Should Pastors use Security Details?

Many churches are taking substantial precautions to mitigate the growing risk of violent attacks against the people and facilities God has placed in their care. These measures often include hardening their physical security, training volunteer security teams, and, in some cases, providing personal security details for pastors. While these efforts drastically increase the safety of the church, they can also jeopardize the church’s mission of maintaining a welcoming, faith-centered atmosphere if implemented carelessly. Specifically, personal security details have the potential to undermine the church’s influence and call into question the integrity of the pastors they are supposed to protect.

First and foremost, God frequently uses human means, including security details, to accomplish his spiritual purposes (Nehemiah 4), so church security should never be viewed as a sign of faithlessness. Security teams help create a safe physical environment where pastors can encourage people to grow in their faith and community with fellow believers. The benefits of a secure environment are critically important to the church body as a whole and should also extend to pastors since they face a unique risk of targeted attacks due to the public and symbolic nature of their positions. Therefore, security measures should specifically address this risk to pastors in a way that preserves both their safety and integrity as shepherds of their flocks.

The Tension between Safety and Shepherding

Practically speaking, employing a close personal security detail is one of the most effective ways to protect an individual, or “principal," from a violent attack. This detail is typically composed of several trained members who remain physically close to the principal and focus solely on his protection. In a targeted attack, one member may shield or move the principal while the others engage the threat. In a broader attack, such as an active shooter event, the detail's priority shifts to safely extracting the principal from danger instead of engaging the threat or protecting others.

While this security practice is appropriate for most high-profile principals, a unique tension emerges when that principal is a pastor rather than a celebrity or political figure. This is because the relationship between pastor and congregation is sacrificial, not transactional. Scripture calls pastors to “lay down their lives for the sheep, ” to “shepherd the flock . . . not for shameful gain . . . but [by] being examples to [them],” to “care for the church of God,” to “consider others more important than [themselves],” and to “spend and be spent for [the souls of the flock].” (John 10:11; 1 Peter 5:2-3; Acts 20:28; Philippians 2:3-4; and 2 Corinthians 12:15, respectively.) Personal security details can unintentionally undermine this calling for sacrificial leadership when they place the pastor’s safety above that of the flock.

When members of the congregation serve on a pastor’s personal security detail, the relationship can easily become inverted and result in the pastor using the members of the congregation for his well-being while simultaneously subjecting them to great risk of harm. Furthermore, using a security detail to avoid danger while ignoring the safety of the congregation contradicts Christ’s example and sends a disturbing message about where the pastor’s priorities lie. (John 10:11–13 captures this sentiment perfectly, “[the pastor] runs away [from the wolf] because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.”) This is especially troubling if a large portion a church’s security team is allocated to protect the pastor instead of the rest of the church.

Balancing Safety and Shepherding

The solution, however, is not to abandon personal protection of pastors altogether, but to slightly change how this security measure is applied in a church context:

Zone Defense vs. Man Coverage: Instead of assigning a team to protect only the pastor, consider dividing the sanctuary into zones of coverage. One zone naturally includes the stage or pulpit, allowing a security team member to protect the pastor as part of a broader protective strategy. This keeps the focus on protecting the church as a whole, not just one individual, especially if the security team is not large enough to properly protect the entire church. Before or after the service begins, when the sanctuary is largely empty, this team member can “shadow” the pastor while simultaneously scanning for threats in the immediate area. If positioned properly, this team member can identify and interdict threats to the pastor or other congregants before any harm is done.

Threat Focus vs. Principal Focus: Regardless of the size of the security team, they should be trained to engage threats, not merely shield or evacuate the pastor or other congregants. A threat-focused approach neutralizes danger at its source, protecting everyone in the church, including the pastor. It also avoids the prioritization of the pastor’s safety above all others and prevents the explicit or implied “ask” that a volunteer sacrifice his or her body for the pastor.

Note: While security team members should be ready to accept a certain level of personal risk in the course of their duties, the decision to sacrifice one’s body for another must rest with the individual volunteer, not with church leadership, and certainly not with a pastor who might be the recipient of that sacrifice. (John 15:13 describes a willing sacrifice instead of a mandated one.)

Ultimately, churches should avoid security practices that prioritize the pastor’s safety over that of others. This means minimizing the possibility that volunteers have to sacrifice their lives or well being for the pastor and maximizing the use of security assets, even a personal security detail, towards the broader mission of protecting the church as a whole, not just the pastor. Doing so allows the church to stay true to its primary objective of faithfully serving its congregation, both spiritually and physically, without risk of compromise.