Pastors and Pistols

Here's an excerpt from the Bible study commentary that I am writing in the book of Romans.  I was reading in Romans 12:9-21 and came across Romans 12:17-21, which says, ¹⁷ Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. ¹⁸ If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. ¹⁹ Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” ⁿ says the Lord. ²⁰ On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; 

if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. 

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” ^o 

²¹ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 

The concept of retaliation here is a tough one for me.  I am a prior service recon Marine.  When I leave my house, I carry a Beretta 92FS semi-automatic pistol.  I sometimes have moments when I doubt myself in carrying a pistol because I ask myself, “What if I were to use this right now and shoot someone?”  When is retaliation okay?  When is it okay to do violence?  1 Thessalonians 5:15 (NIV) says, “¹⁵ Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else.”  Also, 1 Peter 3:9 says, “⁹ Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.”  When I read these verses, they clearly say do not repay evil with evil or wrong for wrong.  Let’s say that I am standing in a store in the checkout line, which is near the door.  There are ten people in the store including women and children.  I happen to be looking out the window and I see an armed man approaching the store with a mask on his face.  He enters the store with his gun drawn and fires a shot without making any demands.  I am directly beside him in his blind spot and he doesn’t see me.  What do I do?  If there is an assailant intent on simply killing everyone in the store, what is the more evil action: standing by and not intervening physically or allowing the man to empty his gun in the store killing everyone inside?  If I attack, I could kill him with my bare hands, he could hit his head on a counter and die of a head injury if I try to push him to the ground, or any number of things could happen that could take this guy's life.  Even if I just try to tackle him with the intent of holding him until the police arrive, he could die.  What is the difference if I have a gun?  Really, not much.  I could shoot him and he survives the gunshot.  He COULD surrender.  In that case I would be considered a hero.  If he dies, it is there that some would say, “Well, a pastor shouldn’t be killing people!”  I would contend that the primary factor is in my intent in the situation.  Is it evil to protect the weak?  No.  Is it evil to intend to kill a person?  Yes.  I admit that I hold murder in my heart for certain people in this world, which is something that I need to get figured out through the process of sanctification.  However, I carry a gun so that if a bad guy with a gun starts hurting people, I can intervene.  The gun is not to kill people.  The gun is to help people.  If I draw a gun in a situation, my intent will not be to kill the assailant as much as it is to stop the assailant.  If the assailant surrenders, it’s over.  If he does not, it will be over when I pull the trigger or I am neutralized myself.  In either case, my intent is not evil.  The way I see it, I am not repaying an evil person’s evil with evil.  I am responding to evil with the loving reaction of protection of the innocent.  Maybe I’m just trying to justify my actions, but I believe that there is a need for shepherds in the world who will run the wolves out of the sheep pen.  I just happen to be a shepherd who carries both a Bible and a gun.  

I would be really interested to hear some thoughts on this from gun owners and from non-gun owners.  What do YOU think?  

First Baptist Church of McDonalds

I was doing my Bible study this morning in Romans 12:3-8 and I was putting together my notes for Sunday morning Bible study.  I started thinking about something that I've been pondering for a while now.  Now, the passage talks about Spiritual gifts, but it also mentions the body of Christ and how the body fits together.  I also was drawn to Matthew 28:19-20, which is known as the Great Commission to the church.  The very words of Jesus command us to go and make disciples.  I have thought about church planting recently (not planning on leaving New Bridge to plant, just thinking about planting in today's church culture", as well.

A few things have been bothering me about church planting in today's culture and I just wanted to air them out and maybe get some feedback on what I'm thinking here.  I may be completely wrong here, but I have a little bit of a criticism for church plants/planters and I think we need to reevaluate our methods and mindset towards opening the doors to new churches.

The trouble in my mind revolves around a question that I have.  The question is this: why do so many of today's church plants have to have the same name as their parent church?  Don't get me wrong.  I don't want to come off as a hater here.  I'm not opposed to church PLANTING.  What I am opposed to is church FRANCHISING.  I currently minister at New Bridge Baptist Church in Sandston, Virginia, which is just outside of Richmond.  Let's say that we decide to plant a church.  If we follow the model of the megachurch (again, not hating on megachurches.  Just making an observation), our church plant will be called "New Bridge: 'New Location'" (i.e. New Bridge: South, New Bridge: Mechanicsville, etc).  The daughter church may have a campus pastor, but will air messages by the planting churches pastor (I am NOT saying that our pastor has this mindset, by they way!  I'm just creating a fictitious example here).  The plant will probably be under some control, if not mainly controlled by the planting church.  Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to be the pattern.  I thought church plants were supposed to be comprised of a team that was raised up, supported, and then eventually cut loose to do their own ministry.

Why are churches building earthly empires instead of the Kingdom of God?  It just seems to me like there are some churches who want to talk about the number of campuses that they possess way too much instead of just planting a church and letting it just be a church.  Can a church do good things if it has the name of the parent church?  Sure, it can.  I just wonder if the franchising mindset behind planting churches isn't contributing to the celebrity of churches and pastors, which is contributing to an increasing dropout rate in the church today.  Maybe I'm just not making any sense here.  Am I alone here or am I being way too hard on the church?  I would love to hear some thoughts on this.