For some believers, protecting churches with a safety team, contracted security, or contracted law enforcement is contentious. I’ve heard the arguments against protecting our churches. Some are focused on how protection would be perceived and, therefore, understandable. As with all things, perceptions need to be managed, not ignored. Other arguments are at best naive and uninformed, and none of them are supported Biblically. Generally, the resistance originates with the desire to return to a time when church was considered a safe place, or at least the illusion of that. The church and Christians are now, and always have been, under attack by the enemy. Those attacks are just manifesting in a way that we have not often seen in our communities. That battle begins in the spirit realm, but as all evil does, it manifests in the natural realm as well. Taking prudent steps to keep our houses of worship protected does not demonstrate a lack of faith; it is an act of good stewardship and obedience to God.
I am not emotionally motivated by either side of this argument; rather, I prefer a pragmatic approach. If we examine the facts and discover risk or reasonable potential for risk, it only makes sense to take a logical approach to mitigating that risk. Then, as we do with all things, we measure our steps with Scripture to ensure we are not acting outside of God’s will.
- Reported hostility toward churches and Christians has increased approximately 400% since 2019, according to the Family Research Council (FRC), the most often cited source.
- FBI statistics differ from FRC due in part to the FBI’s methodology for classifying hate crimes and gathering and recording crime statistics in 2021 without providing any reasonable explanation for doing so. The new method reflected significant reductions in some crime categories, and many felt that the FBI changed its methodology to serve political agendas. To compare between years accurately, the method of gathering and calculating statistics must remain constant. For this reason, the FRC statistics are the most reliable.
- Church-targeted incidents climbed sharply after 2021 and stayed high, while gun-related incidents more than doubled in 2024.
- Historically, when we see a new kind of evil – active shooter events, for instance which were rare prior to the Columbine shooting in 1999, have increased in frequency since then. From 2000 to 2024, there were 556 incidents, with 1,432 killed and 2,489 wounded. Including 2025 incidents, the total rises to 590. The single worst year for casualties was 2017, driven by the Las Vegas Route 91 attack (58 killed, 489 wounded).
- While the number of active shooter events occurring at houses of worship is small, it’s not zero. However, when we examine events where weapons are used in active violence at a church or against Christians, there is significant concern. Faith Based Security Network reports the following:
- Guns are used in about 58% of deadly force attacks, so more than 40% won’t be “active shooter” events.
- Over 77% begin outside, on the property, in the parking lot, or at an activity location.
- Its cumulative count was 2,361 deadly force incidents from 1999 through 2021, but there are no figures available since then.
The point here is that we have a problem with increasing instances of violence where houses of worship are being targeted. The risk exists and is growing rapidly, so It’s reasonable for Churches and church leaders to take prudent precautions to protect their churches.
What that protection looks like is a matter of opinion, and often times that decision is made by people with limited or no knowledge of how to evaluate the potential threat or how to effectively protect against it. If you are in a church that is at least giving serious consideration to providing some level of security, you are further ahead than most.
Lets See What Scripture Teaches Us
Many churches take the position that having armed security constitutes a lack of faith in God and His protection. In reality, this position is not supported by Scripture, whereas taking proactive measures to repel a potential enemy is precedent in Scripture.
Nehemiah 4:7-12 tells how the Jews who were rebuilding Jerusalem were threatened by their enemies, and verses 13-18 describe the proactive approach they took to protecting themselves. We must also protect our churches and Christians facing the threats we now face:
15 And it happened, when our enemies heard that it was known to us, and that God had brought their plot to nothing, that all of us returned to the wall, everyone to his work. 16 So it was, from that time on, that half of my servants worked at construction, while the other half held the spears, the shields, the bows, and wore armor; and the leaders were behind all the house of Judah. 17 Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens, loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. 18 Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built. And the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me. Nehemiah 4:7-8 NKJV
Self-Defense and Defense of Others Is Not Sin.
- Exodus 22:2–3 distinguishes: if a thief is struck and killed while breaking in at night, there is no bloodguilt. The principle affirms the right to use lethal force when life is reasonably threatened and there are no better options.
- Jesus told the disciples, “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36) in the context of changing, more dangerous times after His earthly ministry. While interpretations differ (some see it as figurative or limited to fulfillment of prophecy), the disciples already carried swords, and Jesus did not object until Peter used one against His arrest because it interfered with the redemptive plan.
- Luke 11:21 notes that “when a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.”
- The tabernacle and temple had armed gatekeepers and guards (Numbers 1:53; 1 Chronicles 9:21–27; 2 Kings 11).
- In Esther 8:11, the Jews were authorized to defend themselves, including the use of lethal force against a planned slaughter.
- Faith first: “Unless the Lord watches over the city, the guards stand watch in vain” (Psalm 127:1). Security never replaces God.
- Not aggression or vengeance: The goal is to protect the flock in an orderly way, not with heavy-handed aggression, pride, or retribution (Romans 12:17–21). Force is only a last resort for defensive purposes, used proportionally by trained, spiritually mature professionals who manage their authority responsibly and with humility.
- Civil authority: Romans 13 affirms the state’s role in bearing the sword. Church teams do not replace police; they provide immediate defense until authorities arrive.
- Wisdom and restraint: Teams should be carefully selected, trained, and governed by clear policy so that the response itself does not endanger the congregation.
The church and church leadership, our shepherds, are responsible for protecting the flock. Trained, responsible, and even armed protection is just as prudent today as it was in Biblical times. If we humbly accept the Scriptural fact that the devil comes only to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10), and that we as believers are his enemies (1 Peter 5:8-9), then we must take reasonable steps to protect His people. That is not fear or overreaction; it is humble obedience to God. Even if it doesn’t make us feel good. Obedience to God often doesn’t, and that discomfort is how the enemy tempts us to make decisions based on our feelings rather than the eternal truth of His word.
