Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    New Life’s Brady Boyd:  Every Church Should Have “Armed Security in Place”

    Bookmark and Share

    New Life security staff were scheduled to talk about the December shootings, in which Matthew Murray killed two and wounded three after Sunday service. He was shot by a volunteer guard soon after he entered the church, then killed himself.

    Topics to be discussed at the forum were emergency planning, assessing potential dangerous situations, the role of church greeters and ushers, and how to recruit security staff, said Colorado Springs police officer Dave Husted.

    Other topics covered the necessity of taking threats seriously, reporting suspicious individuals to police and having a staff member designated to monitor church gatherings for trouble.

    Plans are for police to have quarterly meetings on church security for interested worship centers, Husted said.

    Frank Hunter, chief of security at Radiant Church in Colorado Springs, said he attended because it’s “better to be safe than sorry.”

    A retired pastor, Hunter said he hopes he never has to use the skills he’s learned in his second career.

    Harlan Else, a pastor at Fellowship of the Rockies in Colorado Springs, came to the forum to gauge the adequacy of security at his church, which averages 500 parishioners on a Sunday.

    “I’m all for doing anything to make the church a more secure place,” he said.

    Else, however, drew the line at having an armed guard on the premises. “I don’t think we’re ready for that yet,” he said.

    Since the shootings, Boyd said New Life has stepped up security by having uniformed police officers patrol the premises during Sunday services. He would not reveal other security measures taken.

    “I really believe this is the safest place on a Sunday in Colorado Springs,” Boyd said.

    SOURCE:  Gazette.com

    WHAT DO YOU THINK:  Should every church in America have an armed presence?

    The senior pastor of the Colorado Springs mega-church where a gunman killed two teenage girls in December said Thursday that all places of worship should have armed guards.Speaking before a forum on church security hosted by New Life Church, the Rev. Brady Boyd said he recommends that "every church to have armed security in place." Representatives of 118 churches, from Colorado Springs to Denver, registered for the free event, which was hosted by police and New Life security staff and was not open to the media. "We've had contemporary experience that can help others," Boyd said, referring to the Dec. 9 shootings at the church. "We just don't want this to happen anywhere else."

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. Adam E. George on Mon, March 17, 2008

      {Else, however, drew the line at having an armed guard on the premises. “I don’t think we’re ready for that yet,” he said. }


      You’re not ready for that, yet?  When are you ready?  After someone has come in and shot the place up?  It’s an unfortunate circumstance that in today’s world we have to consider security in our churches but I’m glad we have a security team at ours and that we have sheriff’s deputies who attend our services.

    2. Daniel D. Farmer on Mon, March 17, 2008

      Damnable heresy.


      If Christians aren’t learning to die in church, they aren’t learning anything worthwhile.


      We follow a God who flexes his omnipotent muscles by dying for those who hate him, and the best we can say to repay him is thanks, let’s get more guns to make us safer!


      The world’s violence calls for creative nonviolent faithful response. It calls for the Holy Spirit.


      Saying ‘we want armed guards’ essentially amounts to quenching the Spirit.


      The myth of redemptive violence runs wild.


      My two cents.


      -Daniel-


      PS: For those who feel I’ve stated this too strongly, give me any Scriptural indication that the early Christians would have had no issues with killing their attackers. I believe the historical record shows that the early Church faithfully followed Jesus’ call to turn the other cheek, and to overcome evil with good, rather than repaying violence with violence…

    3. Espy on Tue, March 18, 2008

      Not everyone has the gift of wanting to ‘SERVE & PROTECT’.  These men and women who have chosen this profession have that gift.  I truly believe God gave us a way to protect ourselves by gifting these men and women with this sense of obligation and willingness to protect even you.  Let’s not keep them from using their gifts!

    4. Adam E. George on Tue, March 18, 2008

      {If Christians aren’t learning to die in church, they aren’t learning anything worthwhile}


      Umm, I fully agree that Christians should be willing to die for their faith but look at it like this:  if someone is able to sustain the life of one brother or sister in Christ, they may be sustaining the life of the next Billy Graham.  God is stronger than anything else in the world, HOWEVER, he gives EVERYONE free will.  My free will to live does not outweigh the free will of those who would kill.

    5. Dan L. on Wed, March 19, 2008

      Daniel asks someone to give him a Scriptural example of the early church defending themselves with force from attackers.  I’ll do one better, Jesus advised his disciples to carry a sword (a short sword used exclusively for self-defense).  See Luke 22:36-38.

    6. Daniel on Wed, March 19, 2008

      Dan—pick up a good commentary. You’re quite clearly missing the point. Why on Earth would 12 disciples take 2 swords for self-defense (hint: look at the context)?

    7. CS on Wed, March 19, 2008

      Daniel:


      If a man broke into your house and wanted to kill your wife and kids because of your faith, would you stand idly by and let him do so?  Or, would you fight him?  (I’ll take out “flee” as an option; pretend the doorway is blocked.)



      CS

    8. Daniel on Wed, March 19, 2008

      I’m tempted to swear there’s an anti-pacifist ‘agenda’ out there because everytime I point to Jesus’ radical words on bearing the cross instead of the sword, people ask me what I would do if my wife were going to be raped (or my house were being broken into, etc.).


      Talk about a bad imagination!!


      The question has been asked (and answered!) dozens and dozens of times. If you really want to know, CS, do some research on the Mennonites or the Anabaptists (or Richard Hays, or Greg Boyd, or Shane Claiborne, or John Howard Yoder, etc.). Allow me to put the question right back to you: how far would you go in ‘legitimate self-defense’ (or even better, how far would you go for the U.S. of A.)? If you would kill a man while claiming to follow the God who is most fully manifested when he dies on a cross for his enemies, then please show me how you would ground your response in Jesus’ own teachings. Not prooftexting about Jesus being numbered with the outlaws (cf. above), but by showing how when Jesus said, ‘turn the other cheek’ to oppressed Jews under the Roman regime, he actually meant, ‘beat the tar out of your oppressors when they come knockin’ on your door’. And show me an example in the early Church, before Constantine, of a Church Father saying, ‘killing in self-defense is a-ok’.


      This is the key issue facing the Church today. And the mainline response (“Jesus’ doesn’t mind us killing in self defense, or even us serving in nationalistic wars”) requires that we do some fancy footwork around Jesus’ own teachings. We remember his crucifixion this Friday. Which is to say, we remember his enemy-love this Friday. On Sunday, we celebrate the vindication of this suffering servant’s path. Will we honor him by justifying our own violence?

    9. CS on Wed, March 19, 2008

      Daniel:


      That was an excellent response, and you provided me with a ton of things to go research and look things up.  But, it also avoided the question by moving to a more general sphere.  To clarify what I was looking for, I wanted your personal take on this.


      If a man broke into YOUR house and wanted to kill YOUR wife and kids because of YOUR faith, would YOU stand idly by and let him do so?  Or, would YOU fight him?  (I’ll take out “flee” as an option; pretend the doorway is blocked.)


      I’ll do the homework on the rest of the points you brought up, and answer your questions, provided you answer your personal take on this.



      CS

    10. Adam on Wed, March 19, 2008

      Does being shot at church qualify as ‘dying for your faith’? Or could it simply mean that some unstable person showed up with a gun at a place where hundreds of people are gathered? In an imperfect world it is sometimes necessary to use imperfect means to control situations that may arise.

    11. Leonard on Wed, March 19, 2008

      Daniel, I appreciate you commitment to your values and your willingness to stand by them.  I would not agree that Jesus was a pacifist nor would I agree God is.  Jesus used aggressive and violent actions to clear the temple.  Braiding a whip, chasing people out, turning over tables all point to aggressive and violent actions.  If Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever… He used violence against nations and people more than once in the Old Testament.


      I also believe his instruction to turn the other cheek was not an instruction to non-violence but rather an instruction on dealing with personal vengeance.  Curtailing violence has saved lives in my ministry.  More than once I have taken from a student a knife or a gun.  A few times I did this through force.  By removing the weapon I saved lies, lives of people who did not know Christ but needed to. 


      I am not a violent man, nor do I advocate a simple, bigger muscles and guns to curtail violence.  I have found that many times soft answers turn away anger but in working with gangs, I have also found that sometimes taking a knife from a kid was necessary. 


      Thanks again for your passion in this matter, I guess I simply disagree.

    12. Adam E. George on Thu, March 20, 2008

      I agree that Jesus did say “turn the other cheek.”  However, he didn’t say what to do if someone “slapped” the other cheek. 


      Just because someone comes in and shoots up the place doesn’t mean they’re doing it because of someone’s faith…it’s a lot of people in one area who are at the time a captive audience…basically a wolf trying to find a herd of unsuspecting sheep.

    13. Daniel D. Farmer on Thu, March 20, 2008

      Very briefly.


      CS—as far as what I would do if attacked. Short answer: I have no idea. Typically when attacked, we revert to practiced habits. I’m not used to being attacked, so I have no idea what my reflexes would be. If I DID have a chance to use my neo-cortex, here’s what I would do: 1. pray, 2. speak to the attacker (refusing to demonize him or her), 3. absorb any and all violence within my own body (this means interposing myself between the attacker and anyone else of my household), 4. do my best to discern the Spirit and respond creatively—I’m open to this involving ‘force’, but not open to using death (the point of course is not nonviolence for its own sake, but enemy-love for God’s sake).


      Adam—in an imperfect world, you don’t pick up the sword cuz, oh well that’s just the way it is. No. Christians are called to pick up the CROSS, to die, in an imperfect world. We follow the crucified Messiah. The waterboarded president. The nonviolent revolutionary.


      Leonard—thanks for your affirmation. I see no reason not to take knives and guns from people. That seems quite wise. I DO see a reason, however, to NOT arm ourselves with lethal weapons for our own ‘protection’ when we have no king but God. We leave the ‘wrath’ and the vengeance to God.


      As far as your analysis of Jesus’ demonstration in the temple, I’m sorry but it’s simply factually incorrect. Read ANY decent commentary on the passage. Even the most militaristic scholars won’t try to argue that Jesus whipped people. No, as God’s prophet, he overturned tables, braided a whip, and chased the animals out of the temple. No argument for LETHAL violence in self-defense here.


      Adam—our call is to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. Not ‘innocent as doves and dumb as oxen’. Take precautions. When necessary “flee to the hills!” But always always remember: overcome evil with good, and leave room for the wrath of God. Only God is wise, good and true enough to handle the business of retaliation.


      Arming ourselves basically tells God, MAKE ME AN AGENT OF YOUR WRATH. To which God replies, ‘read Romans 12, and look at the example of my Son’.


      Peace.


      -Daniel-

    14. CS on Thu, March 20, 2008

      Daniel:


      You answered my question, so I shall answer yours.


      “Allow me to put the question right back to you: how far would you go in ‘legitimate self-defense’ (or even better, how far would you go for the U.S. of A.)?”


      I would probably respond much like you believe you would, trying rational steps and shielding my family as much as possible.  However, if absolutely warranted in the worst case, I would use force.  How much force?  I have personal struggles with this.


      On the one hand, if I exercised lethal force, I would potentially be having a hand in sending that man to Hell.  On the other hand, if I permitted that man to kill my family, would I not be guilty of their deaths if I could have prevented it?  It’s a hard thing to consider.


      I would say that vengeance, aggression, and similarly sinful things are clearly condemned in the Bible, and would never engage in those acts.


      Now, when it comes to military service, I also have conflicts here, too.  If someone were attacking the country directly, and my rulers ordered me to defend, I would.  I believe this would be covered under Romans 13.  If my rulers ordered me to go and attack someone for questionable reasons, where any deaths would be considered more of “murder” than an act of protection, then I could not, in good conscience. 


      Thanks again for answering my question.  I appreciate it when we can be honest and direct with each other on these forums.



      CS

    15. adam on Thu, March 20, 2008

      Daniel,


      I appreciate your heart and your commitment to serving Christ thru peace even at the price of your own life. However, let’s take this discussion back to where it started - that is, protection of a congregation gathered in a church building. In a situation like the one that transpired at the Colorado church, a man showed up with the intent to kill people. That type of person may be ending lives as a means of religious persecution or just because he feels some crazed voice in his head telling him to kill. Whatever the motive, most of the stories we read about these types of events tell of heavily armed shooters with an intent to kill as many people as possible.


      With that in mind, do you not want to stop the attacker before he runs out of bullets? Once he decides to stop shooting and leave would such a person give himself up without a fight. Typically not. Typically it will take some means of force to stop such a person. So what do we, the unarmed church people do? My guess is that you would advocate calling the police. Then they will come, heavily armed, and do the exact same thing that an under cover security person could have done before numerous men, women, and children were cut down by the assasin’s bullets. I guess, as I see it, the only thing accomplished by the pacifist stance of the church, was to allow unnecessary deaths to take place while we force someone outside of the church to stop the attacker.


      It sometimes seems to me that we want to apply scriptural concepts without consideration of present day reality. Do we want to avoid physically harming another human? Yes, by all means. But is there a point where that concept no longer makes sense? I believe this type of situation is where you reach such a point. Someone needs to stop the attacker and it will most likely take force to stop such a person. Why transfer that responsibility to a policeman who will take 10 minutes to get there? Is there a difference between the application of force by an on-site security officer or an off-site policeman? Is God somehow honored more because we waited for a policeman to show up while watching our brothers and sisters in Christ die? I fail to see how that honors our Lord.


      I hate the thought of armed guards in our churches. More than that though, I hate the thought of an attacker riddling our congregation with bullets while we stand by and watch.

    16. Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

      Post a Comment

    17. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors