In a recent discussion, I sat down with Carl Chinn, Executive Director and Founder of the Faith-Based Security Network, to talk about his experiences with a deadly shooting at his church and how it affected his journey in security ministry.
Carl, your journey in church security began with a pivotal moment involving an armed gunman at your church, a scenario you hadn’t anticipated. Can you share what led you to initially overlook the need for security within churches?
First of all, it was not at a “church.” The location where it occurred has a lot to do with my current calling. That calling is not just to churches but to parachurch organizations as well. It’s why I seldom use the term “church security” (I prefer “faith-based security”). That said, I understand the SEO and search type stuff on the internet gets more hits for “church security” and therefore the need to publish it as such, but I wanted to make sure you understand my position on it.
While I have been involved (as a board member, Sunday School leader, and in various ministry roles) within the faith-based community for years, I did not see the need for security in those ministry environments.
In 1996, I was working at Focus on the Family (a Christian faith-based organization but not a church in any way, shape, or form) when that gunman came in and took hostages in what we would later learn was his plan for a police-assisted suicide. But you are right that incident changed my life. I saw that a ministry based upon any combination of scriptures, missions, or passions is not immune from attacks. In fact, (as I now believe), the more good a particular ministry is doing to work towards Kingdom principles, the more likely that ministry is to become a target.
What had led me to overlook (really more than “overlook” – I flat-out denied) the need was all those things I now hear from others: God will provide, it wouldn’t happen here, it’s a lack of faith, Jesus would turn the other cheek, do not judge, and the plethora of shallow conclusions drawn from really sound Christian principles (there is some truth in each one of those objections).
When we first spoke about five years ago, you highlighted “denial of danger” as a common theme in church security across America. Carl, why do you think this denial is still so prevalent today?
For all the reasons stated in the last paragraph above, I once had a very good pastor tell me he would never implement church security because his mentor (another very good man and exemplary church leader) saw more importance in our relationship with God than in trying to do His work for Him. I would have to agree with that statement as it is; there is no mistruth in that. But when you see the fear in the eyes of an innocent victim, or witness blood in your parking lot from the violent deaths of children that will stun and change that family for life, you come face-to-face with the reality that He didn’t call us to sit on our hands and not intervene when we should.
In 2 Chronicles 20:15, God told Jehoshaphat, “…the battle is not yours, but God’s.”
But in the very next verses (16-17), He gave action orders (the military would call these “warnords,” a term abbreviating a Warning followed by an order). In that portion of the verse, He gave orders to Jehoshaphat that included, “Tomorrow march down against them. Take up your positions. Stand firm. Go out to face them.”
March. Take up. Stand. Go out. Those are all action verbs and phrases.
One thing we’ve all learned in our faith journey is that when God tells us to do something, we can’t pick and choose which portions of His commandments we keep and which ones we discard. Yet that is exactly what leaders like the mentor of my pastor friend do. They teach entire series on the concept that “the battle isn’t yours.” But they leave off the action required by us.
Thank God we don’t have to wonder what would have happened if Joseph had only heard the warning from the angel (Matthew 2:13) and not obeyed the orders when he got Mary and the baby Jesus and, “…got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod.”
There’s often hesitation to label security efforts as a ministry within churches. From your perspective, why is there resistance to this idea?
The resistance to this concept is (unfortunately) prevalent among both the defenders and faith-based leaders who dismiss the value of defense. That resistance is based on ignorance from both groups.
Defenders are, by nature (and experience), “A-Type, High D” characters. They naturally see value in human accomplishment and action. They read Nehemiah 4:9 (“we prayed to our God and posted a guard”) focusing on the value of the posted guard (the natural).
Ministry leaders are, by nature (and experience), those who value grace and redemption. They read Nehemiah 4:9, focusing on the value of prayer (the supernatural).
The truth lies in the fact that we must all be first and foremost ambassadors of Christ in everything we do. As we find our positions in the body of Christ, we can’t dismiss others serving in different roles. But it’s easier to fall into that trap if we (any of us whether defenders or faith leaders) forget that we serve that role “in Christ.”
Unfortunately, many defenders do little to show they are serving a role in the body “of Christ” and resemble someone simply serving as an action figure. This is why so many coming off the battlefield or the streets fail in church security; it’s not just about your battle skills. It can’t be, and they cannot fake a relationship with Christ where they truly want the best for everyone they encounter. If we view all the hurting walking through our doors as wolves and all the people we love as the worst description of sheep, we (as a sheepdog) are nothing but a dog with fangs looking for a fight—with wolves or sheep alike.
Having encountered two shooters firsthand, once at Focus on the Family in 1996 and again at New Life Church a decade later how have these experiences shaped your view on the importance of security in places of worship?
These two incidents changed the course of my life. I know now this was the reason God put me on this Earth. To have experienced an involved, personal, close-up observation of those two incidents was something I could not ignore. Those incidents had been written into my life’s story, and I could have dismissed either (or both of them) with a “stuff happens” attitude, but I knew there was something bigger happening.
The first incident jolted me into the reality that attacks can and do happen, and the God-led actions of a Christ follower can and should impact the outcome. I began to reach out to other faith-based organizations to encourage them to be intentionally prepared.
One of those I contacted was my own church, which responded positively and allowed me and others to begin forming our “Life Safety Ministry” in March of 2005, I was there and responded as a team lead when the killer entered. That event confirmed my calling and made me determined to do what God wanted me to do to get FBOs prepared.
I decided after the New Life incident that the rest of my working career would be invested in this calling. It was that clear to me that the need is serious, it is inspired by God Himself, and I will champion this great endeavor for the rest of my life.
Before Jack Wilson’s heroic act at the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas, your involvement in the New Life Church shooting was a rare example of a church security team intervening during a live threat. What insights have you gained about the aftermath and recovery from such incidents?
There are still only three incidents of an American intentional, designated church security team stopping a killer who had already begun pulling the trigger from causing further damage. New Life lost two innocent people, West Freeway CoC lost two (one of whom was a defender), and Lakewood lost none (unless the child of the suspect does not recover).
The recovery of a body (organization) or individuals is a process that varies with each one of them. As David Works (the dad of the two girls murdered at New Life) says of redemption/recovery, it was quicker for him than it was for his wife. He says, “your mileage will vary.”
Between me writing the answer to the prior question and this one, I took a call from a man whose granddaughter caused a terrible accident that, if it doesn’t leave her good friend dead, will at least leave that friend without one leg. She, of course, blames herself, but to make things worse, she has no relationship with Christ.
A tragedy is hard enough to recover from, even when all those involved are of the same faith. I can’t imagine those who lack that getting through these things.
I have seen churches grow and prosper after a significant negative event (as has New Life Church in Colorado Springs), seen some where the event seemed consistent with the timing of their slip in influence, and many more who simply failed and dissolved. I’ve seen family units grow stronger through the aftermath of tragedy, and I’ve seen what appeared to be good family units come unraveled in the aftermath.
1 Corinthians 3:13 (NASB) says, “each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.” Those who fail were going to fail anyway. The aftermath of a significant negative event may accelerate it, but the quality of their walk was deficient before.
That may sound harsh, but it is what I believe. God is not in control. Not, that is, unless we allow Him to be. To do that (give God control), we must relinquish some things we’ve held onto too tightly.
Summed up, this means that recovery (to anything) is, in my opinion, directly related to our life in Christ. Our life in Christ does not mean we won’t face trials, but our perspective on life (even the bad and hard stuff) matters, and there is no perspective like the Christian view.
You’ve dedicated years to gathering data on violent incidents within houses of worship. Through this process, what key learnings have emerged for you?
To be very clear, the DFI (Deadly Force Incident) study is not a study on “violent incidents.” It only focuses on those violent incidents that had the potential (and most often the intention) of deadly force. It is a study of violent deaths or potential deaths at faith-based organizations (churches, schools, charities, outreaches, etc., that are faith-based).
Others (like the Family Research Council) do studies on violent incidents, or hate crimes (like the FBI), or just homicides (like the Homicide Research group in Minneapolis). Our DFI study focuses on the most violent incidents at faith-based organizations. The entire study is conducted so faith-based security planners can form operations based on a genuine study, ensuring they are not making assumptions about how such an attack is likely to unfold.
So, in answer to your question, the following are the key things we’ve learned from this intensive and exhaustive study:
- That no denomination or people group can ever say, “it hasn’t happened in our denomination.
- That it (a “Deadly Force Incident”) happens in FBOs much more than anyone realizes.
- That the keeping of records is a competitive thing (who would have thought?). Many keep track of incidents in other ways, but it is always based on their worldview. Those who don’t like guns (for example) can generate statistics to prove their point that guns are bad, while those with a different view on guns can generate their own statistics to prove otherwise. Perhaps my biggest disappointment in this journey was seeing the politics of gathering data. I too have an agenda that intentional readiness is a good thing. The DFI study is not about any religion, people group, or specific weapon. It’s about learning from the frequent attacks at faith-based organizations only on U.S. soil.
- That most attacks really could have been stopped outside. I’ve evaluated far too many to say, “all attacks could have been avoided outside,” and it disappoints me to hear our statistics used as “evidence” of such a statement. It isn’t true that “all” attacks could have been stopped outside, but nonetheless, those statistics were the wake-up call to church security planners across the nation that they needed to pay attention to the outer perimeter. It is vital.
- Similarly to the above discovery, most attacks happen during the work week (not during event times) for churches. And even during event times, few of those attacks occur in the sanctuary. This too has helped church security operators plan based on reality, not just assumptions.
- I could highlight every finding, but it is best to point readers directly to the published source (which is dynamic and changes slightly as each additional year is now added to the 22-year study). Here is the link to find that data at any time: https://fbsnamerica.causemachine.com/1999-2019-dfi-statistics
A few years back, you initiated the Faith-Based Security Network (FBSN), bringing together church security leaders nationwide. What motivated you to create this community?
In my now 29 years of research and activity in this space, I had to decide, “what am I going to do with all this learning?” I experienced first-hand the competitive spirit that was attempting to infect this great endeavor of faith-based security (and even got caught up in it briefly before the Lord gave me a course correction).
The first decade of the 21st century (2000–2010) was very bad. It was as if a select few were trying to “own this space.” It was becoming a “vertical market” for retiring law enforcement and military operators to get into. They (again, I must say, “we”) were caught up in a “king of the mountain” scramble.
I was significantly convicted over the selfishness I was seeing myself get caught up in. The whole thing made me sick to my stomach as I saw different leaders discrediting others. At a supper with one of those leaders at a restaurant in Houston one night in 2010, I told him, “This feels like Dr. James Dobson belittling Reverend Billy Graham. That would never happen, and it needs to stop in our circles.” His response was to double down (he even sent me links to both Dobson and Graham websites “proving” they didn’t really promote each other). I knew he was manipulating data (it’s so easy to do) because I knew those men did promote, appreciate, and support each other.
The first thing I began to study was, what is this thing that is happening? This thing where (mostly retired and older adults) were seeing the need for securing the safety of those they loved. I didn’t believe it was a “new business” (or venture, industry, or vertical market). It was (still is) a grassroots effort of like-minded people developing a needed culture to respond to our increasingly immoral culture (which was already invading our most sacred ministries).
That led me to recognize it as an “endeavor.” It is a significant and growing number of people who are recognizing a call on their lives to protect those they love. It is not only an endeavor; it is, in fact, a “great endeavor.”
But my question lingered, “What am I going to do with all this momentum?” I could try and package it up to put into books, or get it protected as “intellectual property” and/or build a business to sell someday and make lots of money until then.
That is where the conviction grasped me the hardest. It isn’t “my business” or even my “story.” It is our story—people like you and I who have heard a sound and are responding to that sound (call). With that said, I recognized (and always will) that some are called to develop related business models in support of this great endeavor.
I wanted a way we could help those businesses succeed and help faith-based operators grow and learn. We could bring them together and share resources and help one another.
It also needed to transcend my influence. It needed to be sustainable beyond any one figurehead.
It began to look like a membership association was in order. Not only that, but it should be a non-profit, religious 501(c)(3) with a board, so it wasn’t just about my experiences and opinions. So, that is what caused me to launch the Faith-Based Security Network.
In your experience, why is fostering a sense of community so vital for those involved in security leadership?
When my Dad died in 2005, it was standing room only in the church. The walls were lined with law enforcement officers (Dad was never involved in law enforcement of any kind). Family showed up from all across the U.S., and it seemed the entire community of railroaders, farmers, church families from many denominations, and just good families filled the pews. To this day, it was one of the most moving displays of evidence of one man’s activity in his community I have ever seen.
Dad was a very strong leader. He taught my brothers and me (and anyone who wanted to hear) the value of seeking the will of God and then living that for your family, your church, and your community.
Dad instilled in me that we all have a responsibility beyond our personal interests and preservation. A WWII veteran, he truly was one of that Greatest Generation who valued others over himself. He lived that way, and the celebration of his life resounded with it.
I can’t talk about my worldviews, including the value of community, without honoring the source of my learning in that field. The value of community is slipping away as we see political and social differences become “irreconcilable differences” in communities.
Faith-based security operators are a class of people who truly reach across unfamiliar territories to work with others. We can and must lead this effort of working with our communities for the purposes of protection.
Before we wrap up, Carl, I’m eager to hear your thoughts on the future. What emerging trend in church security should our readers be aware of?
I really believe we, as leaders in this great endeavor, are affecting and even effecting the culture of church and faith-based security. We are promoting the importance of a ministry mindset of Kingdom-building over castle-building.
All the while, we see faith-based leaders all around us stumble and fall as pride and selfishness take them out, one after another.
I am not a pessimist, but I do believe we are going to see increased attacks not only at but against our faith-based communities. Historically, less than 6% of DFIs have been due to bias (of a religious, ethnic, or other people group). I believe we are already seeing more violence against all people groups (bias attacks), and I believe we are going to see more of that violence turn deadly and become a true DFI.
I believe we will see this decade (2020-2029) surpass all prior decades in mass murder and other DFI numbers. The next decade (2030-2039) will be even worse. This is due, in my opinion, to the dramatic slip in moral values in our nation. We must continue to call upon faith-based organizations to establish intentional defenders who are ready, willing, and able to defend and protect.
Simon Osamoh serves as the editor of Security Connections. For submissions or topic ideas, reach out to Simon at sosamoh@worshipfacility.com You can learn more about the Faith Based Security Network here: https://fbsnamerica.com
