August 05, 2005

From an idea by David Anderson

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." US Bill of Rights, Article I

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." US Bill of Rights, Article II

Are these two articles mutually exclusive? According to people, to churches, in various places such as Minnesota, the answer is yes. A man in Hennepin County is suing to get the new Minnesota Conceal Carry Law made unconstitutional on the grounds that "Religious institutions should have the right to control their own property and to be able to worship without firearms.'' In doing this, he is representing a Lutheran church and a Unitarian church. This is, of course, ironic, since it was by force of arms that ancestral Lutherans in Germany and elsewhere defended their right to even assemble to worship God by the dictates of their conscience, and the Unitarian church, like its sister United Church of Christ, traces its ancestry from the Puritan Congregational churches of New England: those pilgrims whose silhouettes with tall hats and blunderbusses walking to thanksgiving (church) services we put up in November.

But more to the point: it has been the tradition of hundreds of generations of Christians traveling to, and assembling for worship bearing arms for the protection of their fellow worshippers, families, and themselves, starting with Jesus’ own disciples carrying swords as they went to the Garden of Gethsemane. In fact, Jesus Himself made this responsibility clear, both then and earlier, and since then Bible-believing Christians have continued with swords, crossbows, rifles, and pistols. Despite this, these churches don’t want their members who assemble for worship each Sunday (assuming that they do that) to be armed. They believe in the First Amendment with its rights of freedom of religion, speech, etc; but NOT the Second, with its rights to keep and bear arms. They believe in some of Jesus’ words, but not ALL of them, clearly.

In addition to this error (of ignoring the words of Christ), they clearly make one more mistake: they make a mistake far too common today: they attempt to separate “religious institutions” from “religious people.” Apparently, in their view, the “religious institution” is not made up OF people, but exists to control people. However, there is NO religious institution, in Scripture or elsewhere, if there are no people: by denying people assembling (the actual meaning of the word normally translated as “church” into English from Greek, ecclesia, is “assembly”) the right to decide for themselves about weapons, they are denying the right of the institution to “control their own property.”

To push the point, if I wish to worship without firearms, I have every right to lay aside my pistol, rifle, knife (or sword). If someone else worshipping with me is carrying a weapon, I am not (unlike this man claims) being forced to worship with weapons. I can find nothing in Scripture or the creeds of the various denominations to state that worship must be performed with NO one being armed. Were that the case, then I fear there have been few assemblies of worship in the history of this world which have been “acceptable.” I would no more worship with a group, an assembly, which denied me the right to bear arms in the assembly than I would worship with a group that demanded that I worship in the nude: both are examples of assuming authority that God has NOT granted to them, either individually or corporately.

Of course, these churches are also demonstrating their hypocrisy: they are willing to cite the Bill of Rights for the protection of their own religious rights, but refuse to allow not just the bearing of arms protected by that same Bill of Rights, BUT also deny other worshippers of God (including perhaps some of their own number) their own right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, including the obligation to protect the weak and innocent, even in the midst of holy services.

Finally, who are these churches harming by their actions? Let’s look at motives. Why are they doing this? Perhaps they are afraid of people who carry guns. While it is hard to imagine anyone less dangerous (that is, less likely to commit a crime against someone by attacking them with a gun) than people who assemble together for worship, perhaps they are afraid of their fellow churchgoers. In that case, I pity them: they obviously have not paid attention to far more of Jesus’ teaching than His words on self-defense.

Perhaps they just hate guns – and thus again ignore fundamental Biblical teaching: that it is the use to which something is put that makes it evil, not the thing itself.

Or perhaps they are afraid of visitors who might bring guns and use them for evil purpose. Well, in that case, they are very confused and naïve: a law or sign prohibiting weapons on the premises will not stop these people: knowing that one or more people on the premises MIGHT be armed is a surer deterrent.

Whatever their reason, these two churches, and their representative, are seeking to revoke a law which has, as its primary reason, the defense of innocent people – an act which cannot in any way be justified by Christian principles.

Now, you may say that I am being a hypocrite myself by denying these churches (religious institutions) their right, as private institutions, to decide what they can and cannot have on their property: and once I would have agreed with you. But now, having studied and meditated and (yes, even) prayed on the subject, I have corrected my view. There are some freedoms which are NOT subject to private property, to private limitations and opinions. For example, no one would claim that our right to be free from involuntary servitude (that is, slavery) can be “waived” or made void on private property. Nor do we surrender our right of free speech on private property (we cannot TRESPASS to exercise free speech, but while we are on another person’s property, we do not give up our freedom of speech – even though we should exercise restraint in doing so).

“Oh,” you say, “but those are IMPORTANT, BASIC human rights?” You think that keeping and bearing arms for self-defense is NOT? Some people believe (and I do agree with them) that the difference between slavery and freedom is just THAT right, more than any other, to keep and bear arms. I have NO RIGHT to forbid someone from carrying arms on my property if I have invited that person, either singly or generally, to enter my property. If I do not want that person to carry a weapon on my property, and there is not a legitimate reason (such as environmental conditions which would make it a bad idea to carry a certain kind of weapon) to ask him to replace it with another weapon, leave it outside, or to put it on a hook, then I can refuse him entry or order him to leave. So I might agree that a church could place and enforce a sign saying “Visitors are not invited if they are armed” but not to forbid their own membership from bearing arms as a condition of entry into what is, after all, their own property as a member of the church. And certainly not to grant ANY church the right to arbitrarily create gun-free zones, as this Minnesota effort seeks to do.

And finally, please go back and reread the first two articles of the Bill of Rights, quoted at the beginning of this article, and note the differences. The First Amendment takes the familiar “Congress shall make no law…” but the Second Amendment is more broad: “… shall not be infringed.” The First, technically, only applies to Congress (although the Fourteenth extends that to States, as well); but the Second is a blanket prohibition – NO ONE can “ infringe” on that right.

So to summarize, this action by these two “religious institutions” in Minnesota is wrong on at least three counts:
(1) It is unchristian.
(2) It is immoral.
(3) It is unconstitutional.

‘Nuff said.

Author’s Note/Disclaimer: I am and have been for my entire adult life an active member of a church and have assembled for worship with other Christians virtually every Sunday and most Wednesdays for my entire life. I normally DO carry a weapon, usually concealed, to and in worship; I have, on occasion, openly carried a weapon either on my belt or on my shoulder, including military weapons as well as civilian weapons.

Archives

Do We See A National ID Coming?

Where Is His Mind

A Baker’s Dozen Tips to Preventing Home-Invasions-

Cop killing continues · can this be allowed to go on?

Bush Begins Second Term

Symbol Over Substance

How to kill a woman in broad daylight

A Diatribe for Memorial Day

Baker’s Dozen- Tips for Rebuilding Dysfunctional Societies

Thoughts on Fathers' Day from a Libertarian

What now?
(Part I – Consequences)

What now? (Part II - Responses that won't work)

What now? (Part III – A Call to Action)

Complete Archives for Nathan Barton