Church-Armed Ministries: Safety vs. Media Influence

Church-Armed Ministries: Safety vs. Media Influence

Recently, an op-ed from A USA Today described the presence of armed churchgoers in Texas as ldquo;terrifying.rdquo; This perspective prompts a critical examination of the broader debate around gun control, especially in high-risk environments like places of worship. Does the presence of armed individuals truly necessitate a sense of fear, or does it more accurately reflect an effective response to potential terrorist threats?

Disagreement with the Op-Ed’s Perspective

I fundamentally disagree with the sentiment expressed in the A USA Today op-ed. The writer, by focusing on the armed individuals rather than the lives saved, employs a method that not only vilifies those armed but also disregards the crucial role they played. This is a deeply flawed approach, especially when one considers the anti-gun agenda that seems to underpin their narrative. The editorial appears more concerned with discrediting those who seek self-defense than addressing the safety issues effectively.

The writer's use of the term ldquo;terrifyrdquo; is not only inappropriate but also misleading. The fear is more likely directed towards those who wish to see churchgoers disarmed, rather than the potential for armed intruders. Those who advocate for gun control often overlook the very real threat of violent attacks, especially in public spaces like churches. Their agenda appears more aligned with a fear of gun ownership among citizens, which is ironic given the violent act that they herself appears to oppose.

Defensive Stance on Armed Individuals in Places of Worship

As someone who has carried every service for over 42 years and has never drawn my weapon, I firmly believe that guns are not the problem. Instead, they represent a well-equipped line of defense against malicious intent. In my experience, the presence of armed individuals in church offers a sense of security and empowerment. My fellow churchgoers, numbering over four, have also chosen to carry for their protection, and I couldn’t care less what the ultra-liberal media thinks about it.

Evidence of Successful Defense

The recent incident in Texas is not an isolated case. When an armed intruder threatened a church, it was these armed parishioners who stepped forward and likely saved lives. It is disingenuous to focus on the implications of armed presence in the face of a successful defense. The real question should be: which scenario is truly terrifying—100 unarmed individuals or any number of armed individuals?

The answer is clear: 100 unarmed individuals are far more vulnerable to a violent attacker than a congregation capable of rapidly responding to a threat. The very idea that a church should avoid arming its members is illogical. If we subscribe to the principle that an armed individual in a church is terrifying, then we must also accept that an armed intruder in a church is even more terrifying.

Christian Commandment to Be Prepared

A commonly cited Bible verse, often referenced in this context, is from the Gospel of Luke, where Jesus instructs his followers to be armed. In the New Testament, Jesus is recorded as saying, ldquo;Sell your cloak and buy a sword.rdquo; Although swords are not in vogue nowadays, the principle remains relevant. In a world where public safety is paramount, those who choose to be armed are not mere weapons but representations of vigilance and preparedness.

Clearly, the fear elicited by the A USA Today op-ed is misplaced. The true fear lies in the vulnerability of churches and other public spaces without a means of self-defense. The presence of armed individuals can be seen not as a source of terror, but as a necessary measure to ensure the safety of churchgoers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the presence of armed individuals in churches is not a cause for fear; it is a measure of preparedness and the defense against potential threats. The A USA Today op-ed, while well-intentioned, does a disservice to those who protect through arms and obscures the reality of the risks we face. The question of which scenario is more terrifying is not a complex one: an unarmed congregation is far more vulnerable than one with the means to defend themselves.