A Brief Theology Of Church And Personal Security

With the recent event in Texas, this takes on increased relevance.

Prov. 22:3: "A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions..."

A Brief Theology of Church and Personal Security

One of the hot button topics of our day is the idea of allowing firearms carry – concealed or otherwise - in churches. For some, this represents the ultimate expression of paranoia. After all, the church is the one place where one should feel safe. For others, the idea of allowing firearms in the church seems to fly in the face of implicit trust in God for our protection.

And yet, while Jesus did in fact teach that there are circumstances under which we turn the other cheek, there is a Biblical basis for armed church and personal security.

Going back to the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 9 details the decision made jointly between King David and the Prophet Samuel to establish a temple guard corps, a select group of men entrusted with the physical security of the tabernacle (and later, the temple), its treasuries, and its utensils. This task was so important that King David reassigned his most trusted guards, the Korahites, from their duties guarding his palace to the protection of the temple. These men guarded the entrances of the House of God to insure both the sanctity of the meeting place and the security of those taking part in the worship activities. They accounted for the utensils used in the worship ceremonies, checking them in and out each day. They guarded the treasury and foodstuffs. So while God is ultimately responsible for the defense of His house, David and Samuel recognized that we live in a fallen world in which God expects us to take those actions that are consistent with security and protection. This is a principle laid out in Proverbs: "The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it." A literal translation of the term, "hides", indicates covering one's self, taking those steps that are consistent with protecting one's self from impending trouble or danger.

OK, but that was the Old Testament. The New Testament tells us to turn the other cheek. Again, this is true - to a point.

As was stated earlier, Jesus did teach that there are circumstances under which turning the other cheek is the most appropriate response. But the same Jesus who gave this teaching also COMMANDED His disciples to arm themselves for their own protection.

Luke 22 gives the account of the hours preceding the crucifixion of Jesus, specifically, the time He spent in the Garden of Gethsemane immediately preceding His arrest. An interesting exchange took place between Jesus and His disciples in verses 35-36:

"And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?"

 They said, "Nothing."

 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

Notice what isn't - and then what is - covered here.

Jesus began by reminding the disciples that when He sent them out on an earlier missionary quest, everything was to be provided for them by God (Matt. 10:5-10). They were to take nothing with them - no money, knapsack, sandals. Not even their staves. This is significant. The staff wasn't just to assist them in traversing the rugged terrain, it was also a means of defense. The reformer John Knox was known to have been a master of the staff, and he is reputed to have laid out a number of highwaymen during his years of travel. But for the disciples, for their first quest, everything was completely in the hands of God.

With Jesus’ impending death, however, something changed. I don't claim to fully understand why the change was necessary; God is still, ultimately, the one who provides everything, including protection, for us. I simply acknowledge that something changed. As Jesus readied the disciples to live in a world in which He was no longer physically present with them, He gave them a new mandate - with one significant addition. Going forward, they were to make provision for funding, clothing, shoes -- and personal protection, a sword. This last addition was so important that Jesus, the same one who taught us to turn the other cheek at times, COMMANDED His disciples to sell their cloaks if necessary to provide it; the implication seems to be that it was better to be cold than unprotected. His COMMAND had nothing to do with forestalling or repelling His impending arrest and death; the soldiers were already on their way at that moment. and swords weren’t readily obtained by going to the local marketplace. It is significant to note that two of His disciples were already carrying swords prior to his admonition to obtain them (verse 38, “They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’”), and there is no evidence that Jesus EVER reprimanded them for doing so. Jesus understood that He was sending His disciples into a fallen world that was going to go from bad to worse, and that, while God is ultimately in control, there is still a human responsibility to provide for our own defense.

But didn’t Jesus command Peter to sheath his sword, reprimand him for using it?  Doesn’t that contradict what you just said?

Yes, Jesus did indeed reprimand Peter’s use of a sword AT THAT SPECIFIC MOMENT IN HISTORY.  

Why?

As has previously been observed, the soldiers were already on their way to arrest Jesus.  The problem wasn’t THAT Peter used his sword, the problem was his REASON for using it.  Even though he had spent three years with Jesus, he failed to grasp His reason for coming in the first place.  Like so many other Jews, Peter was looking for a Messiah who was primarily POLITICAL.  In his mind, Jesus appeared to restore the literal political throne of David and throw off Roman chains - and he was ready to launch a revolution to make that happen.  He failed to grasp - until later - that Jesus came to establish a SPIRITUAL kingdom.  So when Peter drew his sword and used it in anger, attempting to forestall the death of Jesus, Jesus rebuked him, telling him that the one who lived by the sword, as he was about to do, would die by it.  Jesus wasn’t categorically rebuking use if weapons, He was rebuking a very specific mindset.

Is God ultimately the one who provides our protection? Absolutely. Did God entrust human government with the responsibility of providing a level of protection? Again, the answer is yes. Romans 13 teaches this clearly. And yet, none of this negates our personal responsibility to provide for the protection of ourselves, our families, and our churches. So while human government continues to diminish the level of protection it provides (no fewer than TEN US Supreme Court decisions affirm that law enforcement has no legal obligation to protect individuals, that their obligation is to society as a whole, and that security is a PERSONAL OBLIGATION), more of that responsibility falls on the individual. 

Thankfully, we live in a country whose Constitution explicitly recognizes that God has granted us the right to defend ourselves. The right protected by our Constitution to bear arms in our own defense is consistent with the command given by Jesus Himself.

The "Gun Free Zones" Lie....

The NRA: Flip Flop, Inc....

Interesting how the NRA continues to ignore its own contributions to gun control.

In the 1920s the National Revolver Assoc., a branch of the NRA at the time, proposed the first gun control legislation requiring concealed pistol licenses, registration of pistols, making those records available to police, and mandatory waiting periods, just to name a few of the requirements; 9 states passed it.

It is a fact that the NRA helped WRITE the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1938.

In 1939, Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

After the assassination of JFK, NRA Exec.V.P. Franklin Orth came out in support of banning mail order sales of firearms: “We don't think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.”  The fact that the vast majority of firearms purchased this way were used to commit no crimes of any sort was conveniently ignored.

The NRA backed California’s Mulford Act of 1967, banning the carry of loaded weapons in response to Black Panther protests against gun control.

Jim Baker, Director, NRA-ILA, 1993: " We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is what we want."

2018, NRA asks ATF to regulate bump stocks and other parts that have the effect of increasing the rate of fire of a semi auto firearm, a move that could eventually be used to regulate ALL semi auto firearms as the action of the slide to reset the trigger has the effect of speeding up the rate of fire for a semi auto firearm.

The NRA is fully complicit in the development and advancement of gun control even as it fights some aspects of gun control.  I cannot support the NRA.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day 2018

Service Animals And Your Personal Feelings....

There is a video going around showing a woman throwing a temper tantrum - and I mean a REAL temper tantrum - because a veteran with a service dog entered a restaurant. As has become so common these days, she was going to vent until someone caved in to her demands to either have the animal removed or to have the vet segregated from the rest of the customers, which doesn't appear to have happened. So I figured this would be a good time to put out the following as a public service:

"[...] Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.
A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.
Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.
People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals," ADA Service Animals.

It's the law.

She can be glad she's not in Michigan. Her actions toward a person being attended to by a service dog are punishable by law:

"MCL 750.50a Service animal; prohibited conduct by individual; violation as misdemeanor; rebuttable presumption that conduct initiated or continued maliciously; conviction or sentence under other applicable law; definitions.
Sec. 50a.
(1) An individual shall not do either of the following:
(a) Willfully and maliciously assault, beat, harass, injure, or attempt to assault, beat, harass, or injure a service animal that he or she knows or has reason to believe is a service animal used by a person with a disability.
(b) Willfully and maliciously impede or interfere with, or attempt to impede or interfere with, duties performed by a service animal that he or she knows or has reason to believe is a service animal used by a person with a disability.
(2) An individual who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.
(3) In a prosecution for a violation of subsection (1), evidence that the defendant initiated or continued conduct directed toward a service animal described in subsection (1) after being requested to avoid or discontinue that conduct or similar conduct by a person with a disability being served or assisted by the service animal shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the conduct was initiated or continued maliciously.
(4) A conviction and imposition of a sentence under this section does not prevent a conviction and imposition of a sentence under any other applicable provision of law.
(5) As used in this section:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in any conduct directed toward a service animal described in subsection (1) that is likely to impede or interfere with the service animal's performance of its duties or that places the person with a disability being served or assisted by the service animal in danger of injury.
(b) "Injure" means to cause any physical injury to a service animal described in subsection (1).
(c) "Maliciously" means any of the following:
(i) With intent to assault, beat, harass, or injure a service animal described in subsection (1).
(ii) With intent to impede or interfere with duties performed by a service animal described in subsection (1).
***(iii) With intent to disturb, endanger, or cause emotional distress to a person with a disability being served or assisted by a service animal described in subsection (1).
(iv) With knowledge that the individual's conduct will or is likely to harass or injure a service animal described in subsection (1).
(v) With knowledge that the individual's conduct will or is likely to impede or interfere with duties performed by a service animal described in subsection (1).
(vi) With knowledge that the individual's conduct will or is likely to disturb, endanger, or cause emotional distress to a person with a disability being served or assisted by a service animal described in subsection (1).**** (asterisks added)
(d) "Person with a disability" means a person who has a disability as defined in section 12102 of the Americans with disabilities act of 1990, 42 USC 12102, and 28 CFR 36.104.
(e) As used in subdivision (d), "person with a disability" includes a veteran who has been diagnosed with 1 or more of the following:
(i) Post-traumatic stress disorder.
(ii) Traumatic brain injury.
(iii) Other service-related disabilities.
(f) "Service animal" means all of the following:
(i) That term as defined in 28 CFR 36.104.
(ii) A miniature horse that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks as described in 28 CFR 36.104 for the benefit of a person with a disability.
(g) "Veteran" means any of the following:
(i) A person who performed military service in the armed forces for a period of more than 90 days and separated from the armed forces in a manner other than a dishonorable discharge.
(ii) A person discharged or released from military service because of a service-related disability.
(iii) A member of a reserve branch of the armed forces at the time he or she was ordered to military service during a period of war, or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge is authorized, and was released from military service in a manner other than a dishonorable discharge."

PA Official Calls On Muslims, Christians To Protest Moving US Embassy To Jerusalem….

I FULLY SUPPORT MOVING THE EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE HISTORIC CAPITAL OF ISRAEL, JERUSALEM.  I HAVE NO INTENTION OF ACCEDING TO DEMANDS OF SOME PA OFFICIAL TO PROTEST THIS MOVE.  IN FACT, I HEREBY CALL ON PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP, AS ONE OF HIS FIRST ACTS AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TO HONOR HIS WORD AND IMMEDIATELY MOVE OUR EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM.  

"... Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, who hath with his hands fulfilled that which he spake with his mouth to my father David, saying, Since the day that I brought forth my people out of the land of Egypt I chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build an house in, that my name might be there; neither chose I any man to be a ruler over my people Israel: But I HAVE CHOSEN JERUSALEM, THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE THERE; AND HAVE CHOSEN DAVID TO BE OVER MY PEOPLE ISRAEL. Now it was in the heart of David my father to build an house for the name of the LORD God of Israel. But the LORD said to David my father, Forasmuch as it was in thine heart to build an house for my name, thou didst well in that it was in thine heart: Notwithstanding thou shalt not build the house; but thy son which shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house for my name. The LORD therefore hath performed his word that he hath spoken: for I am risen up in the room of David my father, and am set on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built the house for the name of the LORD God of Israel. And in it have I put the ark, wherein is the covenant of the LORD, that he made with THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL," 2 Chronicles 6:4-11, emphasis added.

I STAND WITH ISRAEL.

Healing Doesn't Begin With Putting God Back In The White House....

.... It begins with bringing Him back to the CHURCH HOUSE.

Standing Rock...

We are hearing about the protests going on in N. Dakota regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline.  The latest development is the coming of representatives of the UN to insure that everything is being done in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a declaration the US never signed.

The argument is being made that construction of the pipeline is somehow a violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, a treaty that expanded the boundaries of the Sioux reservation established by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851.  The argument is being made that the terms of the treaty protect certain sacred and burial sites, protections ignored by the pipeline company.  A reading of both treaties will find that such areas were never even addressed under the terms of the treaties.  They are available to be read here:

Treaty of 1851, http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio0594.htm#mn12;
Treaty of 1868, https://ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=42&page=transcript.

There are some problems with claiming protections under the 1868 treaty, which has been the main defense of the protestors.

First, the main concerns of the treaty were to A) establish boundaries of the Sioux reservation; B) elicit certain promises that settlers, railroads, etc., would not be attacked by members of the tribes; C) elicit promises to end wars; D) establish payments to be made to the tribes by the US government; E) codify certain promises by the US government to "improve" conditions for the tribes.  Sacred and burial sites were never even mentioned by the treaty, neither were commitments to consult with the tribes before any development would take place.  The latter commitment is part of the UN Declaration we never signed.

Second, the specific area of concern to the Standing Rock band wasn't part of the territory established by the treaty.  The following map illustrates the extent of the original reservation (outlined in purple), as well as the territory now included in the Standing Rock reservation (north of the purple line, outlined in brown).  The specific area of concern was not part of the reservation until 1875, added to the reservation by an executive order.

In fact, if that area had not been added,  the pipeline would be 40 miles distant from the reservation at that point.

Which brings us to this consideration: as the following map demonstrates, the area where the protests are taking place is outside of the reservation.

In fact, the protest is taking place on privately owned/held property, off the reservation.  While the protestors are demanding that THEIR property, traditions, and rights be respected, they are disrespecting the property and rights of others.

I am cognizant of the fact that our country has not acted honorably toward our indigenous peoples.  Over the years, the US legislature has enacted legislation that significantly reduced the territory ceded to the Sioux under treaty.  But we need to be aware of what is happening and how the situation is being manipulated.

The Attack On Vets Continues - Collecting Enlistment Bonuses...

They say no good deed goes unpunished, and this is just the latest example.

Ten years ago, California (as was true of many other states as well) was having difficulty filling the ranks of the California National Guard.  So they tried did something to make service more attractive: they offered large enlistment bonuses.  It was effective, and many enlisted as a result.

Ten years later, Pentagon auditors determined that the bonuses paid to enlistees exceeded Pentagon guidelines, so in typical bureaucratic fashion, instead of going after the state of California to recoup their funds, they are pursuing collection actions against veterans, men and women who enlisted in good faith, who served their country in Afghanistan and Iraq, who honored their commitment and their contract. And they are literally driving some into insolvency.

This is both immoral and unethical, and this latest attack on our veterans must stop.

The following link will take you to a petition asking the Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, to rein in the Pentagon, to order them to cease and desist their collection activities against our veterans and to make whole those who have suffered harm because of it, and to direct their collection activities against the parties that truly bear responsibility - the State of California and the California National Guard:

Stop Forced Veteran Enlistment Repayments!

"Behold, We Did Not Know This:" A Response To Normalization Of Relations With Cuba

“How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

Selah

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.  Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked,” Psalm 82:2-4, ESV.

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless," Isaiah 10:1-2, ESV.

Pres. Obama chose to normalize relations with Cuba despite their history of oppression against the Church.  His actions have not brought about a change for the better in the Cuban government, rather, they have ENCOURAGED a Godless and despotic regime to continue in their oppression. 

THIS is the responsibility given to our leaders by God; pay close attention to the warning He includes:

"Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.  If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?  Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, AND WILL HE NOT REPAY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORK," Proverbs 24:11-12, ESV, emphasis added.

Pres. Obama and former SecState Hillary Clinton cannot claim ignorance.  They may never answer to the courts of man, but God says the day is coming when they will answer to HIM.

Crackdown on Christians in Cuba