Church security is once again at the center of a growing national debate after California’s largest police union reportedly advised retired officers not to participate in organized church security teams. Keith Graves at Christian Warrior Training reported on the guidance given by PORAC, the largest California police union. The recommendation comes from the concern that the Legal Defense Fund Plan V coverage may not be protected while serving in a formal church security role.
That guidance may make sense from a narrow liability standpoint, but it raises a larger question that goes beyond policy language and legal defense coverage. It forces churches, retired officers, and Christian leaders to ask whether stepping back from organized protection is wise, faithful, or even biblical.
GET RESEARCH-BACKED TRAINING IN IDENTIFYING THREATS
Graves said that retirees were reportedly told not to take part in an organized security program and instead attend church simply as members of the congregation. It also states that legal defense coverage may apply if a retiree is present as a congregant, but not if that same retiree is serving on a formal church security team.
That distinction is where the controversy begins.
From a practical church security standpoint, organized teams are almost always better than informal reaction. A trained church security team can establish roles, communication plans, response protocols, medical contingencies, children’s ministry coverage, and coordination with church leadership before a crisis ever begins. An unstructured model, where capable people are merely sitting in the congregation hoping to react if violence erupts, can create confusion, hesitation, and preventable danger.
Church security is not just about firearms. It is about preparedness, observation, access control, threat recognition, emergency medical response, and disciplined decision-making under stress. Retired officers often bring decades of judgment, situational awareness, de-escalation skills, and crisis leadership to these environments. Telling them to disengage from formal service may reduce one legal exposure while increasing operational vulnerability inside the church.
The Biblical Discussion
Scripture does not call believers to passive attendance when they have gifts that can be used to serve and protect others. It points to 1 Peter 4:10, which instructs believers to use their gifts to serve one another, and Romans 12:6, which tells Christians to use the gifts given to them. The article also cites Nehemiah 4:9, where God’s people prayed and also set a guard for protection day and night.
That is the heart of the biblical case for church security.
Prayer and preparation are not enemies. Faith and vigilance are not opposites. Nehemiah did not present security as a lack of trust in God. He presented it as obedience joined with action. The people prayed, and they posted a guard. That model remains deeply relevant for churches facing modern threats.
For retired law enforcement officers, this biblical discussion carries real weight. If a man or woman spent a career learning how to recognize danger, move toward chaos, protect the innocent, and remain calm in life-threatening situations, those abilities do not become spiritually irrelevant in retirement. Under the biblical view presented by Graves, those skills are not just professional residue. They are stewards.
That does not mean every retired officer must serve on a church security team. It does mean churches should think carefully before accepting the idea that the safest or most faithful option is to leave trained protectors unorganized and unofficial.
The better answer is structure.
Churches that want serious church security should build teams with clear policies, legal review, insurance alignment, pastoral oversight, training standards, use-of-force guidelines, and role clarity. Retired officers who want to serve should understand exactly what legal protections they do and do not have, then seek coverage that fits the mission.
Conclusion
Across the country, congregations are facing a new reality. Threats to houses of worship are no longer theoretical. Churches are increasingly discussing access control, volunteer security, emergency planning, and armed response because evil does not avoid sanctuaries. In that environment, telling retired officers to avoid organized service may protect an insurance position, but it does not necessarily protect the flock.
That is where biblical responsibility and modern church security meet.
A church should pray. A church should trust God. A church should also prepare, plan, train, and protect. That is not fear. That is stewardship. And for retired officers with the experience to serve, the question should not be whether they step away from protecting the congregation. The question should be whether churches are willing to build the kind of disciplined, lawful, and biblically grounded church security programs worthy of that service.
We encourage you to read the entire article here.
