20 Comments

Our Pastor is totally against any type of shirt that says security on it. He feels the security shift shows people that there is a problem at our church. He feels the shirt brings fear into the church that he does not want. I had conversations with him and he doesn't see your explanation of the benefit of a security shirts. I'm frustrated myself about it. We have events at night and going out into a dark parking lot with no identification showing you are security is only asking for trouble. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks Keith for all you do to help out our security ministries with your videos and the extensive explanation of what going on in the world against our churches. Be blessed 🙏

Expand full comment

we use both.

Expand full comment

The answer to many questions is yes. We are plainclothes at this time but an outside the building uniform could be useful.

Expand full comment

We also use both.

Best of both worlds.

Expand full comment

You need to check your local and state laws regulating both private security companies and volunteer security. In some states, it may be illegal for unlicensed security volunteers to wear anything that says "security" or would give the impression that they are a licensed security guard. As I understand it brightly colored safety vests are OK as are uniform style garments with the name of the church but they should not say "SECURITY" or "OFFICER" or "GUARD." If memory serves correctly the new and very good Texas volunteer church security statues strictly forbid security uniform type clothing for unlicensed volunteers. Some states are also very particular about the use of their state name or seal in conjunction with both private security and volunteer security. For example, here in Oklahoma even though I am a licensed Armed Private Investigator, it is illegal for me to use the state flag or seal on my badge, business cards, etc. The only place the state seal can be used is on my state issued license card.

Expand full comment

When we created our Safety Team at my church and I volunteered to set it up and be team leader I went back in forth with this dilemma. We started out just wearing lanyards, we transitioned into name tags in the last year. We are prohibited from calling ourselves security due to the churches insurance policy. We do have an off-duty paid deputy on Sundays about 80% of the time which is a huge deterrent and asset! Thank you for the info you share with us my team has has really benefited from it! On a side note I 100% agree that my goal is to be the first person to take fire or get rounds on target, any other mindset is unacceptable!

Expand full comment

I am an Armed Security Officer for a Large Downtown Church in a Major Southern City.

We adopt the Street Clothes approach for Concealed Carry wearing only a Church ID Badge with our Name on The ID Badge.

Nothing says SECURITY.

In the event of a Kinetic Event or Interaction with Law Enforcement we have High Visibility Security Sashes that say SECURITY from DSM ( Don’t Shoot Me from Arizona... American Made Product ). It deploys over your neck and shoulder like a single point sling.

It is all about PREVENTION

Not RESPONSE

God Bless and Be SAFE

Roy

Expand full comment

When I say this, I know I'll be "preaching to the choir". Many churches will say we don't want "security" until it's too late. I recall hearing a story that the shooter of a church admitted had they had security (deterrence) at the church, then they would not have gone in.

I used to be in the plain-clothes-is-better vote but having been identified as security, there are many weekends where people share their appreciation for the security that we do have. As Keith has shared before, we can and should be an extension of the greeting committee. The friendlier we are the less intimidating we can become.

For each of you out there taking care of your church, some behind the scenes, let me share my thanks for what you do. Just know you may not be getting accolades now, but you will some day!!

Blessings to you all!!

Expand full comment

Tks for the article. Our team wears red lanyard with name Safety Ministry and dress like any normal Sunday. Radio with lapel mike and earpiece. Visibility deterrent plus ID to a deputy. We can quickly remove the lanyard if we have to plain cloths shadow someone.

Roger Walsh

Expand full comment

Part of our written procedure:

If we have someone we do not know and they look in any way suspicious we have a member of the security team sit behind them in church and, should they get up, monitor their movements. Sooo, we might opt for a thin vest that could be worn year around, cover our weapon, but removed if we need to go "plain clothes".

Also, we do not allow any backpacks in the church unless we know the person or they are entering as a family with a baby bag. I personally stopped homeless fellow and advised him that our safety procedure did not allow back packs in church but I would store it for him in our secure room, which can be seen as you walk in. He was fine with that.

Also, we needed a way to alert the full team if that level of response was needed. All of our people on duty on a given Sunday carry a small air compressed boat horn. We all know to immediately respond if we hear it.

Just a few things from our Security Procedure.

Glenn in NC

Expand full comment

I'm active LEO in a courthouse security role, did the street thing way back. I'm also head of our (1,500-member) church's Safe Team (10-14 Safe active members on any Sunday). We all wear plain clothes and a specific Para-cord wrist band (okay, okay I know it is a guy's bracelet) and a 2-way radio with ear-bud. Several add a tear-away lanyard-nametag to the outfit. Our regular home folks took all of about six-minutes to realize and recognize that the Para-cord bracelet (okay I said it) meant someone is on the Safe Team. My thinking is, in plain clothes we blend in for those who don't really know what is going on - and for those who do know (those who can smell a cop) they see the ear bud and the waistband bulge, and they hopefully think, "Ha, over there is some of their security detail! I wonder if I might have missed anyone else on Security, I wonder how many they are? These guys are probably more squared away than I want to mess with." The only remaining demographic are those with mental/drug issues who, when confronted by several guys wearing ear-buds just don't care or aren't in a state of mind to care and a uniform isn't going to make much of a difference then.

Expand full comment

IMO, I believe that there can be an effective balance between the use of uniformed church security as well as the use of plain clothes security. If the security ministry chooses to use the uniform/security vest for the personell

covering the outer perimeter parking areas, etc, these overt uniform markings should at least serve as a deterance to any pre-operational surveillance from a would be attacker or group. During a threat scenario, plain clothes armed security personell within the inner perimeter/main sanctuary need as much anonymity as possible in order to enable them to maneuver through a potentially crowded congregation with the intent to close the distance and either deal with, or incapacitate the known threat. In addition, depending upon the geographic location of the church itself, the availability of on duty police response times may vary. Again, just my opinion.

Expand full comment

Obviously, identifying uniforms that are obvious is the best answer. Hands down.

The elephant in the room? The woke churchs.

Sorry to burst some people bubbles, but honestly is the best policy. Remember, denial is the second greatest force in the universe.

Love is the greatest.

So those churchs who opt to hide behind and justify the policy of plain cloths to make people feel comfortable, that’s the woke, politically correct church.

Plain clothes is NOT the best policy to protect the church. Any church that knowingly chooses that policy is not choosing the best policy to protect its people or safety team.

Remember the opt out policy. Uniformed security makes most people think twice and opt out of the fight. That’s the best outcome, that the fight never happens.

But when the fight goes down, most people will crumble and resort to their lowest level of training or instincts.

Being uniformed will put everyone in that situation, in the best situation for that time.

Get an obviously identifable security team. 😊

Expand full comment
Mar 9Edited

I appreciate your opinion. I do not agree with your hasty generalization as if it covers all sorts of churches in all areas. But to label people or groups as being something that you can no way know for sure they are, is not good.

Expand full comment

I think this scales proportionally to the size of the congregation. My wife and I met at a mega church with uniformed security 24-7. Today we are in a small church; no escalators. We're fortunate to have some wise leadership - who consider all important factors, risks and threats. Great food for thought Keith.

Expand full comment

As usual, this is a great article and topic. Now I just need to figure out what would work best in our situation!

Expand full comment

Great response.

Expand full comment

Having worked with local LEOs for my community patrol, and while performing security at my church, I feel it essential to have some identifying uniform. Too many times, in critical moments, LEOs have needed to know in a split second, who was the "bad guy" with a gun and who was the "good guy". Whether it a stabbing or shooting incident, I have been involved in both, I'd rather be identified then shot by LEOs. And to note, the people in my congregation have told me they feel safer and can focus on the service knowing I am watching over them.

Expand full comment

What do you think about having uniformed security people in the common areas of a church, ie. foyer, parking lot etc. Then having plainclothes in sanctuary.

That is what I have trained churches to do.

Would love your feedback

a

All of our security team is licensed with the state.

Expand full comment

What do you mean by "licensed with the state"?

Expand full comment