Answering 10 Objections to Churches Having Armed Security

Here we will look at ten reasons why a certain man claims that it is a sin for churches to have armed security present during their meetings. This guy points out a lot of things which are truly wrong with churches and preachers in other messages he does, yet he also says that several things which are right are sin as well. He will find fault with anything and anyone. We’re not going to name him here since we don’t want to give him any more exposure. Nothing said here is validating a church’s authenticity simply because it has armed security. We seek to point out false doctrine and improper worship in whatever forms they appear while also not discouraging anyone in doing what is actually right.

Objection 1: Having Armed Security Isn’t Trusting God to Preserve Life

There is nothing about a church meeting which makes people being armed for protection there any better or worse than having armed security anywhere else. That is so even in the unlikely instance that the church group is one that the Lord Himself recognizes as authentically His.

Is working for money to pay for necessities to live not trusting God to preserve life? Is buying food not trusting God to preserve life? Are efforts to be in good health not trusting God to preserve life? Such things are only unbelief if one violates God’s commandments in doing them. The Bible clearly teaches that trusting God to preserve life doesn’t mean neglecting reasonable measures of protection. To not use these reasonable measures could actually be a presumption that violates God’s commandments since the Bible does command in Deuteronomy 6:16: “Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God.”

Someone being armed with weapons that they are ready to use to protect themselves and others isn’t violating God’s commandments. Jesus told His disciples to carry swords. Old Testament examples are valid too. Christians are under a new covenant but not a different morality. To claim otherwise is to say that the God of the New Testament is not the God of the Old Testament. That is also known as Marcionism. Anyone who doesn’t want to hear about the Old Testament is surely a false teacher. It is false holiness to act like some people carrying weapons at a church meeting is some impious, ungodly thing. The same people would have accused the righteous man of faith Nehemiah of not trusting God to preserve life. Nehemiah had the builders of Jerusalem’s wall carry swords and employ other layers of protection.

Nehemiah 4:16-23: “And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the habergeons; and the rulers were behind all the house of Judah. They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me. And I said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, The work is great and large, and we are separated upon the wall, one far from another. In what place therefore ye hear the sound of the trumpet, resort ye thither unto us: our God shall fight for us. So we labored in the work: and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the stars appeared. Likewise at the same time said I unto the people, Let every one with his servant lodge within Jerusalem, that in the night they may be a guard to us, and labor on the day. So neither I, nor my brethren, nor my servants, nor the men of the guard which followed me, none of us put off our clothes, saving that every one put them off for washing.”

Nehemiah and the people with him were in especially great danger. The measures they took for security would be extreme and unreasonable in many times and places. Yet a meeting having a few armed security guards present is not ever extreme and unreasonable in a fallen world where evil is always lurking.

The objector against armed security brings up Matthew 10:28: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Accounting for the destruction evil people might attempt and taking righteous measures against such is not sin. It is wise. Many preachers fear man in a sinful way, not due to the armed security at their church, but due to how they hold back truth from their congregation. Unreasonably fearing man instead of fearing God like He ought to be feared is also at the roots of the sin in people who open fire on groups or otherwise attempt to murder people. They ought to be put down so they are not successful in their murderous endeavor. But the objector to armed security, like many open enemies to Christianity, disgracefully shifts the blame from the murderers to those who stand in their way.

The objector also brings up Matthew 10:38-39: “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”

Rather than demanding that one comply with evil and lay down their life for one who is trying to commit murder, these verses are teaching that Jesus demands we lay down our lives to do what is right in His eyes and serve Him without fear of the consequences of doing so. Taking measures to oppose criminal action certainly does not oppose this unless it involves capitulating to evil in another way. It is false holiness to think we need to have empathy and/or sympathy for criminals- especially as they are in the process of committing crime. Jesus does not have empathy, let alone sympathy, for murderers. The Apostle Paul, though he had technically been a murderer, was not an armed thug who sought to kill his enemies to satisfy a personal vendetta or to lash out at the world by randomly killing others. Even with that said, when Paul repented he renounced all empathy and sympathy with himself in the murders he had been involved in. Anyone who truly repents towards God renounces all sympathy and empathy for themselves in regard to anything evil that they have ever done.

Objection 2: Having Armed Security is Not Loving Your Enemies Like Jesus Commanded

Only someone with twisted priorities and a depraved mind would say this. There is also a good chance that someone who would say such a thing is trying to harm others somehow and ready to accuse those who stand in their way of hating them. This is a common tactic of wicked professing Christians, Communists, and others.

It’s also worth noting here that Abraham, the man who is set forth in the New Testament as a model of faith for Christians, had 318 servants born in his house who were trained for war. These actually went to war to recover people who had been kidnapped by oppressors (see Genesis chapter 14- particularly verses 11 to 16). Most of the people whom Abraham and his men saved were wicked also and not his personal friends. Abraham (who was still Abram at this point) took the side of those who were wrongfully victimized in the current circumstance against those who were wrongfully oppressing them. God requires us to love our enemies when siding with what is right in the current circumstance means helping them. He doesn’t command that we enable our enemies, our friends, or anyone else in doing evil. He also does not require that we prioritize the lives of victimizers over the lives of those whom they are seeking to victimize. Doing so would be doing evil.

In relation, if someone is watching someone in a courtroom on trial for a criminally malicious act, and they don’t root for the person to be found innocent or guilty based on whether they are actually innocent or guilty, that is exceedingly devilish. In relation to these things, those who speak like the Christian thing to do is to never take sides in conflicts are teaching false spirituality and leading people into sin.

Objection 3: Having Armed Security Could Result in Killing God’s Creation Without Hope of Redemption

Though I am not going to quote from this fool directly, he believes that if someone starts shooting at a church meeting, then the men in the church should rush the shooter, take him down, and hold him while being careful not to kill him (or her). He says that shooting and killing the active shooter would make whoever was involved in this the judge, jury, and executioner of the active shooter. He says that even though this will result in one or a few people dying who would have lived otherwise, this is right since (he says) it is right that people in the church lay down their lives for the active shooter. He also says that church members should visit the shooter in jail and preach the Gospel to them.

First of all, if someone opens fire on a large group of people, they are the ones who are guilty of seeking to destroy God’s creation. The objector repeatedly rushes to blame the victims and those who would protect them rather than the victimizer.

It is also foolish to assume that the active shooter won’t be in a place where it is hard to get to them. The shooter could be in an elevated spot and/or in a spot where it isn’t possible for a large group of people to simultaneously get at them. It is also foolish to assume that there wouldn’t be multiple shooters. The “all the men rush the shooter” strategy could result in a lot more than one or two dying in the process.

If someone begins a murderous rampage with a firearm, then they have chosen to be the judge, jury, and executioner of others. Those who fire at them to stop them are not doing this. The attackers are also the ones who have made themselves their own judge, jury, and executioner since they have put themselves in a position where they need to be stopped as soon as possible to protect others from them. We ought to turn the scorn on the criminals and not the victims lest we be like Anarchists and Communists.

The Bible doesn’t teach you should be concerned about God sending a person to hell after you kill them if they have put themselves in a place where they must be killed in order for law and order to be upheld. The Bible doesn’t teach that we should love our enemies to the neglect of law and order. Those who say otherwise are criminals and/or criminal sympathizers. If you’re more concerned about the life of a criminal then those whom they are targeting, then you’re surely going to hell yourself and you’re not going to help spare anyone from hell either.

If the shooter is subdued and they are still alive, then at that point it is right to try to save their life so they can face justice from the authorities and maybe, though it is extremely unlikely, yet repent towards God so their soul can be saved. Understand that by both God’s law and by man’s law, when someone is in the process of seeking to destroy others, then anyone who can stop them has the jurisdiction to stop them even if it means killing them. And also understand that if someone is shooting up a church meeting, especially if it is a rare church which is being faithful to the Lord, they probably have heard the Gospel many times before and have hardened their hearts greatly already. There is even at least a moderate chance they are an apostate who was once a real Christian but turned away (many of the people I know or know of who might violently disrupt a church meeting are in this category). Also, if the shooter survives and you go to visit them later, don’t expect that you’re going to be the hero who brings them out of darkness. Don’t even expect that they will be willing to talk to you at all.

Actually, one of the best tools that exist to advance the Gospel is criminals getting what is proper for them to get in this life. Only those with a lawless false gospel could deny that.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 says: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

Objection 4: Having Armed Security is Practicing Idolatry

Who says that it is? If that is surely the case, then you’re accusing the righteous Nehemiah whom we looked at earlier of being an idolater.

Proverbs 17:15 says: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.”

The objector says that taking time to practice shooting is stealing from Bible study time. That is very strange coming from someone who obviously is so unlearned in God’s ways which are set forth in the Bible. Though most people ought to study the Bible a lot more than they do, 30 to 40 minutes a day would be a reasonable way to do better in that. Studying the Bible for 30 minutes a day while really considering and receiving what you read is better than studying the Bible for so long that you don’t have time to do anything else anyways. You have to really think about what you read and absorb it or it is not going to do a lot of good. If someone is more concerned with practicing shooting than studying their Bible, they probably are an idolater. There should be enough time for both though.

Nothing said here is claiming that everyone ought to carry a gun at church or necessarily carry a gun anywhere. If there are people in a congregation with military and/or law enforcement training, they should probably be the armed security guards (if their track record is good). Otherwise, it is worth considering hiring off-duty or retired law enforcement and military personnel to do the armed security. They already have training and experience.

Objection 5: Having Armed Security is a Terrible Witness to the World

Again, who says? Though many churches spend money on frivolous and silly things to the point where this in itself demonstrates their falsehood, armed security for a public meeting is a reasonable thing to spend money on. Why should a pastor be trusted to shepherd anyone’s soul if he doesn’t at least make sure someone trustworthy at a meeting he is in charge of is armed somehow (according to what the laws of his land allow) in order to protect the lives of those there?

If people are turned off to Christianity because a church has armed security, then they have a twisted concept of Christianity anyways which ought to be rebuked. The message of most churches and/or the deeds of their members is indeed a terrible witness to the world. Yet having armed security is not an evil deed- unless the armed guards are drawing their weapons when there is no real danger present or they are bullying in another way so that the people who don’t have felonious intentions there are being threatened.

Objection 6: God Doesn’t Want People to Perish

This is really similar to objection number 3 and was dealt with already in dealing with number 3. Nevertheless, the objector brought up a few more points here which will be addressed.

Committing murder in one’s heart is a serious sin which must be repented of. It is nowhere near the same as actually trying to kill people. Along the same lines, it is unjust and outrageous to accuse people who kill those attempting murder of being no different than they are.

The objector cites Matthew 26:52: “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

I think the objector only cited the second part of the verse, but let’s look at both parts. Jesus told Peter to put his sword into its place because it was the Father’s will for Him to go to the cross. That situation was an exception to a general rule which Jesus had specific instructions concerning. That is why it was not right for Peter to draw his sword to defend Jesus in this particular instance. The truth that “all they take the sword shall perish with the sword” demonstrates precisely why those who unrighteously employ weapons should not be felt sorry for if they are killed in doing so. Those who seek to live by violence are criminals who are strong candidates to die by violence- even by violence that is not necessarily unrighteous violence. Jesus had told His disciples to carry swords before Matthew 26:52 occurred- because the general rule is that they would need them for defense against those who might try to attack them. They also didn’t have guns then. The reality that there are criminals now who use guns means that it is logical for some people to carry guns to protect themselves and others from armed criminals. More on this in relation to Christians in objection 10.

Objection 7: Having Armed Security is Partial and Shows Love for One’s Own People Over the Criminal Shooter

This man accuses others of partiality when he is demonstrating immense partiality (as well as hypocrisy). To say that the lives which are innocent in a matter ought to perish for the sake of the guilty in the matter is showing partiality to the criminal. Having armed security would only be partial (or, respect of persons) if the armed security were told not to shoot the active shooter if they were the pastor’s offspring or someone else regarded by the church leadership or the armed security guards as more important than others or if the armed security were told not to shoot back as long as certain people in the congregation had already exited the building. You get the picture. The objector really shows his highly depraved mind by this objection.

Objection 8: Having Armed Security is Fearing Death in an Unbiblical Way

It is common sense that employing a measure consistent with Biblical principles to save life does not need to involve fearing death in an unbiblical way. If someone won’t go somewhere they need to go for righteousness’ sake out of fear of death, then they fear death in an unbiblical way. If you carry a weapon in going somewhere because the danger level warrants that, then that is not sin. Another example of fearing death in a sinful way would be if the armed security were told to draw their weapons the moment anyone becomes verbally confrontational at the meeting.

It is also presumptuous to just assume you are not going to die before God wants you to. The Bible doesn’t teach that in a blanket, unconditional way. It rather teaches that people can (and often do) die due to their own bad and/or foolish choices. The consequence of such a death which everyone should care about is that they won’t be able to glorify the Lord and execute righteousness anymore.

The only people who can reasonably be confident that they won’t die before God wants them to are those who are glorifying Him with their whole hearts and actually keeping His instructions to the best of their knowledge and ability. Those who are doing so won’t treat the continuation of their own lives with presumption and they won’t treat the lives of others carelessly. They also won’t value the lives of victims or potential victims over the lives of the criminals seeking to victimize them.

Objection 9: Those Who Use Armed Security Follow the Culture and Not Christ

We must look to God’s Word in the Bible to define what is right in His eyes and what is a product of man’s sinful cultures. To say armed security is evil is to falsely accuse many righteous men in the Bible.

When the Bible speaks of being carnal in a way that is evil, it is not speaking of care and protection of one’s physical body. It is rather speaking of commitment to one’s inclinations to transgress God’s law.

Objection 10: Having Armed Security Feeds the Violence of Mankind

No, it is opposing the violence of mankind.

The objector even cites Cain killing Abel here. It is common sense that if Abel had defended himself with a weapon and killed Cain in the process, that would have been quenching the violence of mankind rather than feeding it.

The objector also brings up the earth being filled with violence in Noah’s time as a notable example of how wicked it had become. Why does he think that was? One big reason is that people were being aggressively violent and getting away with it. It wasn’t just the perpetrators of the violence that were the problem. It was the enablers and the fools (such as the objector) who foolishly said that using violence to stop violence is wrong. No, that is the logic of the anti-christ. God even appointed the death penalty for murderers in Genesis 9:6.

The objector brings up the Roman soldiers interacting with John the Baptist in Luke 3:14: “And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”

Rather than telling the soldiers not to defend Roman territory and keep order (as they were being paid to do), John was rather telling them not to do violence to extort money out of people (as Roman soldiers were known for doing). The instructions to do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with their wages are all connected since extortion by violence and potential false accusation were ways Roman soldiers commonly obtained money to supplement their wages.

The objector goes on to talk about how it is the government’s job to execute people and not a Christian’s job. The objector also says Christians should not be part of the government. If that is so, then John the Baptist would have told the Roman soldiers they needed to resign from their jobs. He did not do so. We also see how the Apostles baptized a centurion and a jailer which carried swords in the Book of Acts. If they couldn’t be Christians and be part of the government, then they would have had to resign from their government positions before they were baptized like whores and thieves need to renounce their harlotry and theft in order to have a valid Christian baptism. If a police department or any aspect of a government is so corrupt that you can’t be part of it without being corrupt yourself, then they don’t be part of it. Yet being a faithful Christian and serving in the government, including in law enforcement or the military, are not inherently incompatible.