We have noted that a church building is architectural speech. But in order to speak truly as a church, it needs to speak gospel.
Made out of brick, and steel, and wood, and so forth, the architectural vocabulary is limited when it comes to doctrines like propitiation, substitutionary atonement, and so on. The task with such is to avoid speaking of a false propitiation, by building an altar instead of a table, for example. But there is one doctrine of the gospel which architecture can declare very plainly, and without ambiguity.
The gospel declares Jesus Christ as our refuge. The Lord Jesus is our rock. He is our fortress. He is the place of security and deliverance. He shields us. He places us in a high tower. As John Newton put it in his great hymn, “with salvation’s walls surrounded, thou mayest smile on all thy foes.” A church building can easily speak this kind of security. It is a metaphor, of course, but the transition is a natural one. Every building shelters us from the wind and the rain, but a church building should do it in a way that makes us think of how God shelters us from the world, the flesh, and the devil.
So we worship in a fortress. But the metaphor should never run away with us. This does not mean we should walk around in here like we were an armed garrison—open carry at worship would make a liturgical statement, one that we don’t want to make. That statement would be that we consider all the others here to be potential enemies, not brothers and sisters. We are in the sanctuary, not in an Old West saloon. Concealed carry is different, and no more a problem than having a church building with a sprinkler system installed in case of fire.
We would not be dubious about open carry at church because we were afraid of guns—far from it. The problem is liturgical, not practical. This is a secure fortress, and so we never want to install our anxieties into the liturgy. Here we are foreshadowing the time when we hang the trumpet in the hall, and study war no more (Is. 2:2-6). So let the stones cry out.
I’d like to be arrogant enough to think that my recent actions precipitated this post. I think it’s incorrect to assume that wearing a gun on my hip assumes that those around me are enemies, anymore than wearing a seat belt in the church parking lot is making a judgement about my fellows’ driving abilities. If I only wore my gun in the worship service, I think a case could be made, but that’s not the case. It seems to me that hiding the gun shows less respect for the worship itself and my fellow worshipers. Tradition generally tells us… Read more »
I think the British Cameronian Regiment had open carry in its chapel liturgy: armed guards at every service, as per services conducted by Richard Cameron the Covenanter. (Source: Mr Kiplings’s Army by Byron Farwell?)
Why is the liturgical statement that the church building makes (protecting us from the world, flesh, and devil) not in conflict with the physical protection it offers (protecting from wind and rain), yet carrying a gun is “carrying it too far”?
Couldn’t it be argued that the elders should all open carry for the liturgical reminder that they are there to protect the flock from enemies?
Tom, thanks for the comment. A liturgical statement is different than a personal statement. So I don’t have any problem granting that someone’s personal statement could be fine on it. But the elders have the authority to determine if and when a liturgical statement should be made. If a bunch of the ladies started wearing orange sombreros to signify a gentle and quiet spirit, they are making more than a personal statement — depending on how striking it is, they are suddenly making a statement on behalf of the entire church. In such a case, the elders should make a… Read more »
Tom Albrecht wrote: Why is the liturgical statement that the church building makes (protecting us from the world, flesh, and devil) not in conflict with the physical protection it offers (protecting from wind and rain), yet carrying a gun is “carrying it too far”? Couldn’t it be argued that the elders should all open carry for the liturgical reminder that they are there to protect the flock from enemies? Couldn’t it also be argued that, if the elders all wore umbrellas and wind breakers inside the church building, it could reflect against the liturgical statement that the building itself was… Read more »
Doug, I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing it. “…open carry at worship would make a liturgical statement, one that we don’t want to make. That statement would be that we consider all the others here to be potential enemies, not brothers and sisters.” Or it could be that, since we don’t lock our doors during worship, we realize that any old wolf could come prowling in. Your argument seems to be the tail wagging the dog — if others are offended, then there is offense, regardless of the intent of the “offender.” Sounds similar to the PC line that, it… Read more »
I’m wondering about people that get uncomfortable around those situations. If your sidearm is distracting your more skittish brothers and sisters from worship, is that loving? Wondering if it could loosely stray into that “causing your brother to stumble” area? Like said before, it’s more of a political statement than anything. It makes no tactical sense at all for the average person in 99.99% of situations. All it does is add to the likelihood that stricter gun laws will be coming our way because some people feel the need to flex their second amendment rights 24/7. Our internet machines are… Read more »
I think that some of you guys, Tom in particular, are missing a rather large point that Pastor Wilson aptly made in the second to last part of his article: guns are something that Christians look forward to not needing anymore. Personally, I love guns. Just got a new one myself and I am all over it, sighting it in and what not. But I will rejoice on the day that guns are no longer needed and we can cast them into the fire along with all our other worldly possessions. The church service is supposed to reflect that. As… Read more »
Good Morning Pastor Wilson, Micah Hurd here from a sister Church, Heritage Covenant Church, in Weatherford Texas. I’d like to caveat this comment by saying how much I appreciate the great strides you have made for God’s Kingdom in modern Christendom. You are a member of my personal “Modern Christian Heroes” list. From time to time I think to myself that if I can be about a quarter as effective as you within my lifetime then I will have made a worthwhile contribution to God’s kingdom. This is my way of saying that you are an excellent example to us… Read more »
Pastor Wilson… thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I was considering a response, but feel no need to after reading Micah Hurd’s comment.
I will be taking Frank Golubski’s comments to heart, and appreciate all the responses to this post.
Concealed carry is so uncomfortable though. The only statement I would want to make with open carry is, “I’d rather carry a gun on my hip than shove it down my pants.” Plus, all the standing, sitting, and kneeling in church with a concealed hand gun only adds to the discomfort.
As a fellow Texan I want to applaud Micah Hurd!! A hearty AMEN brother!!
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/are-you-opposed-to-people-owning-guns
This might be straying off topic, but some insight from one of the great modern day theologians. I’ve grappled with this a lot.
Steve, that link to John Piper’s take on the issue is quite interesting and thought provoking. One could make the case that if you were a missionary and refused to defend yourself in the interest of keeping your would be murderers out of hell (at least temporarily) that is an honorable thing to do. On the other hand as one who believes in sovereign grace (as Piper is too, btw) I believe that there is nothing that I could do to remove that would be murderer’s name from the book of life written from the foundation of the world. In… Read more »
Good points, St. Lee! I think this is one of those issues that isn’t as cut and dry as one would like to believe.
The acceptability and noticeability of open carry would vary, I tend to think, based on the local culture. Texas, for example, may have rather different cultural standards vis-a-vis open carry than does Idaho (especially in the cute liberal hothouse known as Moscow).
Open carry here may not result in full fits of the vapors in bystanders, but it would likely draw some pretty strong side-eye, and maybe a quiet request from store employees to please conceal your weapon or take it outside, you’re making the soccer moms nervous.