Bring your own gun.
From here:
In an effort to increase membership, a number of U.S. churches — including the Church of Christ congregation in this rural village 30 miles north of Columbus — are offering an unconventional public service: Concealed weapons training.
“Church has done a good job with coffee klatsches or whatever, but we haven’t really reached out to guys,” said Jeff Copley, a preacher at the church. “And guys in Morrow Country, they shoot and they hunt.”
Hundreds of students have enrolled in the 10-hour course, which meets the state requirements for earning a concealed weapons permit. The training includes two hours on a church member’s private shooting range.
“I grew up going to church, but hadn’t attended in a number of years,” said David Freeman, 52, a local engineering manager who attended a firearm safety class at the church. “Always considered myself a Christian. I came for the gun classes and have been coming back for two years.”
Unsurprisingly, the National Council of Churches disapproves, making the whole enterprise seem much more appealing:
[T]he National Council of Churches of Christ, which represents about 100,000 Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox and Evangelical churches comprising 45 million members nationwide, endorsed strict gun control in a 2010 position paper.
Conceding the need for an armed police force, the council wrote that “to allow assault weapons in the hands of the general public can scarcely be justified on Christian grounds. The stark reality is that such weapons end up taking more lives than they defend, and the reckless sale or use of these weapons refutes the gospel’s prohibition against violence.”
Is carrying a gun with the intent to defend oneself and family contrary to Christian principles? If it isn’t, is there any reason that a church should not hold classes to teach people how to do it properly?
If it is contrary to Christianity to defend oneself, then outright pacifism might be the only coherent response.
Of course, Anglican clergy would have little hesitation resorting to the ruse employed by 19-20th Century homosexual satirist and pacifist, Lytton Strachey who, when asked: “If a German soldier tried to rape your sister, what would you do”, replied: “I would try to interpose my own body.”
The only issue I would have here is, what does concealed weapons training have to do with Christianity? It is one of those things that belongs in Caesar’s world. We don’t bring anything and everything into our churches simply because they appeal to our social side.
Well put, Anon.
Anon
Under the banner of making “the church” relevant to people’s’ lives, all kinds of activities are supported by churches.
Sponsoring gun safety courses offends me much less than allowing a special interest sexuality pressure group to rewrite our liturgy and trash tradition and scripture.
The strict pacifist position is a much better argument except for troubling NT nuggets like: 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; And on going into the garden Christ asked how many swords are among us. They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
And remember carrying a sword was a capital offence in Judea. Concealed carry is legal and common in most US states.
It isn’t pacifism — or not – that I am arguing here. They can have their concealed weapons training in the local high school, is all I am going to say. And neither do the the sexuality pressure groups appeal. I am not comparing one with the other. It is just that there are certain things which belong to a part of our lives outside the Church. To bring them in as some kind of “relevancy” seems nothing but ridiculous. The Church is not a kind of catch-all community centre for the latest hobbyist fad.
I hope they have their concealed weapons training at a shooting range.
Our local high school does everything — rents the place out evenings and weekends. I wasn’t talking about taking pot-shots during class hours! But if the BYOG gang could do it in their church, why not after-hours in a high school? Anyway, the point here is that you might as well set up any or all manner of socializing activities in the Church if socializing is what you think the Church is all about, but if you think it is there for other reasons, none of these are acceptable, except, as they say in law, if they are incidental.
I agree completely, this is not what church is about.
“The training includes two hours on a church member’s private shooting range.”
You seem to have missed the part of the article that states the location, which is not at the Church.
Now seeing as this is getting men back into the church than perhaps you would explain to me why you feel this approach is so objectionable. (Especially when compared to some of the things that the revisionists are doing.)
Lisa
“The training includes two hours on a church member’s private shooting range”.
If that’s where they end up, that’s where they should start.
Anon
Good for you.
Churches shouldn’t be involved with Alcoholics Anonymus, New dimensions for new mothers, Scouting, Guiding, Quilting guilds, Handicap Learning programes, etc, etc
Our churches should focus with laser intensity on faith development exclusively.
Is that it?
Well, Jim, this activity mentioned above was said to be a “reaching out to the guys.” That translated to me as a social activity for the sake of getting together. We do that all the time in the secular part of our lives. Quite a normal part of being human. But if you make it a raison d’etre for your church, you are straying into questionable territory. Why run a church then? Why not just a social club?
You bring up Alcoholics Anonymous. That is a social event only incidentally, whereas the main point is to help overcome addiction, which is a social services ministry. Same with new mothers groups and scouting/guiding; as the name says, there is supposed to be a large dollop of guidance involved in all of these, as well as education on life improvement and even support for families. Scouting may no longer offer opportunities for guidance in the Christian sense, but for a long time it did. New mothers’ groups were meant to show support and exchange of pertinent information for young women just starting on the path of motherhood, undertaking a role very important to the Christian world (at least once upon a time). Quilting guilds? Well, if they are quilting for a charity, which is often the case, it is more than just a social get-together. Churches often combine charity with a social aspect, but the latter is supposed to be the less important.
Most of these programs you mention, Jim, are offering something more than simply socializing, and in fact are outreach ministries. I don’t think the concealed weapons training was meant to be a ministry.
You have to remember, too, that many, if not most of these churches, are registered charities. This comes with a whole list of what they can or cannot do, in terms of the church’s activities. Look this up if you wish. What they cannot do is to conduct activities that are strictly social and have nothing to do with their Christian mandate. Rules regarding this may be different in the U.S. There has been a lot in the papers recently about churches running afoul of this sort of restriction.
Anon,
As someone who did direct sales in his youth, I can tell you that you need a way to get your foot in the door. In the case of churches, you need to find a way to get the unchurched to put their foot in the church door.
Do you think it was an accident that Christ spent a big chunk of his ministry meeting people where they were? Using your approach, Christ would have cocooned himself in the temple.
We are called to witness in all aspects of our lives. There is no such thing as a pure “social occasion” if the believer enters it in the hope of witnessing with sensitivity.
By the way, what’s wrong with sincerely held pacifism?
Jim, who said the men coming in to the concealed weapons training were there to “witness with sensitivity?” I doubt they would think for a second about that. They would be coming in for a good time with other men over a shared interest, which just happened to be held at a church. Maybe it is the largest building in that town, and is used (wrongly) more or less as a community centre.
You are making large assumptions here that social actiites held at a church, or which have anything to do with a Christian, are going to necessarily work to draw all comers into the faith. If I hold a neighborhood barbecue in my yard over the summer, I am not expecting this purely secular, friendly gathering to produce new converts simply because the host is a Christian.
And again, Jim, I have to emphasize that churches in Canada and the U.S. and most western nations have a mandate to follow in terms of the laws of the land, in the sense that they are legal entities. Most mainstream religious groups also have a mandate under which their faith is structured. If you are going to try to sanction purely social events under either of these, there could be difficulties. You seem to be unaware of this. It isn’t quite as simple as you put it.
You can certainly “witness in all aspects of your life,” Jim, but this is still a feeble excuse for agreeing that a church itself can hold a social event for concealed weapons training on their premises, and under their jurisdiction. Certainly, arrange it as a private event and take it off to a church member’s back lot or some other personal property or even a secular community centre, and talk about the faith to your heart’s content. What I am taking exception to is that it is being treated and supported as a church ministry.
Reminds me of the Rave in the Nave that Ely Cathedral (U.K.) holds for youth. Why are they supposedly witnessing and sharing the faith by use of such an inappropriate Bacchanalian vehicle? This event is certainly social, but that is not all that it needs to be.
“Our churches should focus with laser intensity on faith development exclusively.
Is that it?”
Well, no. But aren’t you saying that socializing is just that — a faith development activity?
Personally, I am of the opinion that churches should offer a format for worshipping God, for expounding the faith, and for assisting the needy amongst us. As a result of this, they build a Chrisitan community.
Socializing happens incidentally here, as in an annual church picnic, or a coffee-time after the service so that parishioners can communicate amongst themselves, or a reception after a baptism/wedding, or a meal served to an altar guild meeting so that their work can continue uninterrupted. And I am not forgetting the iconic Last Supper, where Jesus and his disciples were gathered at a meal(in order to celebrate Passover).
Christ spent parts of his ministry meeting people where they were, but he also left instructions to his disciples to establish his Church after he was gone. He didn’t say to establish a banguet hall, or a beer parlour. His emphasis was not on the social aspect. It isn’t just the getting together that does it.
PACIFIST. Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
–Orwell
I don’t think this issue is about pacifism, really, but on the topic of pacifism, I agree with you, Obituary. Even the Canadian Mennonites, who are now complaining in the press about having been called on their political activities, have been able to coast along to advantage on their Pacifist image despite not having had it tested by a military draft since WWII. Pacifists and appeasers are often interchangeable, and we know where that led with Chamberlain. Ultimately, not standing up to the enemy or transgressor when the dispute is still manageable will mean that many more lives will be lost before it is under control far later. This falls within the “rule of unintended consequences.” Those who stick their heads in the sand and thump their chests about how peace-loving they are, are not likely to be contributing to that state.
I’m still trying to understand the flurry of arguments here.
One could disapprove of “socializing activities” on the basis that it dilutes or besmirches the sanctity of the Church mission. One could also disapprove of teaching gun courses on the basis that pacifism precludes the latent violence inherent in guns. One could also make an argument that, although not the best means of outreach, courses for gun owners is appropriate but of low priority.
Which is it please?
Jim, you missed the point about churches (for the most part) being registered charities in Canada, with strict guidelines on their activities. You should acquaint yourself with that aspect. Even as legal entities in general, they cannot do just anything that takes their fancy. This is an important aspect of the argument. Any church involved in such activities needs to see their lawyer.
And whether someone approves of the use of guns in general society or not, a course on the use of these is not appropriate in a church setting unless there are some extraordinary circumstances. Wow, I am surprised that people would even debate this. Seems self-evident to me.
But then, I suppose this whole blog is based on the fact that what was once self-evident to so many is now not even a dim memory.
Anon
Perhaps you would cite the specific prohibitions in the Canadian Tax Code which have led to churches losing their charitable exemption.
What seems self-evident to a (probably urban) Canadian is not so evident to a US rural congregation. Are you saying that gun owners should not be welcome in churches? That seems to me to be a cultural not a spiritual bias.
Oh, Jim……stop putting words in my mouth. I am saying no such thing. I have explained my stance well enough. I’ll let you figure it out from here.
Why should I be citing specific tax prohibitions? Go to GOOGLE, look up both The Income Tax Act and the Canada Revenue Agency webiste on charities, and voila! You can sift through the fine points yourself.
And Jim, the Canada Income Tax Act and the CRA website are not going to apply to the church in Ohio, remember.
It always annoys me whenever someone says that guns are inherently violent. Guns are innanimate objects, and as such are not capable of violence. If there is any “gun violence” than it is being commited by people.
In this thread the gun owners are obviously law abiding resposible people who are actively learning how to properly and safely use their firearms.
And the last time I checked the activity of hunting was still legal. Regulated, much like fishing is, but still legal.
AMP, lots of things are perfectly legal, but they have absolutely nothing to do with Christian worship. And THAT is the point being argued here. These gun owners can perfectly well learn to safely use their firearms somewhere other than their church.
As real estate agents say — location, location, location!
Good for you Amp!
On three occasions you asserted that churches in both Canada and the USA would be subject to losing their charitable status. As a conscientious reader I did look on Google -to no avail. The major cause for losing Charitable Status is engaging in political activity.
It’s your point. Prove it.
I have sifted through point after point and I’m still trying to uncover a solid argument. Out of graciousness I have been trying to get you to narrow down your barrage to a range of coherent points. Sorry for constraining you.