House of Worship/Church Safety Meeting Problems

[AJSully421]

I am an Instructor with a security company, and one of the things that we do is security consulting for churches. We can do LTC classes for those who do not have one. We could do full armed security training if the church wanted to go official with a private letter of authority. On top of that, I am a DPS school safety instructor, which is basically an active shooter course, so we just change “school” to “church” and teach that to the staff, pastors, Sunday school and nursery workers. I cannot think of a better way to do it honestly.

We have run into a lot of nonsense along the way. 30.06 signs are tame in comparison.

[LucasMcCain]

Our church is posted 30.07, and that doesn't particularly annoy me. We do have dedicated security, but they are not identified in any way; I just know what to look for. I carry every Sunday, just like I do every other day.

I would not attend or be a member of a church that posted 30.06 signs. Even if I could get some kind of exception letter from leadership. I'm not going to be part of a church family that has adopted anti-gun policies in violation of Biblical principles. It's not just a personal preference or safety issue; it's a theological issue. A church is supposed to be a group of like minded believers. If they don't believe in letting my brothers and sisters in the faith defend themselves, then we are not like minded.

Self-defense and firearms are independent of one another. A theological discussion rests purely on self-defense, independent of any specific type of weapon. An organization may consider all risks associated with allowing / disallowing firearms independently from support of self-defense. Thus, firearms aren’t a matter of theology or scripture.

I disagree. The apostles were specifically instructed by Christ himself to carry swords, even if it meant selling their most valuable possessions in order to afford them. The type of swords in question would be roughly analogous to handguns; short swords carried commonly for self defense. You can't argue that the Bible supports self defense, but restricts the means of said self defense. I don't believe there is any case to be made scripturally for restricting carry in church. There is a strong case to be made for allowing it. Saying that self defense is okay, as long as you leave the most effective self defense tool you own in your car? Is that really your argument?

The Bible is absolutely filled with violence, both offensive and defensive. It is only condemned when it is unwarranted or unjustified. That is not the case when defending your church family against unwarranted violence with the most effective means at your disposal.

[oljames3]

Our church is posted 30.07, and that doesn't particularly annoy me. We do have dedicated security, but they are not identified in any way; I just know what to look for. I carry every Sunday, just like I do every other day.

I would not attend or be a member of a church that posted 30.06 signs. Even if I could get some kind of exception letter from leadership. I'm not going to be part of a church family that has adopted anti-gun policies in violation of Biblical principles. It's not just a personal preference or safety issue; it's a theological issue. A church is supposed to be a group of like minded believers. If they don't believe in letting my brothers and sisters in the faith defend themselves, then we are not like minded.

Self-defense and firearms are independent of one another. A theological discussion rests purely on self-defense, independent of any specific type of weapon. An organization may consider all risks associated with allowing / disallowing firearms independently from support of self-defense. Thus, firearms aren’t a matter of theology or scripture.

I disagree. The apostles were specifically instructed by Christ himself to carry swords, even if it meant selling their most valuable possessions in order to afford them. The type of swords in question would be roughly analogous to handguns; short swords carried commonly for self defense. You can't argue that the Bible supports self defense, but restricts the means of said self defense. I don't believe there is any case to be made scripturally for restricting carry in church. There is a strong case to be made for allowing it. Saying that self defense is okay, as long as you leave the most effective self defense tool you own in your car? Is that really your argument?

The Bible is absolutely filled with violence, both offensive and defensive. It is only condemned when it is unwarranted or unjustified. That is not the case when defending your church family against unwarranted violence with the most effective means at your disposal.

Well said, LucasMcCain. FBC Elgin, my church, only asks that LTCs conceal in the sanctuary during worship so as not to be a distraction to some. Works for me.

[Jay2121]

Yes well said.

[NotRPB]

More than self defense, also to defend the flock.
The rod and staff were striking weapons, like clubs, (Until recently a prohibited weapon in Texas) to defend the flock and I believe the shepherd David may have used such in killing the lion and the bear.

[34] And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock:
[35] And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.
[36] Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear:

[EP45]

Happy Thanksgiving,

Thank you for all the responses, read through everything, and did some more research on the many topics. I watched a lot of church security videos among other things.

The one area I am focused on is the goal of using 30.06 and 30.07 signs to control the environment. My contention is that there should not be either sign as it creates the perception of a gun-free zone. I could tolerate a 30.07 sign as I understand the desire to not see folks open carrying; I believe verbal notice would be just as effective for open carry.

The statement was often made that the security team wants to control the environment from others who may be carrying a handgun. They do not know these other individuals, do not know their qualifications, state of mind, etc. Should a situation ensue, there may be chaos as individuals carrying draw their handgun and the security team did not know they were carrying.

Additionally, the example I cited briefly of the woman leaving her purse unattended with her handgun in the purse.

The general answer for this is to restrict all but a select few from carrying a handgun with 30.06 and 30.07 signs (along with other perceived benefits from having these signs up). I understand a modicum of control but felt putting up the signs is a negative.

I did not bring up that some of our liberal friends in New Zealand or even here in Texas (Beto) are doing the same thing; trying to control the environment by controlling the gun situation in their respective environments.

My assertion would be to have neither sign, or just the 30.07 sign should be in place. Realize that “unauthorized” individuals will carry in your church (often with these signs up), be they criminals or off-duty low enforcement (as examples) and chaos usually ensues during encounters where weapons are drawn. I would reach out to the congregation to ask LTC carriers work with the security team.

If individual LTC carriers are doing irresponsible things, leaving a weapon unattended in a purse, I would have a talk with that individual and believe verbal notice could be given that they are not welcome to carry if not up to reasonable standards. I believe a much better choice than signs restricting others rights.

Regardless, thank you for your responses and as always encouraged by the pro-gun stance seen on this forum.

[oljames3]

First Baptist Elgin does not post signs. We use verbal notice only for carrying openly in the sanctuary during worship. I carry openly except then.

[Texas_Blaze]

Our church is posted 30.07, and that doesn't particularly annoy me. We do have dedicated security, but they are not identified in any way; I just know what to look for. I carry every Sunday, just like I do every other day.

I would not attend or be a member of a church that posted 30.06 signs. Even if I could get some kind of exception letter from leadership. I'm not going to be part of a church family that has adopted anti-gun policies in violation of Biblical principles. It's not just a personal preference or safety issue; it's a theological issue. A church is supposed to be a group of like minded believers. If they don't believe in letting my brothers and sisters in the faith defend themselves, then we are not like minded.

Self-defense and firearms are independent of one another. A theological discussion rests purely on self-defense, independent of any specific type of weapon. An organization may consider all risks associated with allowing / disallowing firearms independently from support of self-defense. Thus, firearms aren’t a matter of theology or scripture.

I disagree. The apostles were specifically instructed by Christ himself to carry swords, even if it meant selling their most valuable possessions in order to afford them. The type of swords in question would be roughly analogous to handguns; short swords carried commonly for self defense. You can't argue that the Bible supports self defense, but restricts the means of said self defense. I don't believe there is any case to be made scripturally for restricting carry in church. There is a strong case to be made for allowing it. Saying that self defense is okay, as long as you leave the most effective self defense tool you own in your car? Is that really your argument?

The Bible is absolutely filled with violence, both offensive and defensive. It is only condemned when it is unwarranted or unjustified. That is not the case when defending your church family against unwarranted violence with the most effective means at your disposal.

As much as I wish to engage in a more detailed theological discussion, this isn’t the forum. But I’d ask that you reconsider the way that He spoke, sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively.

[DEB]

Our church is posted 30.07, and that doesn't particularly annoy me. We do have dedicated security, but they are not identified in any way; I just know what to look for. I carry every Sunday, just like I do every other day.

I would not attend or be a member of a church that posted 30.06 signs. Even if I could get some kind of exception letter from leadership. I'm not going to be part of a church family that has adopted anti-gun policies in violation of Biblical principles. It's not just a personal preference or safety issue; it's a theological issue. A church is supposed to be a group of like minded believers. If they don't believe in letting my brothers and sisters in the faith defend themselves, then we are not like minded.

Self-defense and firearms are independent of one another. A theological discussion rests purely on self-defense, independent of any specific type of weapon. An organization may consider all risks associated with allowing / disallowing firearms independently from support of self-defense. Thus, firearms aren’t a matter of theology or scripture.

I disagree. The apostles were specifically instructed by Christ himself to carry swords, even if it meant selling their most valuable possessions in order to afford them. The type of swords in question would be roughly analogous to handguns; short swords carried commonly for self defense. You can't argue that the Bible supports self defense, but restricts the means of said self defense. I don't believe there is any case to be made scripturally for restricting carry in church. There is a strong case to be made for allowing it. Saying that self defense is okay, as long as you leave the most effective self defense tool you own in your car? Is that really your argument?

The Bible is absolutely filled with violence, both offensive and defensive. It is only condemned when it is unwarranted or unjustified. That is not the case when defending your church family against unwarranted violence with the most effective means at your disposal.

As much as I wish to engage in a more detailed theological discussion, this isn’t the forum. But I’d ask that you reconsider the way that He spoke, sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively.

Too bad that there isn't a way to debate/discuss a topic like this. I would really find that enjoyable, especially if there are different theological thoughts. Would sure have to be moderated closely, as some folks really get bent out of shape on religious disagreements, instead of just talking and discussing, along with the use of biblical (or even other) references. Folks would sure have to have an open mind in a discussion such as this. So, I do understand why this forum prohibits this activity.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Our church is posted 30.07, and that doesn't particularly annoy me. We do have dedicated security, but they are not identified in any way; I just know what to look for. I carry every Sunday, just like I do every other day.

I would not attend or be a member of a church that posted 30.06 signs. Even if I could get some kind of exception letter from leadership. I'm not going to be part of a church family that has adopted anti-gun policies in violation of Biblical principles. It's not just a personal preference or safety issue; it's a theological issue. A church is supposed to be a group of like minded believers. If they don't believe in letting my brothers and sisters in the faith defend themselves, then we are not like minded.

Self-defense and firearms are independent of one another. A theological discussion rests purely on self-defense, independent of any specific type of weapon. An organization may consider all risks associated with allowing / disallowing firearms independently from support of self-defense. Thus, firearms aren’t a matter of theology or scripture.

I disagree. The apostles were specifically instructed by Christ himself to carry swords, even if it meant selling their most valuable possessions in order to afford them. The type of swords in question would be roughly analogous to handguns; short swords carried commonly for self defense. You can't argue that the Bible supports self defense, but restricts the means of said self defense. I don't believe there is any case to be made scripturally for restricting carry in church. There is a strong case to be made for allowing it. Saying that self defense is okay, as long as you leave the most effective self defense tool you own in your car? Is that really your argument?

The Bible is absolutely filled with violence, both offensive and defensive. It is only condemned when it is unwarranted or unjustified. That is not the case when defending your church family against unwarranted violence with the most effective means at your disposal.

As much as I wish to engage in a more detailed theological discussion, this isn’t the forum. But I’d ask that you reconsider the way that He spoke, sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively.

Well, this statement certainly takes the position that Christ was speaking figuratively when he said to buy a sword. I do not believe that was the case. The disciples responded to His statement to buy a sword by saying "Lord, look we have two swords." Jesus then stated "It is enough." Had He been speaking figuratively, He would have clarified His statement as He did when the Disciples misunderstood his statement about being wary of of the yeast of the Pharisees.

You are correct that this is not the place for indepth religious discussions, but I had to throw in this counter-point.

Chas.

[TreyHouston]

DANG!!!! ONLY 2 IS ENOUGH!!!

[oljames3]

DANG!!!! ONLY 2 IS ENOUGH!!!

That's two swords + Jesus.