The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
54% of Protestant Churches Rely in Part on Armed Church Members for Security
Only 20% rely on armed private security personnel, and 5% on uniformed police officers.
So reports a 2022 survey by Lifeway research (and see this summary, released June 6). This was apparently a "stratified random sample, drawn from a list of all Protestant churches," and the results were:
The percentage (54%) is up from 2019 (45%), which appears statistically significant. The breakdowns among subcategories, as to likelihood of selecting armed church members as security, are:
- Male pastors are more likely to select than females (59% v. 36%)
- White pastors (56%) are more likely to select than African American (33%)
- Pastors with no college degree (60%) or a Bachelor's Degree (61%) aremore likely to select than those with a Master's Degree (50%)
- Evangelical pastors are more likely to select than Mainline pastors (65% v.39%)
- Pastors in the South are the most likely to select (65%)
- Baptists (73%), Pentecostals (68%), Christian/Church of Christ (54%), and Non-Denominational (66%) are more likely to select than Lutherans (32%), Methodists (36%), and Presbyterian/Reformed (26%)
- Pastors at churches with attendance 250+ are the most likely to select(74%)
- Pastors at churches with attendance of 100-249 (66%) and 250+ (74%) are more likely to select than those with attendance 0-49 (41%) and 50-99 (53%)
I expect that many of these distinctions are connected to likely political and cultural views, though others may just stem from convenience (e.g., the larger the church, the easier it is to enlist members who are willing and able to help this way). For a couple of examples of whether armed churchgoers did indeed stop an armed criminal, see the Colorado Springs and Spartanburg incidents in this list.
Thanks to Crime Prevention Research Center for the pointer.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, I'm Roman Catholic, but my church relies on armed church members, too. Specifically selected ones, regular parishioners are requested to, if not refrain from carrying in the church, only pull out a gun in the most dire circumstances, so as to avoid unfortunate mistakes if an incident actually happens.
I would have made a distinction between *paid* security and *volunteer* security -- the latter likely to be off-duty or retired cops who are members of the congregation.
The way the survey is set up creates variance where one church is going to consider them members of the congregation while another is going to consider them either private security or police. Same people.
And while a uniformed officer attending service using his lunch break to do it is technically off duty, the officer is also an officer.
That's why I would go with "paid."
Our armed security are volunteers, not paid, but it's important that they all know each other, to avoid friendly fire if they ever are needed. (To date they haven't been, but the way things are trending...)
Survivors of sexual abuse and victims of cover-up by officials in the church haven't shown any tendency to retributive violence, you're probably ok.
Several of these statements are incomplete in a way that needs explanation. "[Various categories of persons] are more likely to select" -- to select what?
Yes, EV made that obscure. But follow the link. It's the table for use of armed church members as security.
Yes, sorry -- revised the sentence before the bulleted list to clarify this.
My small denomination wasn't likely included. We're among the Historic Peace Churches. There's a disconnect between our official positions and the practices in many ways, and I suspect the same is true in other denominations. I'm glad to see that the survey focused on congregations, but I would have been glad to see a little more nuance in the breakdown theologically.
Yes! I suspect, for example, that the having a male vs female pastor is a proxy for some other distinction that better explains at least some of the big difference in having armed security in the church. It's probably the case that denominations that only allow male pastors are generally more accepting of guns.
wolfefan: My guess is that's hard to have a meaningful breakdown for particularly small groups -- just because the margin of error rises sharply as the number of respondents from the group declines -- at least unless one runs a survey with many more respondents (which would be rather more expensive).
"Christian/Church of Christ (54%)"
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
The Puritan Church of the 17th Century became the Congregational Church, and much (but absolutely not all) of that became the United Church of Christ, which now leans to the left of Lenin. Yes, gay pride flags being flown on churches that were founded by Puritan congregations -- and they wonder why so many churches are being hit by lightning nowadays....
The United Church of Christ is the UCC, there are also at least three other conferences, all more conservative than the UCC.
But I have never heard of the "Christian/Church of Christ" folk. It's like "Kosher Jewish" -- yes, umm, what????
I'm always armed at Sin O' Gogue, until they put in a metal detector, and even then I'll just go around it.
Imagine a minister, priest, or rabbi from 60 years ago somehow stuck in a time warp and transported from 1963 to 2023. Remember that back in 1963 there were mail-order gun sales from the Montgomery Ward & Sears catalogues -- that there WERE such 4 inch thick catalogues, and that any decent hardware store either sold guns or could order one for you,
Back then, most high schools still had rifle teams, coached by a WWII vet, and it was a competitive varsity sport. In rural areas, students who had behaved themselves the prior year were permitted to be late to school once a week during deer season, as long as they made up their work. Many schools taught gun safety as part of *girls* physical education -- we have the pictures to prove it.
And all "decent" persons went to a house of worship more or less weekly, if not more frequently.
Imagine trying to explain to such a person -- more than a few of whom were WWII vets, either as chaplains or combat arms -- that they had to worry about someone coming in and shooting their congregations. They wouldn't have believed you.
Indeed!
Even in the 70's, opening day for deer season was a school holiday at my high school. And, yes, we had a gun safety class, you had to pass it to get a hunting license as a minor.
Imagine if His Holiness the Pope relied on armed security...
The horror!
Imagine, circa 1963, someone attempting to assassinate the Pope.
Prior to 1981, how much security was to protect the Pope -- and how much was to prevent people from being crushed to death in crowds?
Michael, you raise another point -- when you have any event involving several hundred people (if not more), you need to think about someone having a heart attack, a woman going into labor, and the inevitable lost child. The Vatican is also going to be dealing with pickpockets and the rest.
My guess is that it long has had armed security to deal with all of this, and not just the Swiss Guards. If you are collecting an offering, you could easily have $1000 or more in cash that you have to deal with, and well may have armed security for that.
I wonder how much church security is for reasons other than a mass shooter.
Sure, but what do they need security *from*?
People who would like to kill them. To be sure, I appreciate the argument that, if guns were restricted by various laws, those people wouldn't be able to attack the churches. But I'm inclined to think that people who are undeterred by the laws against murder will be deterred by gun control laws. Nor do I think that such gun laws will materially prevent the would-be mass killers from getting guns, even apart from deterrence.
That is just my tentative view, of course. It may well be that some proposed gun controls might tend to reduce the risk of mass shootings to some extent. But it's hard for me to see how they can reduce it to any substantial extent.
Gun *accidents* are a different story, along with hunting accidents and there was a terrible carnage before blaze orange was first introduced and then mandated. And the worst school killing -- to date -- was in Bath Michigan in 1927, except that he used surplus WW-I explosives that the government was essentially giving to farmers to blow stumps and such.
But guns were WAY more available, yet there was less gun violence?
Why????
Well, for one thing, shooting up a school didn't make you famous back then.
Or all the broken-brained extremists, along with all the perfectly normal Mom and Pop extremists, could channel their violence through the KKK. Plenty of encouragement and reinforcement of beliefs and behaviours for anyone who wanteed them there while the only fame you needed was within the confines of the secret society as part of the them/us divide, also guns!
Eugene Volokh : “People who would like to kill them”
A slightly dated article from Christianity Today estimated there were 384,000 Christian congregations in the U.S. To that, they added 26,000 non-Christian places of worship. I’m sure more current numbers are slightly different, but not to a significant degree.
Meanwhile, I can’t seem to lay my hands on a precise number of shootings in houses of worship, but the largest one I found is twenty-three in the past twenty-four years. So maybe the above answer to Martinned’s question reads just a little glib.
Of course, American audiences these days yearn for new reasons to fear. Over on the main Reason site, Lenore Skenazy never runs out of fresh stories of parents arrested for letting their kids walk a few blocks alone. Not being terrified over microscopic odds can now be a criminal offense.
An it gets even worse when you add gun nut thinking to the mix. At my office (we’re unprotected!), I used to have a work neighbor who was a gun nut. He insisted his small arsenal was needed “for protection” and who was I to disagree? Parts of our city are rough and maybe that was his case. But then we discovered we lived just a block apart in another city a few years earlier. Interested, I asked him if he needed all his guns then too. His eyes grew wide. “Oh yes”, he replied.
The Ex and myself had no concerns walking the neighborhood at any hour. We’d read the crime reports and there was never anything within a five block radius. But appearances aside, my work neighbor wasn’t timid or fretful by nature. But his gun fetish sought reasons for its relevance. If that required him to be afraid of his own shadow, so be it.
Eugene Volokh: “People who would like to kill them”
GRB: But his gun fetish sought reasons for its relevance. If that required him to be afraid of his own shadow, so be it.
That contrast of views does not dispose of justification for armed self-defense, but whatever cogency remains of the EV comment after GRB’s reply requires explanation. What is it about modern guns which both makes some folks want to do mass killings, and makes other folks commensurately frightened? What changed to make those views salient in America now, when for literally centuries nothing like them existed to vex the public’s sense of its need for personal safety?
The answer may be that semi-automatic everything is what changed. And especially, semi-automatic everything, plus interchangeable quick-replacement magazines, plus weapons designs which combined per-shot killing power equivalent to that of a .44 magnum pistol, with essentially uninterruptible firing capacity, and made all that unprecedented lethality manageable by even untrained shooters with physical capacity no greater than children.
Professor Volokh, can you imagine public policy to alter over a period of decades the character of the public arsenal, and thus replace modern arms featuring over-the-top lethality with others of lesser lethal capacity, like those available prior to our new age of mass public shootings? If you cannot imagine such policy, what stands in the way except the answer GRB gave you?
"What is it about modern guns which both makes some folks want to do mass killings,"
Stupidity is built right into that question. It's the Diabolical Mind Control widget, which they started incorporating into the trigger action of some models back in '83. I thought everybody knew that. [/sarc]
Why on Earth are you so determined to deny the agency of murderers, to pretend that it's the tools they pick up to kill that are dictating their actions?
Indeed, but instead of examining the sources of the extremist ideologies that drive most non-crime-related mass shooters, we prefer a blanket handwave of 'mental health problems' or to focus on that one shooter who turned dout to be trans. We wouldn't like to think that the cultish nature of gun culture could be a contributing factor.
The thing is, these people show evidence of mental pathology often enough that you have to ask if the wacked out ideology isn't as much a consequence of that pathology as the murderous impulses.
"We wouldn’t like to think that the cultish nature of gun culture could be a contributing factor."
By which you mean, YOU do want to think it.
People with mental health problems are just the more obviously vulnerable to extremist ideologies, which have been known to turn plenty of supposedly normal people into extremists willing to do things like, say, go to jail because a reality-show-host lied about an election result. Gun culture in the US is also an extremist ideology.
Bellmore, you want to call it stupid? Address the substantive part of the post. Here it is again:
The answer may be that semi-automatic everything is what changed. And especially, semi-automatic everything, plus interchangeable quick-replacement magazines, plus weapons designs which combined per-shot killing power equivalent to that of a .44 magnum pistol, with essentially uninterruptible firing capacity, and made all that unprecedented lethality manageable by even untrained shooters with physical capacity no greater than children.
Setting aside that the timing is all wrong, it doesn't matter how deadly a weapon is, if somebody doesn't want to kill. So it IS all down to the motivation of the killer.
In short, zero substantive response to any particular I mentioned.
The answer may be that semi-automatic everything is what changed.
There exist a whole host of social dynamics at work.
But if the only thing you have is a hammer, ALL the problems are going to be called nails.
The gun cancer in this country does require a cultural shift to cure. With that in mind, I devised a test named “grb’s Weedeater Standard” :
I live in the city and have no yard or landscaping. Therefore, I require no weedeater. I can dream of various scenarios where a weedeater might prove suddenly essential – perhaps heroically so – but they all involve probabilities microscopically small. Maybe the weedeater manufacturers will sell their product as making me more manly or like the pioneers of yore (who faced a lotta weeds), but who’s fooled by shit like that? Ultimately, I just don’t require one. If I ever face a real chance of needing a weedeater, I’ll buy it then.
If people in this country bought guns like they do weedeaters (or any other tool), there’d be millions upon millions upon millions fewer guns in circulation. And the U.S. would be a damn better place.
According to the CDC, in a study commissioned by President Obama, there are millions of defensive gun uses every year in the US.
Sure, the almost victim would have survived in almost all of those cases. What's a million or two victims compared to your hoplophobia? Sure, they'd be raped, beaten, or robbed, but that's not important to people like you, is it?
Just how many ways can you be wrong? Let’s count’em:
1. The CDC didn’t do any new research in the Obama Administration, but citied previous studies (many of those in dispute).
2. Thus the CDC didn’t claim “millions of defensive gun uses each year”, but quoted a range from those studies of “60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year,”
3. And the highest number came from Kleck survey, which no one takes seriously.
4. And the CDC didn’t believe any of the numbers it citied were reliable.
So good point, Toranth, except for the fact everything you claimed was mistaken.
The study was a new one, commissioned by Obama. It was of the type often referred to as a "metastudy", which is certainly a study! Unless you are denying the practices of all of science, that is. Either way, you are wrong.
And yes, the study did list a range, and an estimate in the middle. While last I heard 2.5 million was "millions", this may be another place where you are denying language. Maybe you just don't believe it - that's your right - but the study certainly concluded it.
Your attacks on the Kleck 'study' are not even an argument, just an assertion. There are flaws in it, certainly, just like in the Brady Foundation's lowball estimate, but it is certainly taken seriously by many people (like Brady's lowball). Such as those that have produced similar results - Gertz, Kates - or the numerous times Kleck has been able to reproduce his results. See Kleck 1998, 1999, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2018, 2020 for some examples.
It looks like you just don't like Kleck's results (or any of the others that show large numbers of DGUs), so you like to cling to Hemenway's vague criticisms. His arguments have been refuted time and time again, or handled in later studies, but that doesn't seem to bother you.
And sure, the CDC ended their metastudy (still a type of study) with a standard disclaimer that the issue is complicated and needs more research. That's wildly different than your claim that it "didn't believe" the studies it cited.
So, 4 criticisms of my post, and 4 of them wrong. Good job on being wrong about everything you said - 100% wrong is still 100%, right?
Incidentally, grb:
Where did you get 60,000 and 2.5 million from? It took me a little while to find my copy of the CDC study, so I didn't have them on hand right away, but as the CDC puts it
although it also mentions the lowball estimate by Cook - 108,000. Even the other, unsourced, NCVS 'estimate' listed was 116,000/year for the years covered.
More people are murdered by fists and feet.
Also, remove black on black gang bangers.
If you want to save lives instantly, shake down all the blacks, their home and businesses. That will same lives....if stripping law abiding citizens of their civil rights to save lives in your rallying cry
In other advanced countries (all of which have strict gun control, ahem!) how many churches want armed guards?
How many church shootings are there?
Maaaaaaan... I wanted to get in here and make a good Catholic/Protestant joke but y'all went super serious on me before I could log on.
(Kicks joke can down the road)
"Lifeway Christian Resources, based in Nashville, Tennessee, is the Christian media publishing and distribution division of the Southern Baptist Convention and provider of church business services." — Wikipedia
Enlisting church members in a quasi-militia security force sounds like a great way to inculcate a low-level siege mentality, promoting unity and group cohesion within the congregation. Introduce the idea of the threat, however remote, with the suggestiion of mild paranoia and anxiety, but also a sense of purpose as you courageously defy the threat in celebrating your beliefs, and draw reassurance from the sense that the church and your fellow church-goers are protecting you from that threat, and a sense of duty and authority in those that volunteer to do the protecting. Meanwhile, kids in schools just get to feel traumatised by active shooter drills and bullet-proof schoolbags. Pros and cons, I guess.
until society returns to the norm of honoring the sanctity of life, available protections will be implemented.
It is a core animal instinct to come together in the common defense. Not a thing out of the ordinary.
Unfortunately, Trying to protect people on the subway, gets you charged with murder.
Murdering people on the subway gets you charged with murder.
Nige you are getting you wish. Few if any people are going to come to your aide at your time of need.
But then a logical person, unable to move away from the self imposed policy decisions of Democrats, will arm them self...Self protection is base response.
30 years ago by brother was in Des Moines, visiting from Minneapolis, he called an old friend, and was invited to meet up at a downtown watering hole. When arrived, he found is friend with a group of work friends. during the conversation self defense come up. Of the four women in the group, all radical Democrats, all were carrying hand guns. Things much safer then... Democrats are buying guns and an amazing pace today, led by Democrat women.
It was much safer then than now
Some Points :
1. Above I mention parents charged with crimes because they let their kids out of sight. Now I could wax nostalgic on how far I used to wander afield as a kid, but why bother? Obviously these times are different. But it isn’t the danger that changed, but the hysteria about it.
2. A few weeks back was that imbecility about the NYC women and bike rental – a story where no came off well (particularly the women). I was reading the comments over at Fox News (which were mainly screeds against black people – as Fox comments often are) and was impressed with their horror of living in so dangerous a place as New York City. Of course much of them probably lived in rural or “flyover” areas with a higher crime rate than NYC, but you probably couldn’t get them to understand that with a year’s worth of instruction. Their perceptions (and their fears) are impervious to fact.
3. Back at the beginning of Covid, one of the Conspirators noted people were hoarding toilet paper and buying guns. With that tinhorn grandiosity common to gun nuts (or those who pander to them), he added, “and who know which will prove more important..” Well I knew, and replied that the t-paper would eventually prove useful at the normal rate of human excretion. The guns, not so much. It wasn’t a hard call to make if you’re not prone to hysterical fantasies.
4. That said, there’s this caveat: I was once talking with the gun nut I mentioned above and asked him this : “If the zombie apocalypse comes, and the earth is overrun by the walking dead, and zombies prowl the streets hunting the living, will you lend me one of your guns?” Please note I said lend, not give, and the guy had his own sizable arsenal. Yet he said NO, real shirty-like.
So if the zombies do arise, I’m f**ked….
https://www.rawstory.com/jim-jordan-2659850413/
I certainly don't want the aid of people who thing the best way to respond to someone having a breakdown on the subway is to murder them, thanks.
Democrats still own guns. It's only gun extremists who think otherwise.