In recent years, the conversation around church safety has become increasingly polarized. On one side are those who believe that armed volunteers are the primary solution to modern threats. On the other are those who argue that firearms have no place in a house of worship. Both groups tend to speak with conviction, and both often miss the larger point.
As someone who works with churches across the country, I’ve had a front-row seat to these debates. I’ve heard from companies that insist a gun is the answer to every scenario, and from others who believe that introducing firearms into a church environment creates more risk than it solves. But the truth is far more nuanced and far more practical.
A gun is a tool.
It is not a strategy.
It is not a ministry.
It is not a substitute for preparation, awareness, or leadership.
And it is certainly not the solution to 99% of the situations churches actually face.
The Reality Churches Face
Most incidents in churches have nothing to do with active shooters. The overwhelming majority involve:
- Medical emergencies
- Domestic spillover
- Mental-health crises
- Disruptive individuals
- Custody disputes
- Suspicious behavior
- Parking-lot conflicts
- Lost children
- Weather events
None of these requires a firearm. All of them require people; trained, calm, observant, and capable of making good decisions under pressure.
When churches fixate on guns as the centerpiece of their safety plan, they unintentionally neglect the far more common and far more preventable risks that threaten their congregation every week.
The Problem With “The Gun Is the Solution” Thinking
A firearm is a last-resort tool for a very specific type of threat. It is not a universal answer, and it cannot compensate for:
- Poor communication
- Lack of training
- No medical readiness
- No child-security procedures
- No disruptive-person protocol
- No radio discipline
- No leadership engagement
A gun cannot de-escalate a conflict, but it can de-escalate a threat
A gun cannot perform CPR.
A gun cannot identify a brewing problem in the lobby.
A gun cannot coordinate a lockdown or evacuation.
People do those things.
People prevent problems.
People recognize danger early.
People make decisions that protect life.
The tool is only as effective as the person holding it, and only relevant in very limited circumstances.
The Other Extreme: “Guns Don’t Belong in Churches”
On the opposite side are those who believe that firearms should never be present in a worship environment. Their concerns are understandable: liability, training, optics, and the fear of escalating a situation.
But this position also oversimplifies reality. Churches are soft targets. They are open, welcoming, and predictable. They host large gatherings, often with minimal security infrastructure. In some communities, the threat profile is higher than in others. Pretending that violence could never reach a church is not faith…it’s denial.
The issue is not whether a church can have firearms.
The issue is whether the church has the right people, the right policies, and the right purpose behind any decision it makes.
People Are the Solution 100% of the Time
Every effective church safety program, armed or unarmed, has one thing in common: it is built around people, not equipment.
People who are trained.
People who understand their role.
People who know how to communicate.
People who can de-escalate.
People who can recognize pre-incident indicators.
People who can respond to medical emergencies.
People who can protect the vulnerable.
A firearm may be part of the plan, but it is never the plan itself.
The Balanced Approach Churches Need
A mature, responsible church safety strategy acknowledges three truths:
- Most incidents do not require a firearm.
- Some incidents may require a firearm.
- All incidents require trained people.
This is the middle ground where real safety lives, not in the extremes, not in the marketing slogans, and not in the fear-based narratives that some companies push to sell a product.
Churches don’t need more tools.
They need more clarity.
More training.
More communication.
More leadership engagement.
More people who understand that safety is a ministry, not militarization.
Conclusion
The debate about guns in churches will continue, and that’s fine. Healthy dialogue is good for the church. But the conversation must move beyond the tool and focus on the people who actually make a difference.
A gun is relevant in the rarest of circumstances.
People are relevant in every circumstance.
If churches invest in their people, training them, equipping them, and supporting them, they will be prepared for the full spectrum of challenges they face. And that is what real stewardship looks like.
Author’s Statement
From both a personal and professional standpoint, I believe that when a House of Worship faces an armed assailant, the only effective immediate response is a trained individual who is authorized and prepared to carry a firearm. The best way to stop an active assailant is quickly, and the quickest way to stop the attack is through immediate armed intervention. Law enforcement cannot be present at the moment the attack begins; they respond after the call for help, often minutes into the event. That gap between the first shot and the arrival of police is where lives are lost or saved. A trained, disciplined, authorized protector can make the difference in those critical seconds.