Every church in America needs armed security

BPPLEE · Friday at 9:23 PM

We have a police officer in a marked car in the parking lot and a security team with concealed weapons inside.

Aldebaran · Friday at 9:37 PM

FireDragon76 said:
I wouldn't attend a church that countenanced members bringing weapons to a church, I would not consider it a church in any meaningful sense. It is an ancient custom of Christians (and many other religions, including Islam) to prohibit weapons in places of worship.

We can go online and watch videos of people walking into a church and opening fire, only to be stopped by a worshipper there who was armed. The armed worshipper didn't make it any less of a church. But he undoubtedly saved many lives, and that has to have some value--even to those who don't like the idea of people being armed while in a church.

FireDragon76 · Friday at 9:58 PM

Aldebaran said:
We can go online and watch videos of people walking into a church and opening fire, only to be stopped by a worshipper there who was armed. The armed worshipper didn't make it any less of a church. But he undoubtedly saved many lives, and that has to have some value--even to those who don't like the idea of people being armed while in a church.

Those are all utilitarian arguments, none of which involve taking the sacramental and eschatological significance of church seriously.

RileyG · Friday at 10:31 PM

FaithT said:
Not even if the only person allowed to have a weapon was police officer?

I just hate guns for personal reasons. I’m fine with police using them for official duties or responsible citizens using them for hunting for sustenance or protection.

Church doesn’t need deadly weapons, IMO.

RileyG · Friday at 10:32 PM

Aldebaran said:
We can go online and watch videos of people walking into a church and opening fire, only to be stopped by a worshipper there who was armed. The armed worshipper didn't make it any less of a church. But he undoubtedly saved many lives, and that has to have some value--even to those who don't like the idea of people being armed while in a church.

Not only Churches, but schools, places of business. No one is safe from violence anymore. Should there be armed guards there as well?

What’s the solution?

I really, really wish I knew.

Sigh

Aldebaran · Friday at 10:41 PM

FireDragon76 said:
Those are all utilitarian arguments, none of which involve taking the sacramental and eschatological significance of church seriously.

How do you figure that?

Aldebaran · Friday at 10:44 PM

RileyG said:
Not only Churches, but schools, places of business. No one is safe from violence anymore. Should there be armed guards there as well?

What’s the solution?

I really, really wish I knew.

Sigh

In many cases, yes. In fact, they already have. Take the Superbowl as an example. People go there to watch a football game and forget about the cares of life. But they also understand that they may not be safe there and don't mind having military grade security all around them as they are watching the game. There are some businesses such as banks and Jewelers who are easy targets if they are not armed.

RileyG · Saturday at 12:48 AM

Aldebaran said:
In many cases, yes. In fact, they already have. Take the Superbowl as an example. People go there to watch a football game and forget about the cares of life. But they also understand that they may not be safe there and don't mind having military grade security all around them as they are watching the game. There are some businesses such as banks and Jewelers who are easy targets if they are not armed.

It saddens me there is so much violence in this world. I wish somehow it can be reduced.

Sigh

I have no other words.

It’s so, so unfortunate.

BPPLEE · Saturday at 12:53 AM

Aldebaran said:
How do you figure that?

RileyG · Saturday at 12:59 AM

BPPLEE said:
View attachment 376498

Swiss guard.

They protect the Pope.

Must be male, single, faithful Catholic, have Swiss citizenship and other requirements, including age.

Valletta · Saturday at 2:57 AM

RileyG said:
Swiss guard.

They protect the Pope.

Must be male, single, faithful Catholic, have Swiss citizenship and other requirements, including age.

Had to show a Swiss guard a letter to get in the side entrance.

Tuur · Saturday at 5:37 PM

FireDragon76 said:
I wouldn't attend a church that countenanced members bringing weapons to a church, I would not consider it a church in any meaningful sense. It is an ancient custom of Christians (and many other religions, including Islam) to prohibit weapons in places of worship.

That's interesting. Not questioning you on this, but do you have a cite handy?

It's really an interesting point in the US. There was a time when many attended church beneath the shadow of the scalping knife, and I have no idea if they went armed or not. My assumption is that most did, but that is only an assumption without any fact to back it up.

FireDragon76 · 2026-02-15T14:51:28-0600

Tuur said:
That's interesting. Not questioning you on this, but do you have a cite handy?

It's really an interesting point in the US. There was a time when many attended church beneath the shadow of the scalping knife, and I have no idea if they went armed or not. My assumption is that most did, but that is only an assumption without any fact to back it up.

What I am saying is well known to anybody in an historic Christian church, like Episcopalians, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox.

Anthropic Claude gave this brief synopsis:

Christian tradition:

Emperor Theodosius II issued an edict in 431 AD at the Ecumenical Council in Ephesus requiring that all weapons be left outside churches WordPress. This was a significant imperial decree that established the practice as normative for Christian worship in the Byzantine Empire.
Churches were considered "protected space" where it would be inappropriate in the extreme to carry weapons into the church or to arrest someone or to exercise force within the church HISTORY. Fugitives claiming sanctuary couldn't bring weapons like bows and arrows into the church to attack their pursuers, or any other weapon they might use to defend themselves once they left HISTORY.

Weapons were generally forbidden in churches during the Middle Ages, with the exception of those used in rituals, because the church was to be a place above and beyond the mundane world and should not be a place of violence The Salt Lake Tribune Religion News. Medieval Scandinavian and Germanic church architecture reflected this with the vapenhus ("weapons house"), a covered porch at the church door specifically designed as a place to store arms when entering a church The Salt Lake Tribune Religion News.

When someone took sanctuary, they had to give up their weapons and only use a knife at meal times to cut their meat Elfinspell. Committing violence near a church carried greater penalties—the closer you got to a church, the more penance you did for killing someone, and killing someone in a consecrated area like near the altar was an automatic excommunication The Salt Lake Tribune Religion News.

So you have solid architectural evidence (the vapenhus), legal requirements for sanctuary-seekers to surrender weapons, graduated penalties based on proximity to churches, and theological understandings of churches as consecrated spaces where violence and weapons were inappropriate.

Claude is largely correct but doesn't go into the fact that the early church was even harsher on its regard for those who bore arms in violence, and the idea of bringing a weapon into a sacred space would have been unthinkable. Anybody that had shed blood was forbidden to be ordained as a presbyter, and Christians were expected to live peripatetically in expectation of the consumation of the Kingdom. Their ethics were far closer to Amish than to modern day American white Evangelicals. Churches were regarded as sanctuaries, embassies of another Kingdom not dominated by violence, but by love.

Many Roman soldiers who converted to Christianity left the military, such as Martin, bishop of Tours. It was only with Augustine's shift in theology that some concessions were made to Christians participating in warfare, as long as the cause and methods were just, but this wasn't seen as making war or violence in itself holy, and didn't change the attitude towards weapons in churches, which continued to be forbidden.

Aldebaran · 2026-02-15T16:26:31-0600

FireDragon76 said:
What I am saying is well known to anybody in an historic Christian church, like Episcopalians, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox.

Anthropic Claude gave this brief synopsis:

Claude is largely correct but doesn't go into the fact that the early church was even harsher on its regard for those who bore arms in violence, and the idea of bringing a weapon into a sacred space would have been unthinkable. Anybody that had shed blood was forbidden to be ordained as a presbyter, and Christians were expected to live peripatetically in expectation of the consumation of the Kingdom. Their ethics were far closer to Amish than to modern day American white Evangelicals. Churches were regarded as sanctuaries, embassies of another Kingdom not dominated by violence, but by love.

Many Roman soldiers who converted to Christianity left the military, such as Martin, bishop of Tours. It was only with Augustine's shift in theology that some concessions were made to Christians participating in warfare, as long as the cause and methods were just, but this wasn't seen as making war or violence in itself holy, and didn't change the attitude towards weapons in churches, which continued to be forbidden.

I notice a common theme in those quotes about violence in the church or even near a church being considered inappropriate. Maybe the Middle Ages were more civilized than what we have now, because those who want to commit violence against Christians seem to have no issue with appropriateness when they walk into a church and start gunning people down. One has to wonder whether or not it is appropriate for a person to be able to defend themselves and those around them, even if they are inside of a church.

Maybe I'm just more practical about it, but if a person has a small pistol concealed under their attire while in church, it is or should be seen as no more offensive than any other object they are carrying, whether it be their wallet with cash and credit cards in it, or their smart phone. If nobody sees it anyway, why would they care what someone has?

FireDragon76 · 2026-02-15T17:11:03-0600

Aldebaran said:
I notice a common theme in those quotes about violence in the church or even near a church being considered inappropriate. Maybe the Middle Ages were more civilized than what we have now, because those who want to commit violence against Christians seem to have no issue with appropriateness when they walk into a church and start gunning people down. One has to wonder whether or not it is appropriate for a person to be able to defend themselves and those around them, even if they are inside of a church.

Maybe I'm just more practical about it, but if a person has a small pistol concealed under their attire while in church, it is or should be seen as no more offensive than any other object they are carrying, whether it be their wallet with cash and credit cards in it, or their smart phone. If nobody sees it anyway, why would they care what someone has?

The things of the Kingdom should not be subject to instrumentalist logic. Especially in such a sacred thing as worship. It's metaphysically incoherent.

Aldebaran · 2026-02-15T18:29:22-0600

FireDragon76 said:
The things of the Kingdom should not be subject to instrumentalist logic. Especially in such a sacred thing as worship. It's metaphysically incoherent.

And they're not. But the instruments we carry with us every day are present when worship takes place even if we don't realize it. And when you worship, you aren't thinking about those things anyway. Besides, even if a church allowed people do have a weapon on them during a service doesn't mean that everyone is required to have one. If you attend a church and decide not to carry, would you still feel distracted by the idea that someone else there chose differently? Perhaps that other person wouldn't feel the incoherence you made reference to.

BPPLEE · 2026-02-15T18:37:04-0600

Aldebaran said:
And they're not. But the instruments we carry with us every day are present when worship takes place even if we don't realize it. And when you worship, you aren't thinking about those things anyway. Besides, even if a church allowed people do have a weapon on them during a service doesn't mean that everyone is required to have one. If you attend a church and decide not to carry, would you still feel distracted by the idea that someone else there chose differently? Perhaps that other person wouldn't feel the incoherence you made reference to.

I bet some of the people that are appalled at having weapons in the Church would think nothing of having same sex couples in the service

Aldebaran · 2026-02-15T19:53:32-0600

BPPLEE said:
I bet some of the people that are appalled at having weapons in the Church would think nothing of having same sex couples in the service

Good point! It seems that we're intolerant if we don't allow pretty much everything else to enter the church as long as it's not something that could save lives from a violent criminal. Allowing corruption and the celebration of it into the church, no problem! Guns bad, drag queens good. :scratch:

com7fy8 · 2026-02-15T21:04:41-0600

Michie said:
Even the catechism says we have a right to defend ourselves. I don’t like it either but there has to be some sense of security.

First is how Jeaus gives us "rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:29) This gives us ***His*** sense of security.

Then see how He has us seeing things. I think of how Jesus says not to be troubled as we see things of this evil world > "see that you are not troubled," He says in Matthew 24:6, while He is telling us about the evils which will come.

And He says, "not to resist an evil person," in Matthew 5:39. And, "If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews" > in John 18:36.

And > Hebrews 2:14-15 > "fear of death" is slavery to Satan.

And we have Isaiah 57:1 >

"The righteous perishes,
And no man takes it to heart;
Merciful men are taken away,
While no one considers
That the righteous is taken away from evil."
(Isaiah 57:1)

So > in any case, we must not allow evil to have power to make us troubled or afraid of death. And do not let evil have power to decide what we do.

com7fy8 · 2026-02-15T21:18:52-0600

There are ones who can gave guns, but they do not protect themselves from arguing and complaining and food abuse. They can have major emotional problems, while "strong" enough to train for using a gun to protect their churches, but they do not function in grace which guards their own hearts and minds.

So we need love security.

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in John 4:18)

Our greatest security is in God's love, which has us praying as our Apostle Paul says >

"Be anxious in nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:6-7)

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Every church in America needs armed security

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads