RICH LUSK
REFORMED EVANGELICAL SEMINARY PRESENTATION 4/6/26
I am not trained in church security other than having worked in churches where congregational security was taken seriously for the last 30+ years, but I have thought a lot about the biblical principles that ground a congregation’s right to defend itself from an active threat.
This is an issue of obvious practical importance today – but it’s been an issue the church has always had to give attention to. Over the years, I’ve taught in classical Christian schools, and in history class, I would sometimes show a documentary about colonial America. The video showed a re-enactment of people gathering for church and ALL the men were armed (to protect against Indian attacks). They walked into church ands took their seats, long gun in hand. Colonial laws required men to be armed and ready to defend themselves and their community.
In recent years we have seen an uptick in church shootings. The mob that invaded the church in Minneapolis did not turn violent, but it could have. Our churches need to be prepared. This is especially true since I’m sure churches like the ones represented in this class are probably perceived as more of a threat than many other churches. We know we are in a spiritual war with the left – and we know the left has a penchant for turning spiritual conflicts into physical conflicts.
This issue requires wisdom especially if you live a place that does not have strong self-defense laws. In many American states, the law-abiding who defend themselves are being criminalized, while the real criminals are being coddled. Some places in America and especially Canada have very strict gun regulations that can make constructing a proper church security team very difficult. But whatever the political situation, duties remain duties.
I realize it’s not likely that many of you have ever had to use lethal force to protect yourself or a loved one or a congregation. But it’s interesting to note that most of the great leaders we meet in the Bible are men who have killed someone:
• Abraham commanded a whole army of men from his household – he had a household militia that he used to defeat 5 armies and rescue Lot.
• Moses justly killed an Egyptian.
• The tribe of Levi was chosen to be the priestly tribe because the men of Levi executed idolaters in Exodus 32, piling up 3000 dead bodies on that day. In Numbers 25, Phinehas executed a couple committing sexual immorality, so his line was made the high priestly line.
• All of the judges fought wars.
• Jonathan, David, David’s mighty men, and other great war recounted in Hebrews 11.
The typical godly man in the Bible is a man capable of defending himself and others. This has always been considered a part of masculine virtue and duty.
The Bible distinguishes justified from unjustified violence. Most of the violence we see in the world around us is wicked. But there is such a thing as holy violence.
I’m dating myself here, but in the 1980s movie Karate Kid, Daniel’s mother tells him, “fighting is not the answer.” But the movie makes it clear his mom is wrong; sometimes fighting IS the answer. Violence can be a problem to be solved, but it is also be the solution to some problems. Violence is not always the answer – but it is sometimes. That’s just the reality of life in a fallen world.
Men have the duty to be protectors, going all the way back to Genesis 2, when Adam was created and commanded to “guard” the garden (which he failed to do). There are situations where woman can also engage in just violence (e.g., Jael in Judges 4), but in general this is a burden that falls to men. In general, women nurture life and men protect life. Under the law, God required every male over 20 to be a part of the militia (Numbers 1:3, 18-45, 26:2; 1 Chron. 5:17-18, 12:23-40; 2 Chron. 25:5). Exodus 32:27 says “Let each man put a sword on his side” – men were to be prepared for self-defense and the common defense.
John Piper famously said he would not kill an armed intruder in his home to protect his family from a violent threat because he would not want to send anyone to hell. But this is foolish non-sense. Whether someone goes to heaven or hell is not our responsibility. But the protection of our own family clearly is our responsibility as heads of households. The doctrine of ordo amoris helps us here – yes, I am to love even the man who breaks into my home, but I am obligated to love my family in an even greater way, and in the case of an armed intruder, my obligation to protect those closest to me far outweighs whatever obligation I have to the intruder. Any person who engages in an act of violent crime forfeits their own right to safety and even their right to life.
We also see in Scripture the right to self-defense:
• This is a natural right to life grounded in man as the image of God. We have built-in defense mechanisms (eyes that blink for protection, an immune system to fight off disease, etc.). We have an innate desire for self-preservation. In 1604, Sir Edward Coke provide the basis for what became known as Castle Doctrine, when he wrote, “The house of every one is to him as his Castle and Fortress as well for defence against injury and violence . . . if thieves come to a man’s house to rob him, or murder, and the owner or his servants kill any of the thieves in defense of himself and his house, it is no felony, and he shall lose nothing.”
• Exodus 22:2-4 teaches the right to self-defense (and by extension, property defense). But the case law also reveals the complexity of the matter. If a thief is stealing in broad daylight, where his non-lethal intentions are clear, he cannot be killed. But if he seeks to steal after the sun has gone down, when his intentions cannot be discerned and there may be reason to think he poses a threat to life, he can be killed. Force must be proportional to the situation. It must pass the reasonability test. Lethal force is a last resort.
• In Nehemiah 4:16-18, Nehemiah commands the workers rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem to have a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other. This traces back to Adam’s original mandate – to cultivate and guard the garden. Nehemiah says to the men, “Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.” This is reminiscent of Faramir’s line in Tolkien’s The Two Towers, “I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”
• In Esther 8:11, the Jews are rightly allowed to defend themselves, and even kill any armed force that comes to kill them.
Self-defense is not a form of unholy vengeance. Self-defense is stopping a violent crime as it is taking place. After the crime, vengeance upon the evildoer should usually be left to the civil magistrate. If someone breaks into your home to kill you, you do not have to wait for the police to arrive before acting to defend yourself. You know the saying: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” But if you get home and find your house has been robbed, you do not hunt down the criminal yourself; you call the police and let them handle it. This is simply sphere sovereignty: when possible, we should let the civil magistrate do his job and not try to do it for him by engaging in vigilante justice. The civil magistrate is God’s appointed ddeacon of civil justice/vengeance. When he is not able to do his job in an emergency situation where there is an immediate existential threat, we may defend ourselves.
We also see in Scripture other forms of justified violence:
• The unique cases of herem warfare (“holy war”) against the Canaanites and Amalekites. (Note: Holy war was just, but not normal. It was not genocide; God waited patiently until the Canaanites had matured in wickedness to bring complete judgment against them.)
• The criteria for just war are outlined in Deuteronomy 20 — interestingly just before Israel goes to wage harem warfare in Canaan.
• Genesis 9, Romans 13, and the penal code in the Torah etc. show that the civil magistrate is ordained to be an instrument of God’s wrath against evil doers, including the death penalty in certain cases. Murder (the taking of innocent life) is always a capital crime. Other crimes could warrant death as a maximum penalty in some cases; it was generally up to the victim to decide (cf. Numbers 35).
There is a myth that the early church was entirely pacifist. But this is not true. John the Baptist did not require the soldiers who came to him to lay down their arms or abandon their posts. He simply required them to fulfill their soldierly duties in a just way. Jesus and Peter ministered to high ranking military officials without qualms. The church fathers who spoke out against military service typically did so in the context of unjust/aggressive wars or acts of idolatry that they would be required to commit. There was a whole military unit in the second century, known as the “Thundering Legion” that came to be composed of mostly Christians. (The “Thundering Legion” is a great story — it should be more widely known.) The Crusades were a very mixed bag, but at their core, they were about a just defensive war to take back Christian lands from Muslim invaders. Christians have fought many just wars against Muslims over the centuries. (The “Winged Hussars” at the Battle of Vienna are another great story that should be more widely known.) The church has never been anti-just war. Remember, Adam in the garden was the original pacifist.
While the Roman Catholic Church likes to brag about its rootedness in tradition, it has broken with the Bible and church tradition on this issue. Pope Francis rejected the teaching of the Bible and church history on just war doctrine several years ago (likewise Rome has rejected the Bible on capital punishment).
Tucker Carlson recently said the Christian faith is distinguished from other religions not by its teaching on salvation by grace but that it is “specifically a non-violent religion.” But this is simply false. The Christian faith has never been a pacifist religion, apart from a few oddball marginalized sects. The Bible is very realistic about evil in this world and full of wisdom about how to deal with it. Pacifists always rely on non-pacifists to keep them safe so they can keep spouting their pacifist non-sense.
About a decade ago, the progressive Christian Shane Claiborne argued for pacifism because “the Jesus I worship did not carry a gun. He carried a cross.” But of course, this is just cherry-picking the teaching of Jesus. Yes, Jesus did carry and die upon a cross because that’s what the salvation of the world required. But that’s not all Jesus did or taught. Jesus also made a whip, turned over tables, and drove out the money-changers. Jesus blessed the faith of a Roman centurion. Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy daggers. Jesus threatened destruction upon Jerusalem and brought it to pass, with massive blood-shed in AD. In Revelation, Jesus goes forth conquering and to conquer; he is depicted as a warrior. Jesus was not and is not a pacifist. When Jesus told Peter to put his sword away in John 18, he was not committing himself to a doctrine of non-resistance; he was insisting that he had to go forward with the divine plan of redemption.
The reality is that sometimes Christians are justifed and duty-bound to fight back and sometimes we are called to suffer even to the point of martyrdom. There is a time for war and a time for peace, a time for self-defense and atime for martyrdom. Wisdom knows the difference.
We also see that Scripture protects our right to keep and bear arms. Sometimes God’s people keep weapons even when it was technically illegal to do so. For example:
• When Israel was under Philistine tyranny, Saul and Jonathan were still armed (1 Samuel 13). Tyrants want to have a monopoly on weaponry for obvious reasons, but such laws are intrinsically unjust. If we have a right and duty to defend ourselves, we have a right to arms as well.
• In Luke 22:35-38, Jesus looks ahead to the disciples’ post-resurrection mission, and commands his them to sell their cloaks in order to buy swords. Note that the Romans had made sword ownership by private citizens illegal at this time in history – yet Peter had a sword when they came to arrest Jesus, which Jesus had not objected to, and Jesus authorizes his disciples to purchase weaponry on the black market, which they would obviously keep concealed. Jesus would fully support the Second Amendment.
In cases where it would be illegal to possess a weapon, Christians must make prudent decisions about the cost/consequences of doing so. But we have also seen that states that have a monopoly on weaponry easily bully their people. In a Christian society, people will be free and responsible – which means they will possess weapons and use them righteously.
Taking the Bible’s teaching as a whole, it is clear we are not supposed to be passive in the face of evil.
A church security team, however formal or informal, is the outworking an application of these principles. A church security team is not attempting to usurp the proper role of the civil magistrate, any more than a husband and father at home with a firearm is attempting to replace the civil magistrate. But the statistics prove the wisdom of being armed and dangerous: Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times per year, depending on which study you look at. Further, “peace through strength” is a biblical principle – when it is widely known that you are prepared to defend yourself, you are less likely to need to defend yourself. “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his good are safe” (Luke 11:21).
Our churches should not be soft targets. The purpose of a church security team is not aggression but ordered protection. The members of a church security team should be qualified, trusted, and trained. You do not want unwise or low skill men responsible to defend your congregation in the case of an active shooter situation. But just as God through Nehemiah authorized the builders of the temple wall to be ready to defend themselves, so it is with congregations today. If we want to keep the peace, we best be prepared for violence. The alternative to being prepared is leaving our weakest members vulnerable. The alternative to being prepared is to be irresponsible. Peacemakers are not doormats.
The way a church security team operates is largely a matter of prudence. How many men should carry on any given Sunday? Open carry or concealed carry? What should the specific plan be when a mob invades, like in Minneapolis recently? Who is responsible to take down an active shooter? Should the security team be formal (which can increase liability and insurance costs) or informal (which can create its own set of dilemmas)? All of these are situation-specific questions requiring wisdom.
But this is clear: Church officers have an obligation, as shepherds of the flock, to make sure their people are protected from wolves, spiritually and physically – this means protection from both false teachers and from those who would physically harm the gathered congregation.
Junius Brutus summed it up well when he wrote, “Although then the church be not increased by arms, notwithstanding it may be justly preserved by the means of arms. I say further that those that die in so holy a war are no less the martyrs of Jesus Christ than their brethren who were put to death for religion….If to bear arms and to make war be a thing lawful, can there possibly be found any war more just than that which is taken in hand by the command of the superior for the defense of the church?…Some held in one hand their swords and with the other carried the materials to the workmen, for the rebuilding of the temple… we say also that the church is neither advanced nor edified by these material weapons, but by these arms it is warranted and preserved from the violence of the enemies, which will not by any means endure the increase of it.”
Of course, there are objections. Let’s consider a few:
• “Jesus said to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies and not resist an evildoer.” Jesus is describing our posture towards our enemies. We should never become bitter. We should be ready to suffer for God’s truth in certain situations where we have no alternative. In the Sermon on the Mount, it seems Jesus has in view humiliation rituals more than physical assault, and he is talking about attacks on our person, not physical attacks on us or those for whom we are responsible. Insults can be absorbed by love and a readiness to forgive. We should stop the escalation of any conflict, including a conflict that would escalate into unjustified violence. We should never resist evil by evil means. But Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount does not negate the rest of the biblical teaching; it has to be synthesized with it. We cannot pit one set of verses against another; we need an overarching position that accounts for all the verses (cf. Matthew 5:17-20, which comes from the same Sermon on the Mount and insists on the abiding validity of God’s law). Besides, how far should we take non-resistance? For example: Is locking your doors at night “resisting an evil doer”? That’s non-sense, and not what Jesus meant. The Sermon on the Mount should generally be read as wisdom literature. Jesus is clearing away Jewish misunderstandings of the law, restoring the law to its proper meaning, while also deepening its application for a more mature phase of covenant history (cf. Galatians 3-4). But Jesus is not overturning principles of justice revealed in the Old Testament. While the new covenant is the maturation, glorification, and fulfillment of the old covenant, the same God who revealed his character in the Torah is the God of the new covenant. The Bible tells one story, with one God and one people of God, and one consistent ethical system, straight through.
• “It’s dangerous to have guns on the church grounds.” Yes, this is true. A fool with a firearm is a problem, even if he’s a church member. But it’s more dangerous not to have guns on the church grounds. The biggest concern with any kind of church security team is that an unqualified, overzealous member of the team will over react and use force in an unskilled or disproportionate way. The solution is not leaving the congregation unprotected, but making sure wise, skilled, and responsible men are in charge of protecting those gathered. Having good men is just as important as having good guns.
• “The kingdom cannot be built or extended by violence or force.” This is true (see the Junius Brutus quote above) but misses the point. Congregational security, like self-defense in general, is not a form of building the kingdom per se – though it can manifest the principles of the kingdom – but it does protect the building of the kingdom. If the kingdom is primarily built though the proclamation of the Word, psalm-singing, and prayer, it is obvious we need to guard those activities. The same is true of home defense – a man protecting his home against an intruder is not building his family though that protection; rather than he is keeping the family he has built from being destroyed. This is the point: It is not to build, as such; we have to protect what we build if we want to keep it and keep building it further. And that’s what congregational security is about. A church security is a form of love – specifically a form of masculine love – towards the bride of Christ as a whole. It is a form of neighbor love. It is a form of bearing others’ burdens.
• “The answer to gun violence is gun control.” This is objection is so obviously misguided, it’s been refuted at length again and again. I will not repeat all the reasons why gun control is a foolish solution to gun violence from Scripture, nature, and history here. Besides the tyrannical impulse behind it, gun control punishes the law-abiding and makes them easy targets for the law-violating. Criminals do not obey gun laws so they provide no real deterrent. But they deter responsible self-defense. They deter men from fulfilling their specifically masculine obligations.
TPC Pastor's Page 