Verdict: Church Security Teams Unbiblical

This was my response:

I found your article interesting, and it provides fodder for debate. However, it leaves me with many questions. If I understand you correctly, you believe one is mandated to determine why a person who is attempting to kill him is doing so? The nature of a violent attack is usually very dynamic and the killer often doesn’t reveal whether he hates my belief system or whether he has a blood lust to kill me. So your reasoning strikes me as somewhat naive.

Recently, a woman seeking counseling at a church was killed. Her husband came to the church and shot her dead. As far as we know, she was killed due to marital strife, and not because of her Christian beliefs. If the counselor is armed, is he required to determine the killer’s intentions just because of his geographical location (i.e. being in church)?

Further, it is my understanding those who believe and follow Christ are the church. So, your assertion of two spheres is puzzling to me.

I would also ask whether God desires his followers to defend the innocent or allow them to be killed by evil men. Which is more evil? Stopping a deadly attack by deadly force and killing one bent on evil or allowing the many innocent to be murdered and slaughtered when one has the ability to stop it?

The truth is many deadly force encounters are not stopped by an armed church security team, but rather by frightened people making a brave survival attempt and attacking the armed aggressor with empty hand techniques. By reacting to their natural fight or flight response and attacking a killer with their empty hands, would the author suggest they are sinning against God because they are not turning the other cheek and allowing him to kill them?

a couple of thoughts ... as a practical matter, how would anyone in a defensive situation know the motives of an assailant if grevious bodily harm is imminent? Innocent life is always worth defending, every time, every place. How would it be right to be protected at the grocery store, airport, or football field but not at church? If security team can't provide security, members would best serve in another capacity. I hope my local police officers will not conditionally protect my community.

If you have time to hand the perp a questionnaire, then you don't need a weapon, and this discussion ends here.  If, however, your life, or those you are serving are in jeopardy for any cause, the hesitation to consider the moral impact of your action just cost someone their life. 

The shoot/no shoot decision should be a part of your instinctive, trained response to a crisis. When the moment of crisis erupts, your big brain has shut down and you are relying on your training.  You cannot determine motives, you can only see actions, and that from an external perspective.  Adding in a tenuous subjective analysis only costs you time and allows the perp to continue unabated. 

When the perp chooses to engage in destructive behavior, he has placed himself in the crosshairs of society, and ultimately will be judged before the Throne.  We do not choose the time or method of his demise, that is in God's hands.  In this instance, we are merely the instrument.

Glen’s view and comments show a concern and consideration for the different instances of self defense that I concur with.

That the original writer feels there is no reason to have a firearm is fine and his opinion, but his view that there should be no Security Teams is not one I can understand and there are to many instances where these teams, which I prefer to call Safety Teams for some, have prevented problems and saved some from death or injury.

And to say we can just “trust God to be in charge” of a burglar or crime is way off from the Bible and faith beliefs that I am familiar with, which talk about “free will” and a need to be personally accountable and responsible.

Jesus calls all to come unto Himself and while redemption and salvation are open and free to all who hear the Word, each must accept and act to accept in order to believe and be saved. It takes personal responsibility, not just trusting God to provide, that is one of the reasons He gives us free will.

Some have commented that we should just pray and trust God to provide for and protect us since He is in charge and control of all things and that a Security Team or firearm is not needed if we trust Him.  Maybe others can explain why a Safety and/or Security Team is bad and not needed and that we can just trust God or Jesus to save us from harm?  I believe He gave us free will to allow us to make decisions and do things that were not in His plan, just like He gives us redemption and salvation, but... we have to believe and accept it,it doesn't just happen because he wants us to be saved.  The Good Shepherd provides for and protects his flock, keeping them safe and not just putting them out to pasture and leaving them alone.

I believe God holds us accountable as good stewards of what He provides and those he guides to us to minister to and serve, for His glory and praise.  If that is true, and I believe it is, then He wants us to be like the Good Shepherd & provide for them, their safety and their security, against attack or harm as best we can.  A Safety Security Team does not have to have a firearm, in fact, unless they have specialized training and know when NOT to fire just as they know when it may be reasonable and good to fire, it's too dangerous.

But, if we have a right to protect ourselves at home, at work or on the street, I don't believe He expects us to give up that right to self defense and obligation to defend the safety and life of another, if we can.  A Team has other options besides a firearm, including just being a method of deterrence and detection so they can warn inside by communicating the danger and getting help and assistance or calling 911 for needed help.

It is all a decision that each of us and every church should review and discuss but most definitely I believe that a church should have had a Review and developed a Plan for their safety and security, a Team to carry out the Plan and that it should be practiced so everyone knows what to do and what to expect.  And they need the equipment and communication items or tools to make the Plan work and to be able to feel they are prepared.

It is far better to have a plan and all to know what to do when an incident occurs, rather than everyone try to do their thing or take their own action, which may cause more problems, injuries and death than the use of the Security Team and Team members and Staff who are trained and know what to do and how to do it.  In a church there are a lot of emotional or Spiritual moments when someones actions or movements might be misinterpreted by some who observe movement, where the Team can quietly remove those involved.

Wow, just wow!  I don't have time to start pulling Bible verses. 

First, I must state that the whole "two kingdoms" view is very flawed and totally inconsistent with Biblical teaching, in my opinion.  There is One God, One Salvation, and God is the God of everything, which includes the here and the now.  There is no inconsistency in the behavior required of us between the civil (or secular) world and the spiritual world.   Dallas Willard's book "The Divine Conspiracy" illustrates these points very well.

Second: Christianity does not demand pacificism.  The "turn the other cheek" command is grossly misused.  A slap in the face in public was a gross insult, as it is today.  We were told not to return insult for insult, tit for tat, but absorb the insult and not to escalate the situation.  Christ does not say we have to take a beat down, or allow ourselves to be killed. We are prohibited from seeking revenge; however, which is one of the principle points of the situation considered by Christ. In fact, remember Christ, in speaking of coming persecution and hard times, asked the Twelve if they were armed.  The produced two swords, and he said "It is enough."

Third: Being persecuted does not mean we have to do nothing.  Persecution in the time of the early Christians, often as it is around the world today, was undertaken by the governing authorities, so there literally was nothing that could be done about it.  We are to pray for our persecutors, but we are entitled to pray that the persecution ends.  We are entitled to take action to end the persecution if it is unlawful.  The wife can do nothing about the beatings so long as the husband claims it is because of her faith? Of how about an honor killing?  No, she is entitled to a restraining order, to file criminal charges, and to shoot the man if she fears for her life.

Fourth: The Temple had a very large guard.  The guards were equipped with the latest and greatest equipment of the time.  They also had very ornate shield, spears, etc. that David had made for them.  Were they just window dressing?  No. In fact, a king of Judea was installed by the High Priest under their force of arms and protection.

Fifth: The Jews of the Old Testatment were frequently attacked and killed simply because of who they were. (Not much seems to have changed in that regard.) Remember Nehemiah and the rebuilding of the walls?  Each worker had a sword in one hand as he worked.  Was that all a bluff?  Those outside the wall wanting to attack were very real.  The Jews were always entitled to defend themselves.

Sixth: There will soon be no Christians if the blogger's position was valid.  Open season has been declared on Christians so long as one yells "Allah Akbar" or "Death to Christians." No one would be entitled to defend himself in that circumstance according to the writer.  Trust me there are many followers of Allah, secular humanists, communists, and others who would love to take the blogger up on his offer.

Seventh: Does the blogger's positon mean that no church member would be justified in calling the police in order to stop the active shooter so long as he is "persecuting" Christians? (One must assume the interview regarding the shooter's intent has already been conducted.)  Wouldn't that be a sin?

Eighth: The whole blog smacks of the thought process of an ivory tower professor or an appellate judge who has no connection with how things work in the real world.  It is clear that the writer has never been involved in the type of violent encounter that he discusses, since the average encounter is over in seconds, and even active shooters average less than 5 to 8 minutes.  When, where, and how will all this analysis take place?

Ninth:  The blog smacks of the legalism that both Christ and Paul spoke so strongly against.  I will not take my firearm to church on the chance that I might sin when I shoot an active shooter who might be there to persecute me and not be merely after the money or venting his psychotic rage on the nearest large group of people.  Talk about splitting hairs!  It is better to die than in error than live in error, I guess.  Christ came to free us from this gnat's hair splitting.  He is present here and now, we are to be in the world and to let our behavior model how wonderful the world would be if we are all Christians. (Read Romans, both Corithians, Galations, etc.)

Tenth: Christ was not a sissy.  Christ was the Lion of Judea.  He was a warrior.  He went into the Temple and he kicked butt, throwing over tables, beating those who were defiling His House, and taking on the establishment of the church was a great deal  of bluntness, courage, and power.  Do you really think that if on the road to Jerusalem that an assassin had jumped out and yelled "Death to you, heretic" and ran at Him with a sword, Jesus would have just stood there and said "Oh, he is persecuting me for my beliefs, I must let him kill me"? Of course not!  He and his gang would have taken the guy down.  Christ had a mission to fulfill, and this would have destroyed the mission.

Eleventh: God created me.  There are three ways I may be "legally" killed:  1. God Himself choses to do it. 2. The government for a justifiable Biblical reason (murder, for instance), following due process. 3. War.  Other than these three, I am entitled to defend myself and others from a deadly attack because no one has the right to take that life from me.  This rule was set out in Leviticus, was the law of Jesus' time, and continues to be the law in most places today.

Christ did not come to bind us with more legalistic rules than were already present, he came to set us free of them, to give us practical tools for living in a real world; rules that apply whether we are in church, at work, or on vacation.  There is no double standard.  You may act to save your own life or you may not.  The right of self-defense is written into law in the Old Testament, was approved by Jesus with regard the Twelve in coming persecution, and continues to be the case today.  My life is a gift of God and no man has the right to take it from me, no matter his motives.

I really struggle with this type of thinking. It's ok to own and carry a gun, but not okay to use it (unless you know for sure that the person is not attacking you because of your faith). At that point, why defend yourself at all? I don't even see where his view would allow a follower of Christ to serve as a soldier or police officer, except for his "two kingdom" duality. If I can't defend myself, or others, unless the attacker is guaranteed to not be attacking because of the victim's faith, how can working for the government absolve me of that "sin"?

I come down to a couple major points. First, the line from Christ about "turning the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-40) seems to specifically address insults, not attacks. The followup about the lawsuit (v. 40) seems to reinforce this.

Now consider Luke 22:33-52. As Jesus was letting the the disciples know that He was going to be killed, He was getting ready to go pray on the mount of olives. He then turned to the disciples and reaffirmed that they were taken care of when they went out with nothing. He then told his disciples to gather their money, gather their clothes, and if they didn't have a sword (that generation's handgun), to go buy one. They only came up with 2 swords (out of 11 people - that's almost 20% of his followers being ARMED). We all know the story of the prayer where the disciples fell asleep, and then He was arrested, and a disciple cut off a servant's ear. The admonition delivered there was not against the overall use of the sword (He TOLD them to be armed), it was because He KNEW he was supposed to be taken to fulfill His entire purpose for coming to Earth. 

When I carry a firearm, I carry it to defend myself and my family form those who would harm us. I choose to defend myself, because I can best serve and help my family while I am there. I defend my family because I choose to defend innocence - which I would have a hard time finding that against Christ's teachings. 

I lead the Safety Team at my church, and part of the team (including myself) is armed. I believe a Safety Team is valid for several reasons. First, safety encompasses fire and weather safety, assistance, and greeting those who attend services and events. Yes, "security" is part of our mission. That security covers several very important, and I believe biblical, areas. First, Jesus had a special concern for children. A large part of our mission is to act as both a deterrent and reactive assistance to make sure the kids are safe and secure. our other concern is for the "innocent" adults - Christians and non-Christians alike, who are attending services. Whether this is simply calming any heated discussions or arguments, or reacting to violence. Not only are we the first line of defense, we are also designed as the first to contact the authorities. 

One of the things that I believe is missed in the article is simply the fact that, no matter how badly we want it to be, not everyone attending a church service or activity is a Christian. How Christian is it to leave them to their own devices should someone try to do something to them or their kids? Those who are attending church are there to encounter God. My position is that it is very biblical to do as much as we can to provide them a safe place to do so. 

If/when the government or the anti-Christ decides to openly persecute followers or Christ simply because we follow Christ, I will choose differently. Until then, I believe that I am called to help provide a safe place for folks to encounter God. And I'm not ashamed of that.

Bryan

There are so many comments here that all I can say is AMEN! It just makes sick when people can seem to do studies of scripture but yet can't seem to grammatically follow a subject and article. This verse continues to be misquoted and  this person has found a new way to do so. I have never heard of such a thought as this: carry a gun but ask before you shoot. Is this to say that everyone who comes into a church is doing so to kill christians? Could it be that maybe he was just having a bad day and he saw cars parked at the church and knew he could take out a lot of people all at once? But we should all jump up and ask why are you here to kill us? If he says, 'just cuz' then we have the right to unload on him? Really? But then again there are plenty of christian that don't want to think about safety because the believe God will just take care of them. This reminds me of a lady that I know that would go running in her neighborhood with no protection at all. I told her that someone was more than likely getting her pattern down. Sure enough, several days later she was out running and a van drove by, she waved. The van comes by again, she waves again. The van comes back by again...she ran to the nearest house. So should she have stopped and asked if they were there to hurt her because she was a christian? Sheis now a CHL and runs with her 9mm. We have to be wiser than the serpent.

I read thru Ryan M's article, along with many followup comments, all of which makes interesting reading.   While I do not pretend to understand all about the "two kingdoms" argument, since it's obvious we do have to live in this physical world what we have here is perhaps more a disagreement as to what's persecution and what's a criminal act and how we should respond.  I believe most cases of persecution against Christians or the church has been and is "state sponsored" (as in the Roman Empire) or is related to another religion (as in Islamic militant groups).  The most likely scenario a church safety/security team would face is an individual or small group with criminal intent.  

An example might be the individual who entered the church in Colorado and was faced down by Jeanne Assam.  As best as could be determined (if I remember right) he was a nut case and maybe had a bone to pick but it could not be considered persecution against the church or Christians in general.  Other examples of actions considered criminal intent which took place in churches can be found referenced here at Church Security Alliance as well as your daily newspaper.

Since it's more likely we will be faced with something like this (a criminal act) than any "persecution", this is what we need to be prepared for.  I believe God allows us to protect ourselves, our families, and other innocents from those who would kill and steal and destroy. This is where a trained/armed safety/security group can come in.   Such a group would be just as biblical as an Old Testament armorbearer or watchman - or the armed disciples.

When confrontation comes, can we be 100% sure if it's "criminal" or "persecution".  No.  But I don't believe God intends for us to roll over and play dead in either case.   Any actions we take in any circumstance (including armed confrontation) would be taken in good faith and based on our best knowledge at that time. 

While we have seen actions taken against Christians in the US, we have yet to deal with serious "state sponsored" persecution or "religion sponsored" warfare as has been seen in other countries.  However, many of us find ourselves having to deal with criminal acts to one degree or another far more often than we'd like to.  

Let me add (though I may not word it well) I believe I'd rather stand before God and ask His forgivness for resisting some persecution in church than stand before Him spashed with the blood of innocents where I failed to act to protect those innocents in church because I was afraid of making a "two kingdoms" mistake. 

Thanks Bryon--All I really want to comment on as our church's Security Team Leader is that I agree with your statement completley! 

It is truly the sheep/sheepdog scenario.  We as team leaders have been entrusted by our own churches to protect the members, staff and most importantly our kids. We train for all possible situations but, can not train for all of them. I try very hard when screening new team members to sort through those that think because they have a black belt they will need to use it each weekend at some point, those that pull out there permit to carry when I first talk with them and on.  All huge warnings signs for me. It's a very fine line we walk as concealed carriers not only in our personal lives but more so in our church roles.  We train very hard on force continuim--verbal confrontations don't mean that you pull your firearm-there are definite steps that should be taken as the threat rises. I know that each of my team members will react differently--but, continue to train and pray that GOD is watching out for all of us as security team members.  It's a very strange world.

Rick