Ken Pagano, the pastor of the New Bethel Church here, is passionate about gun rights. He shoots regularly at the local firing range, and his sermon two weeks ago was on “God, Guns, Gospel and Geometry.” And on Saturday night, he is inviting his congregation of 150 and others to wear or carry their firearms into the sanctuary to “celebrate our rights as Americans!” as a promotional flier for the “open carry celebration” puts it.
“God and guns were part of the foundation of this country,” Mr. Pagano, 49, said Wednesday in the small brick Assembly of God church, where a large wooden cross hung over the altar and two American flags jutted from side walls. “I don’t see any contradiction in this. Not every Christian denomination is pacifist.”
The bring-your-gun-to-church day, which will include a $1 raffle of a handgun, firearms safety lessons and a picnic, is another sign that the gun culture in the United States is thriving despite, or perhaps because of, President Obama’s election in November.
This ran in last week’s New York Times and I haven’t had a chance to post it yet.
I am not at all a supporter of this idea.
Is this a wierd variation on “social gospel”?
pagano by name …
I own guns, I’m fairly competent with them. I fully support a citizen’s right to bear arms. This is idiotic and not in line with Christian teaching or tradition.
PILGRIMS GOING TO CHURCH
by George Henry Boughton
1833-1905
http://gardenofpraise.com/art40.htm
“Isaac de Rasieres, who visited Plymouth in 1627, reported how the Pilgrim’s began their church on Sunday: “They assemble by beat of drum, each with his musket or firelock, in front of the captain’s door; they have their cloaks on, and place themselves in order, three abreast, and are led by a sergeant without beat of drum. Behind comes the governor, in a long robe; beside him on the right hand, comes the preacher with his cloak on, and on the left hand, the captain with his side-arms and cloak on, and with a small cane in his hand; and so they march in good order, and each sets his arms down near him.” During the early years of Plymouth, failing to bring your gun to church was an offense for which you could be fined 12 pence.”
Source: http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/History/plymoth7.php
Recommended reading: C. S. Lewis, “Why I Am Not a Pacifist.”
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” – Luke 22:36-37
If we don’t bring our “swords”, should we leave our money home as well?
Sounds like a lot of fun to me. I’m old enough to remember our dads going to turkey shoots up at St. Timothy’s Catholic Church. It seems we didn’t have as much problem with firearms when people weren’t so freaked out about them.
It is difficult to justify worshipers coming to church armed. It’s a bizarre thought. I might be OK to have better security for the church, and perhaps an armed guard which is an awful commentary on our society. Violence is a common feature in Muslim countries with Muslims of one sect bombing the mosques of another Muslim sect in countries such as Iraq and Pakistan. The early church, I believe, did not have a violence ethic. Theirs was a peaceful existence and the consequence to them was sometimes capture and martyrdom, sometimes death in the most awful way such as crucifixion or violent death in the Coliseum.
Well, at one time, there were military religious orders.
The Templars and Hospitallars comes to mind.
Greetings.
I have pretty solid Gun Nut ™ credentials myself, to include a carry permit from my state, which I do actively use. That being said, this seems a bit over the top to me*.
I can only suppose that it is some kind of (rather delayed) reaction to the President’s “cling to guns or religion” comment during the campaign.
regards,
JPB
* Admittedly, it is certainly not my place to say what any church should or should not do.
[blockquote]I can only suppose that it is some kind of (rather delayed) reaction to the President’s “cling to guns or religion†comment during the campaign.[/blockquote]
LOL…a twofer!!
I suppose they are worried that Obama is going to impose some kind of Marxist tyranny upon them.
I’m wondering if they are worried about the criminals in their church, or if there’s good hunting on church grounds. I admit, it is clearly a place that would not be inviting to those who think guns also kill people. Accidentally, of course.
I don’t think he’s right about guns being an originating part of the country’s history, but blessing firearms in itself isn’t the strangest thing around. i recall that firearms at the time were quite unreliable and dangerous also to the shooter.
#11-JW didn’t realize you were quite that old…
[blockquote]I suppose they are worried that Obama is going to impose some kind of Marxist tyranny upon them. [/blockquote]
Now why would they ever think that? Just because he’s making a grab for the banks, the investment houses, the car companies, the utilities, the healthcare system and anything that might expel carbon dioxide (like, well, us) doesn’t mean he’s not the reincarnation of my namesake and a small-government type, right?
Maybe Episcopalians needs to bring a motion to GC requesting a ‘Blessing of Guns’ liturgy. Everything else seems to be getting blessed. It seems the inclusive thing to do. We wouldn’t want gun owners to feel that they couldn’t fully participate in the life of the church now would we?
The Templars may have begun as an order protecting the right of passage to the Holy Land, however that changed into and order that was full of pride and arrogance, and whose raison d’etre was marked by their accumulation of great treasure.
(Cf. See National Secret I) … 🙂
“I don’t think he’s right about guns being an originating part of the country’s history…”
John, I guess you didn’t see the quote I provided about the pilgrims carrying firearms to Church and that it was even the law that they should…”failing to bring your gun to church was an offense for which you could be fined 12 pence.â€
Of course, if you are threatened by hostile Indian attacks, most of the time without warning, not having your gun at hand would be inadvisable.
Greetings.
I note the reference to Lewis’ piece in post [url=”http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/23653/#377593″]5[/url] above, but can someone cite an orthodox (note small “o”), preferably Anglican, theological discussion of individual self-defense against unjustified attack? Or is “turn the other cheek” pretty much the last word on that subject? Something with patristic references would be particularly welcome. I am honestly curious.
Bicknell’s [i]Thirty-nine Articles[/i] (which I am reading for other purposes) has a small section on just war and military service as contemplated by Article XXXVII, but that deals almost entirely with [i]state[/i] power, and not individual self-defense.
No political screeds, please, from either side. Classical theology, with as much pedigree as possible. Thanks, and
regards,
JPB
Hi JPB,
This may serve as a start to answer your very good question:
Westminster Larger Catechism:
What Are the Duties Required In the Sixth Commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding, all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; [b]by just defense thereof against violence[/b]…
[emphasis added]
*****************
Jesus protested when smitten on the cheek (John 18:22). And Jesus denounced the Pharisees (Matt 23) and fought the devil always. The language of Jesus is bold and picturesque and is not to be pressed too literally (he is speaking here of the passage in question, GC). Paradoxes startle and make us think. We are expected to fill in the other side of the picture….Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not necessarily defensive war or defense against robbery and murder. Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice. (A.T. Robertson. “Word Pictures in the New Testament”, Vol. I, p. 48).
************
Hat Tip to George Crocker http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm
Few seem to remember that one of Jesus’ disciples came to a prayer meeting armed with the 2,000 year old equivalent of a handgun – a sword. One can probably assume that this was a common practice as Jesus does not condemn the disciple for having – Jesus does rebuke the disciple for its “unauthorized” use.
Side note: I suspect New Bethel Church has or will have above average male attendance. The feminization of the Church has done a great deal of damage.
Why do we shy away from the fact that our God is a warrior? [Exodus 15:3] Why do we shy away from the fact that God trains our hands to war and our fingers to do battle? [Psalm 144:1]
These images and statements are not metaphors.
The Anglo-Catholic gun aficionados won’t want to miss [url=http://saintclementsblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/st-clements-gun-carrying-mass/]this[/url].
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)
The Church has for so long taught parents to protect their children. Surely protection goes beyond spiritual protection and implies physical also. If my house is attacked, I hope that my wife or I have the means with which to protect my children. If that seems a problem to you, I’m glad you are neither my pastor or my government. I’m glad the Church is teaching wisdom along the lines of Proverbs.
#11. John Wilkins,
[blockquote]I admit, it is clearly a place that would not be inviting to those who think guns also kill people.[/blockquote]
John, John, John. Must I remind you that guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
As an NRA member (who doesn’t put the sticker in the back window of his truck), I think open carry in the sanctuary is not a good idea.
By the way, this seems to be pretty much a “guy” thread. I wonder what Lisa from “Ice Road Truckers” would say.
Dcn,
Since there are no metal detectors in most churches, I suppose you would feel safer knowing that law-abiding citizens were leaving their guns at home while those who would murder whomever they wish will carry them with impunity.
I am missing your reasoning.
#26. justinmartyr,
And since I said that I didn’t think it was a good idea, I’m missing your reasoning.
justinmartyr,
Dcn Dale has not expressed any reasoning. He has merely expressed his opinion that he “didn’t think it was a good ideaâ€. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
I for one am not moved in my opinion by the mere assertion of another’s opinion without supporting reasoning. In other words, an unsubstantiated opinion holds very little weight with me. But, Dcn Dale is perfectly entitled to his opinion. My suggestion is that Dcn Dale not carry a firearm if chooses not to, but to respect other folks decision [and right] to carry the means of self-defense.
Actually,
To clarify things I stated in #24 that I was not in favor of “open carry” in the sanctuary. I hold a CCW permit. It’s a matter of what St. Paul would say. If it offends the brother/sister, it is a problem. I think there are plenty of folks, parishioners among them that are terrified of guns. If I was terrified of guns and people were wearing them in church, I would not go to church. Is this what we want? There are places a lot more threatening than church where one may not carry a handgun open or concealed. It is illegal to carry a handgun into a bar in CA even if you have a CCW permit. I think this is an excellent law. I have never known alcohol and firearms to be a good mix. If a church wants to hire a trained and armed security guard, I have no problem with that. Do the parishioners in my church want to see their clergy packing heat? I think not.
Fair enough…but remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Personally, I feel safer when I am in the presence of other armed Christians. Who better…more ethically qualified…to carry the means of defense than the shepherd of a flock? That’s just my humble opinion. I guess I have a high regard for most clergy and their judgment and for my brothers in Christ; that they are soberly minded, of good report, and peaceable.
Having a gun in church makes sense when everyone has a gun. But if there is an accident, well, it makes people unsafe. And if there is even a perception of unsafety, well, I doubt you’ll be attracting families.
Sick and Tired, you do not want me, a fellow Christian, to have a gun in the sanctuary. If I were to fire it, I’d probably miss and hit someone else.
Deacon Dale, you are correct in your theology. Perhaps guns do not kill people. People, however, do have accidents. And sometimes they get emotional.
Beware the preacher who speaks a message a gun-toting parishioner doesn’t like.
Heh – Jefferson… you mean you’re angry at Obama for supporting capitalist enterprises? Interesting you’d call that Marxist. He’s easier on banks than the IMF. He’s helping big businesses survive. If you think health care is Marxist, well, I suppose you think that Holland, England, France and Sweden are Marxist countries as well. That’s a very interesting view. It reminds me of those leftists who think big business runs the world, and Government is its puppet.
Jefferson, after all, if Obama is such a Marxist, I wonder why wall street is logging its best quarter. You must know something they don’t.
As verger, the 1911 in the small of my back makes an unsightly bulge. Therefore the .45 stays in the car, but they let me carry a big honking oak stick. I think some Sunday’s the acolytes are fortunate this is the case. ; )
Greetings:
Well, I found this from the [url=”http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7″][b]Summa Theologica[/b][/url] by way of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a nicely footnoted document, I’ll say). Can’t argue with that pedigree. A too-brief summary seems to be that Aquinas allows killing in self-defense while Augustine seems not to, so there’s my start (not finish, certainly) on that question.
Thanks also to [b]Sick & Tired of Nuance[/b] [url=”http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/23653/#377753″][b][19][/b][/url] for an interesting and substantive link from a Reformed perspective.
I have been involved in many gun control discussions, and have actually tried to read what little serious academic literature that exists on the subject. Firm conclusions based on serious research (not thinly-disguised propaganda, which both sides produce) are difficult to draw. The thing that makes me uncomfortable about the original topic of this thread is that the church in question seems to be rehashing a rather emotional question of social-political policy without adding any particularly Christian content (tendentious cherry-picked verses — even ones supporting opinions that I hold — don’t count). I don’t say that churches should avoid the issues of the day, but what are they offering that I can’t get from the NRA or GOA? I would say exactly the same thing about a church preaching the Gospel of Brady and the VPC.
Nearly all such discussions eventually end by the two sides flinging the same old dead cats and rotten vegetables at each other, then each declaring victory and going off to shower.
I don’t mean to spoil anyone’s fun (I’ve certainly had enough of this kind of “fun” myself), but is there not something both specifically Christian [i]and[/i] edifying to say on this question?
regards,
JPB
With all the infighting in congregations, I would be extremely wary of attending a church where members of both ‘factions’ are “packin'”. I might get caught in the crossfire. It would make the gunfight at the OK corral seem like a Sunday school picnic.
hmmm, gives new meaning to the warning about ‘sitting on the fence’, however.
D.Hamilton, Wasn’t the shepherd’s crook of the bishops designed to keep errant priests in line? A big honkin’ stick isn’t necessary, an Irish shellilegh would do just fine.