is safe, if possible. I.E. having a service in a private home vs. in front of Taliban HQ.
3. I think it would be wrong for the leadership to restrict firearm possession or use outside of the gathering as (my belief) there is no explicit or implicit commands regarding the carry or use of weapons with exception to Luke 22:36. But in this context it looks to be as a command for the travel of a person or small group.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I was not clear with my question: how does a Christian church's leadership justify, according to Christian principles, *selectively* permitting and prohibiting lawful carry by their fellow brothers and sisters on church property?

The matters you mention above are bona fide considerations, but they come before the particular decision I am questioning. In other words, having gone through considerations 1, 2, and 3 you mention (plus any other considerations out there), the brothers and sisters in leadership have determined that legal carry is permissible. However, some brothers and sisters are *more equal* than their other brothers and sisters, and among the brothers and sisters legally and responsibly qualified to carry, "some" are allowed and "others" prohibited.

Is that not highly inconsistent with very basic and fundamental Christian maxims, such as equality of Christians amongst themselves and being each others' "brother's keeper"? How come my Pastor and Elders can be their brother's keeper toward me, but they do not allow me (a qualified and responsible person) to exercise the same maxim and be my brother's keeper toward them in the same way?

I'm sorry, but if I were in a church practicing "selective" authorization to carry, I would clearly see this elephant-sized contradiction to Christ's clear teachings and philosophy! I would immediately leave such falsehood and seek other people and another place lacking such falsehood.

MarineSgt said:

Having only the leadership authorized to carry would be a way to "ensure" safety while not upsetting the sheep...

Click to expand...

Why would my brothers and sisters in Christ be afraid of their other brothers and sisters in Christ? Because they hide some doubt about their faith and, consequently, their fellow brothers and sisters, that is why. That is an alarming symptom of a lack of faith, not a rational basis for treating brothers and sisters unequally is it not?

MarineSgt said:

ETA: There is a reformed theology forum I participate in. I started a discussion about whether OC in the pulpit would be appropriate. There were some interesting responses! One gentlemen said that at his church that the leaders can CC, no OC. I think he mentioned that the regular members don't even know.

Click to expand...

All I can do is look at my WWJD wristband and ask, "Would Jesus be open about what is going on with his brothers and sisters?" I question the spiritual health of that church. They are clearly not going in the same direction Christ is, if there is something about their church they are not forthcoming about and out in the open with. What do you think Jesus would do in that specific situation? Please answer that specifically.

Thank you for considering all my questions and answering them, friend.

DanM said:

For those of you indicating you are, will become, or know a pastor who carries, are or will the church-goers allowed to be lawfully armed as well?

Click to expand...

Yes my church allows you to carry.

DanM, hopefully some others more learned than I will chime in as well. But...

I think the Elders could argue the problem of the Stronger Brother and the Weaker Brother. The argument would be that since a newer convert or outsider would see a gun (ahh he's got a gun in church!) it would be a stumbling block to the Gospel. Since this is a possible stumbling block it is easy to "prevent". Of course I believe it is much more of a stumbling block to let my family and friends be murdered in the pew next to me.

This SB and WB argument was one that someone threw out in that thread.

As for equality or rather lack there of. That would be a difficult position to defend.

The real question should be, would the Apostles carry a Glock or a 1911.

Not a 1911, too many enemies not enough capacity lol.

Seriously though, absolutely yes.

MarineSgt said:

I think the Elders could argue the problem of the Stronger Brother and the Weaker Brother. The argument would be that since a newer convert or outsider would see a gun (ahh he's got a gun in church!) it would be a stumbling block to the Gospel.

Click to expand...

Again, perhaps I have not been clear. The SB/WB argument you pose applies to the preliminary steps of deciding whether or not to allow legal carry and whether or not the allowed carry will be in the form of CC or OC. In the real life example of the church you have mentioned, those decisions have been made already. It was determined that legal carry would be allowed. It was then determined that the permissible form of carry is CC. What I am discussing is now the decision that, among all the legally and responsibly qualified brothers and sisters who are able to CC, the Pastor and the Elders consider themselves "more equal" than those brothers and sisters and do not permit anyone other than themselves to CC. There is no SB/WB concern at this point. That point came before, and besides the decision was to permit CC, thus no real concern that WB will wet his pants at the sight of a visible gun in church.

With respect and sincerity, I ask you to please go back and carefully read my discussion and questions. I very much appreciate you responding, but your responses are leaving me unsatisfied that my specific points are not plainly and directly responded to. Perhaps this is due to shortcomings in my writing, but I've gone back and read my comments and questions and they seem plain. However, what seems clear to me may not be so clear, so thank you for your patience as I try to clarify things.

MarineSgt said:

As for equality or rather lack there of. That would be a difficult position to defend.

Click to expand...

Not only difficult to defend, but my responses have rather directly outlined in detail how it is un-Christ-like and un-Christian. A church in which brothers and sisters, no matter their temporal and self-given positions, do not see each other or treat each other as equals can be a "Christian" church in name only. In reality, it is a den of, at best, misguided fools or, at worst, servants of other forces. Either way, it is a church that one should not confuse as a place of truth nor a house of the Lord. In no true house of the Lord would brothers and sisters, having made the decision to permit legal carry, then set themselves up over each other and permit some qualified brothers and sisters to do so while prohibiting other qualified brothers and sisters from having the same option.

MarineSgt said:

The real question should be, would the Apostles carry a Glock or a 1911.

Click to expand...

Not only did Apostles carry their form of modern weaponry, they had them at the table at the last supper:

Luke 22:
14 When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. . . .
36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. . . .
38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Yes, at least some Apostles carried the modern weaponry of their day and probably would do so today in keeping with that historically recorded behavior.

Not to carry would have been both foolish and strange. Again, some things never change.

DanM,

I believe this is your question:

how does a Christian church's leadership justify, according to Christian principles, *selectively* permitting and prohibiting lawful carry by their fellow brothers and sisters on church property?


Please realize that I am defending a position I don't agree with, I'm playing "devil's advocate" so to speak.

Here is a question for you. If someone legally brought alcohol to church during a substance abuse meeting, could they be asked to leave? What about someone sucking on a pint during a service? The same with smoking. Or wearing a bikini.

These are things that don't fit into the cultural frame of a "church".

Churches are stock full of sinners and these cultural biases can take time to change. The first response when we see something strange or new us is to view it in light of Scripture. If it is not explicitly forbidden or implicitly forbidden, then we run it by the "Does it glorify God test? Yes/No"

Personally though, if my church banned CC or OC I would not leave. This is a problem that can be resolved and if I love my brothers and sisters I should care enough to stay and change their ways.

If however, my church denied either of the 5 Solas or TULIP I would be the first one out of the door. My Bible says God is sovereign.

On topic of OC. I have OC'd twice in church to meet with my Pastor, but never at a service (my wife won't let me :uhoh. He didn't mind at all.

Churches are here to mold and influence the culture, not the other way around.

MarineSgt said:

how does a Christian church's leadership justify, according to Christian principles, *selectively* permitting and prohibiting lawful carry by their fellow brothers and sisters on church property?

Please realize that I am defending a position I don't agree with, I'm playing "devil's advocate" so to speak.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is my question, and I do realize you are arguing a point of view that you may not personally agree with. I appreciate your input.

MarineSgt said:

Here is a question for you. If someone legally brought alcohol to church during a substance abuse meeting, could they be asked to leave? What about someone sucking on a pint during a service? The same with smoking. Or wearing a bikini.

Click to expand...

You've made a form of this response before, and it doesn't logically or qualitatively follow from my question.

Logically, your examples above do not follow the form of the actual real-life example you gave and that I'm responding to. We are talking about Church leadership permitting a behavior but allowing only themselves to engage in it and not permitting other church-goers to do so. Using one of your examples above, you are not talking about a scenario of the Church leadership permitting bikini wear and allowing themselves to wear bikinis, but prohibiting other church-goers from wearing bikinis. You are just talking about some church-goer showing up at church in a bikini. Don't you see this logical incongruity between the original example of the real-life church you gave and the hypotheticals you give in your follow up responses to me?

Qualitatively, there is too much of a difference between the examples you give above and what we were originally talking about to make a credible analogy as you are trying to do. Firstly, your example behaviors are ones unsanctioned by church leadership, not engaged in by church leadership, but only engaged in by church-goers. The original behavior we were talking about is sanctioned by Church leadership, engaged in by church leadership, but prohibited to church-goers generally. Secondly, your examples of behaviors above are of sinful, anti-social, or at least clearly objectively inappropriate behavior, whereas the behavior we are supposed to be discussing is not sinful, not anti-social, and not objectively inappropriate.

In short, your analogies above suck really bad. I'm kidding a bit. I know you are sincere, and I appreciate your feedback, just give me some analogies that fit MUCH TIGHTER to what we're talking about.

MarineSgt said:

These are things that don't fit into the cultural frame of a "church".

Click to expand...

Correct. Which is why they suck as analogies as I explained above. Better logical and qualitative analogies would fit the form of the original scenario we are supposed to be talking about: Church leadership permits behavior X, but behavior X is only allowed to be engaged in by church leadership, and other church-goers are prohibited from the option of exercising behavior X.

MarineSgt said:

Personally though, if my church banned CC or OC I would not leave.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about your church banning CC or OC. We are talking about your church allowing CC or OC, but the "only ones"(TM) allowed to exercise preparedness for self-defense or be their brother's keeper in that regard are your brothers and sisters who merely happen to be in temporal positions of secular or spiritual leadership that you just so happen not to be in. That unequal treatment of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ is not Christ-like nor in accordance with fundamental Christian philosophy. Anything and anybody not Christ-like nor in accordance with Christian values or philosophy should be disassociated from your life as a person you fellowship with or practice as personal behavior. That is not an *option* for a Christian, it is a *duty*, no matter how painful or unpleasant such disassociation is anticipated to be.

Thus, bottom line, what I am saying is that a Christian church must treat all believers as equals. That is the hallmark of a true house of the Lord. For example, either allow the option of carry (either CC, OC, or both) to all qualified brothers and sisters or prohibit it completely. While I personally do not agree with complete prohibition, either of those two are the only true options to a true house of the Lord. Brothers and sisters in Christ are GRAVELY SINNING if they treat other brothers and sisters in Christ with a different set of criteria. If these gravely sinning brothers and sisters are in positions of church leadership and not correcting their sinful behavior, a Christian is left with few options other than leaving that den of falsehood so that they do not continue being led astray, and finding a true house of the Lord.