Protecting the Church in Times of Unrest:

Self-Defense in Church Security Assessments

By Richard Mathewson

© 2026

The Kincade Society

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ABSTRACT

Religious observance is sacred to the individual.  It is a moral truth protected by civil law.  International law acknowledges this.  The First Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures the free exercise of religion.  Each State in the Union has some degree of protection for religious observance embedded in its constitution.  From local laws to globally recognized humanitarian rights, religious protection is uncontroversial.  But there is a vast abyss separating what is legally protected and what is realistically safe when it comes to religious observance.  Recent trends indicate that tolerance for religion is breaking down.  Specifically, there is an uptick in threats against religious organizations in America and abroad, with attacks being directed against religious schools and churches.  But schools and churches aren’t defenseless—they can and should develop self-defense protocols to enhance their security and reduce the risk from hostile actors who would do them harm.  This paper examines the intersection between laws that protect religious observance and laws that permit the use of self-defensive force.  This analysis can inform religious school and church security assessments and educate congregations on self-defense law.  Through educational programs that teach self-defense, protective security protocols can be effectively implemented in school and church environments.  Note: Although this analysis will focus primarily on church organizations, self-defense applies to religious organizations in general and The Kincade Society offers its Church Security Program to any in need.       

INTRODUCTION

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.  For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.  All these are the beginning of sorrows.  Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.  (Matthew 24:6-9, KJV)1

On February 11, 2024, a 36-year-old woman opened fire at Lakewood Church, in Houston, Texas, and, according to the FBI, fired around 30 rounds inside the church building, injuring 1 adult and her young son before being killed by church security guards.²  This shooting appeared to be motivated, at least in part, by hatred of the Christian religion.  According to law enforcement, the woman “used a legally purchased AR-15 with a ‘Palestine’ sticker on it [and] ‘Free Palestine’ was written on the gun.”³

On December 16, 2024, a 15-year-old student at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin opened fire in a classroom killing two people and injuring six others, before killing herself.⁴  It appeared that this young woman targeted people at the Christian school:   

Madison Police Chief Shon F. Barnes to reporters on Tuesday: “At this time, it appears that the motive was a combination of factors.  Some have asked if people were specifically targeted.  Everyone was targeted in this incident, and everyone was put in equal danger…At this time we cannot verify its [alleged manifesto] [titled “War Against Humanity”] authenticity.  We have detectives working today to determine where this document originated, and who actually shared it online.”⁵

In Minneapolis, Minnesota on August 27, 2025, a 23-year-old person carrying a rifle, shotgun, and pistol started shooting through the windows of Annunciation Catholic School during mass, with one source reporting 14 children and 2 adults injured and 2 children dead.⁶  According to the FBI, the Annunciation shooting was being investigated as a domestic terrorism “hate crime” specifically targeting Catholics.⁷ 

There are many more examples of hostile actors targeting church organizations that go back decades (targeting of sacred sites and places of worship involve other religions as well which are added here to emphasize the general need for security in religious organizations).  For example, the anti-Mormon Cane Creek Massacre in Tennessee, 1884; the KKK bombing of 16^th Street Baptist Church in Alabama, 1963; the mass murder at First Baptist Church in Daingerfield, Texas, 1980; the mass shooting at Waddell Buddhist in Arizona, 1991; the shooting at Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church in Tennessee, 2008; the racially-motivated shooting at Wisconsin Sikh temple in Wisconsin, 2012; the racially-motivated mass shooting at Pittsburgh synagogue in Pennsylvania, 2018; the hostage crisis at Colleyville synagogue in Texas, 2022; the anti-Christian Nashville school shooting in Tennessee, 2023.⁸  

The Family Research Council—a “nonprofit research and educational organization…providing policy research and analysis for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government”⁹—that tracks acts of hostility against churches in America reported a disturbing increase in attacks against churches within the past few years:

A new report from the Family Research Council (FRC) reveals 1,384 acts of hostility against churches across the United States between January 2018 and December 2024.  The report documents a dramatic increase in attacks over the last three years, with incidents nearly tripling since 2021.  Churches have faced rising levels of vandalism, arson, bomb threats, and gun-related violence…FRC tracked 198 attacks in 2022, 485 in 2023, and 415 in 2024—accounting for nearly 80% of all incidents since 2018.  This marks a major escalation compared to previous years, which saw far fewer events: 50 in 2018, 83 in 2019, 55 in 2020, and 98 in 2021.  The report relies on open-source data from news articles, police reports, and public documentation.¹⁰ 

Indeed, a search of “Attacks against churches” on the U.S. Department of Justice website revealed no less than 4,332 results.¹¹  On the first page alone, attacks included throwing Molotov cocktails at a church, hate crime for attempted church shooting, threatening a local church, targeting churches, entering church with rifle, and arson and damage to church property.    

Suffice it to say, hostility and violence toward religious schools and churches is an urgent problem in need of serious attention.  The statistics bear out a disturbing trend toward harming religious organizations—one that is escalating and not abating.  This is particularly pernicious in that it is occurring in a country with some of the most uniquely protective constitutional architecture for religious observance. 

As a United States citizen, the freedom to worship one’s God according to the dictates of their conscience is secured by the law of the land, and this freedom cannot be infringed by the violent who seek to do harm because they cannot tolerate another’s beliefs.  The citizens of this country are granted the freedom to hold belief and practice it in accordance with their personal morality—a right protected by civil law.  But that right is not self-executing; it must be defended through self-defensive force against those who would use violence.  

This paper acts as a primer for the Church Security Program that The Kincade Society offers to religious organizations—academic and ecclesiastical.  Specifically, it examines legal protections for religious observance, the lawful use of self-defensive force, and the interaction between these in the context of the church.  This security consulting is multifaceted, combining an intimate knowledge of the mechanics of power, law, human behavior, belief frameworks, and institutional dynamics.  For pastors, ministers, and other church leaders, this service is invaluable for ensuring the safety and security of their congregations and the legal compliance of their organization.  For the congregant, understanding their lawful right to self-defend brings peace of mind and enhances competence, better equipping them in an increasingly hostile world.  This paper is written from a Judeo-Christian perspective although the Church Security Program is available to all religious organizations in need.  Note: The information in this paper is provided for general informational or educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.        

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE

When contemplating conduct, it is necessary to first understand the laws that control this conduct.  Here, we are discussing the intersection between divine law and human law because the conduct is the right to religious observance according to one’s conscience.  We will examine legal support for acting in self-defense, but we must start with the laws that protect religious observance in the first instance.  This establishes the foundation we can build from.  Importantly, without demonstrating a solid legal basis for religious observance, it makes little sense to discuss defending one’s right to that observance.  The “right” to a thing derives from the law granting that right which without that law there is no right.  But the right to free exercise of religion is unique because despite being “granted” by civil law, the right itself is divinely ordained.  It comes from an authority that transcends human convention.  Thus, the grant is itself a mere formality—a human affirmation of a higher truth—and holds no more effect than to put into human words a greater eternal principle.  This is reflected by James Madison in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:   

The free exercise of religion “is in its nature an unalienable right” because the duty owed to one’s Creator “is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”¹²          

Nevertheless, the dual nature of being human (spirit in material form) necessitates an interpretation of intangible truth into tangible form.  This is often accomplished in authoritative writings—from which “law” derives.  Writings from the Judeo-Christian context that bridge the gap between divine truth and human law come from the New Testament book of Matthew 22:21 where Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”¹³  Paul, in Romans 13:7 said, “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”¹⁴  Thus, Jesus himself distinguished human law (Caesar’s things) from divine truth (God’s things).  And the Apostle Paul affirmed this distinction for the early churches.  In this, two doctrinal giants of Judeo-Christianity—Jesus and Paul—effectively validated civil law.  In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “One has not only a legal but moral responsibility to obey just laws.”¹⁵  No law is more just than the law that protects the sacred right to freely act upon one’s own conscience and practice the religion of their choice. 

Although this affirmation of civil law is based on the teachings of the New Testament, it would be superfluous to examine the Old Testament as that portion of the Judeo-Christian canon is predicated on strict obedience to the law.  Thus, there is a presumption that inheres Old Testament teachings that laws are to be obeyed—there is no question whether the Old Testament supported obedience to civil law because this was central to that portion of the canon.  Now that we’ve established authoritative support for civil laws from the Judeo-Christian canon, it is necessary to examine what laws protect religious observance (in other words, we are essentially conducting an examination of divine support for civil law that ensures the freedom to commune with the divine).

FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

On a national level, there is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states the following about the exercise of religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…¹⁶

It should be noted that although this law protects observance of one’s religion, it simultaneously protects non-observance.  In other words, civil government cannot compel specific religious observance under this law, nor can it prohibit it.  Within the greater Union, each State has its own constitutional provisions protecting religious observance.  However, no individual State can legislate away or bypass the First Amendment right to religious observance because the U.S. Constitution is “the supreme law of the land”¹⁷ and therefore preempts State law that is contrary to or inconsistent with its intent.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT OF 1993

Federal law provides clarification of the First Amendment by reaffirming it in statutory form and describing situations in which it may be burdened.  SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED states:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) JUDICIAL RELIEF.—A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.¹⁸

FEDERAL LAW PROTECTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (DOJ MEMORANDUM)

In its MEMORANDUM FOR ALL EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES (2017), the U.S. Department of Justice wrote the following regarding the Principles of Religious Liberty:

Religious liberty is a foundational principle of enduring importance in America, enshrined in our Constitution and other sources of federal law. As James Madison explained in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, the free exercise of religion “is in its nature an unalienable right” because the duty owed to one’s Creator “is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”¹ Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs or even to worship in a sacred place. It also encompasses religious observance and practice. Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law. Therefore, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance and practice should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity, including employment, contracting, and programming…¹⁹

The memorandum then listed “twenty principles [that] should guide administrative agencies and executive departments in carrying out th[e] task.”²⁰  This “guidance” memorandum further affirmed First Amendment protections as well as affirming the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (which itself affirmed the First Amendment).

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom drafted the International Human Rights Standards: Selected Provisions on Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion or Belief that covers,

relevant provisions of international instruments, as well as further information concerning international standards concerning the protection of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief.²¹

It is notable that this document begins with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR), Art. 18, establishing the recognition of religious freedom as a universal right that transcends individual member State authorization or prohibition:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.²²

Importantly, the document incorporates global recognition of religious freedom by listing various international agreements that establish this “right,” e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR), Art. 18; European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR), Art. 9; Helsinki Final Act 1975, Principle VII; UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief 1981 (UN 1981 Dec.), Art. 1; Freedom to Change One’s Religion or Belief [UDHR, Art. 18, ECHR, Art. 9(1), OSCE Copenhagen Document, Art. 9(4)]; Freedom to Have or to Adopt a Religion or Belief of One’s Choice [ICCPR Art. 18(1)]; Freedom From Coercion Which Would Impair an Individual’s Freedom to Have or To Adopt a Religion or Belief of His or Her Choice [ICCPR, Art. 18(2) and UN 1981 Dec. Art. 1(2)]; Freedom to Manifest Religion or Belief in Worship, Observance, Practice, and Teaching [UDHR, Art. 18, ICCPR, Art. 18(1), UN 1981 Dec., Art. 1, OSCE Vienna Document, Art. 16(d)]; Permissible Limitations on the Freedom to Manifest Religion or Belief [ICCPR, Art. 18(3) and UN 1981 Dec., Art. 1(3)].²³ 

Additionally, the document explicitly distinguishes internationally recognized laws and agreements that protect free exercise of religion, e.g., EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EQUAL AND EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION OR BELIEF [ICCPR, Arts. 2(1) and 26, OSCE Vienna Document, Art. 16(a), and OSCE Copenhagen Document, Art. 40(1-2)]; States Undertake to Respect and to Ensure for All Individuals Within its Territory and Subject to its Jurisdiction the Rights Recognized in the ICCPR Without Distinction of Any Kind, Including Religion [ICCPR Art. 2(1)]; All Persons Are Equal Before the Law and Are Entitled Without Any Discrimination to the Equal Protection of the Law. [ICCPR, Art. 26]; The Law Shall Prohibit Any Discrimination and Guarantee to All Persons Equal and Effective Protection Against Discrimination on Any Ground, Including Religion. [ICCPR, Art. 26]; Protection Against Discrimination by Any State, Institution, Group of Persons or Person on the Grounds of Religion or Other Belief [UN 1981 Dec., Arts. 2(1) and 4]; STATES SHALL PROHIBIT BY LAW ANY ADVOCACY OF NATIONAL, RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS HATRED THAT CONSTITUTES INCITEMENT TO DISCRIMINATION, HOSTILITY OR VIOLENCE [ICCPR, Art. 20].²⁴

Thus, the Commission, a creature of American interest, effectively strengthens the universal freedom of thought, conscience, and religion by incorporating international authority upholding these freedoms.

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER       

The Preamble to the United Nations Charter states:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…²⁵

Chapter I: Purposes and Principles, Article 1, Section 3 states the following about religious freedom:

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion…²⁶

Article 55 of the Charter states:

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

…universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.²⁷

Thus, the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of one’s conscience finds support in both national and international law.  The “freedoms” of thought, conscience, and religion are universal and inviolable.  More importantly, these are gifts from the divine.  It is for this reason that James Madison referred to the free exercise of religion as “an unalienable right.”²⁸  It cannot be taken away, diminished, nor given up.  It is sacrosanct because it connects the believer with the believed, and no human being can deprive another of either their right to believe nor the belief itself because this is an intrinsic quality not amenable to alienation.  The Roman philosopher and emperor, Marcus Aurelius, in his work Meditations wrote: “You have power over your mind—not outside events.  Realize this, and you will find strength.”  The laws that “create” this right are a reflection of the divine gift of thought and conscience, to which religion merely gives meaning and law gives protection.  Thus, laws can enhance but not diminish these gifts. 

Nevertheless, although civil laws provide authority and protection for religious freedom, there are still those who would interfere with religious observance through violence and force.  For this reason, laws provide for self-defense.  It is this matter that we turn to now.     

LAWFUL USE OF SELF-DEFENSIVE FORCE

The law provides exception for self-defense even when it results in loss of life.  Self-defense is considered a “justification” in criminal law.  The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines justification as:

A legally sufficient reason or cause (as self-defense) for an act that would otherwise be criminal or tortious.²⁹              

The Model Penal Code (Code), a collective effort to codify substantive criminal law in the United States that has influenced many state criminal statutes, provides a standard for self-defense.  Although use of self-defensive force may differ in each jurisdiction, the Code reflects the common elements of self-defense.  For this reason, the Code will be used to describe this legal justification:

Section 3.04.  Use of Force in Self-Protection.

(1)             Use of Force Justifiable for Protection of the Person.  Subject to the provisions of this Section and of Section 3.09, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such a force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.³⁰  

The “Explanatory Note” describes the following limitations on the use of self-defensive force (which are briefly summarized here—self-defense is a fairly complex concept legally and each State has its own version of the self-defense exception in its law, so the individual would need to familiarize with the specific State law controlling the use of self-defensive force where they reside):

First, the actor is not privileged to use force for the purpose of resisting an arrest that he knows is being made by a peace officer, irrespective of the legality of the arrest…

Second, the actor is not privileged to use force for the purpose of resisting force used by one who is the occupant or possessor of property, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property…

The third limitation on the use of self-defensive force relates to the occasions when deadly force may be used.  Deadly force is not justified unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.  Deadly force is also not justified if the actor provoked the use of force in the same encounter, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury.  Finally, deadly force is not justified if the actor can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by taking certain alternative steps: by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or by complying with a demand that he abstain from action that he has no duty to take.  The requirement that one of these alternatives be pursued does not apply, however, in two very narrow circumstances: an actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or the attack is at the attacker’s place of work and is by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be…(the second circumstance applies to a peace officer making an arrest or preventing escape).³¹    

Importantly, since the drafting of the Code in 1962, there have been changes in criminal law pertaining to self-defense.  For example, some states enacted “stand your ground” laws which effectively removed the “duty to retreat” requirement in the use of self-defensive force or greatly modified it.  There are also “castle doctrine” laws which allow individuals to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against an intruder in their home (i.e., their “castle”).  These laws could be consistent or inconsistent with the third limitation on self-defensive force from the Model Penal Code.  Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that although these Codes influenced self-defense laws in each State, it is necessary to reference current State laws to determine how consistent they are with the Code before assuming they are the same.

The Code includes use of force for the protection of other persons in its self-defensive force provisions.  For use of self-defensive force to be justified here, three basic conditions must be met:

Force is justified if (a) the actor would be justified under Section 3.04 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the other person; (b) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the other person would be justified in using protective force; and (c) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of the other person.³² 

Thus, self-defense can be used for oneself or on behalf of another.  The concept of self-defense is not limited to the individual alone.  Moreover, this idea transcends the criminal law context.  Article 51 of the U.N. Charter provides an exception for the use of self-defensive force from a member-State standpoint, indicating a universal recognition of the right of self-defense:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.³³

Thus, self-defense is a universally recognized justification in the law.

USE OF SELF-DEFENSIVE FORCE IN THE CHURCH CONTEXT

The use of self-defensive force to protect oneself or another person against the use of unlawful force by someone else is consistent with moral law.  Self-defense is a “natural” right (even plants and animals in nature are equipped with self-defensive mechanisms, reflecting its ubiquitous quality).  Some may think that using self-defensive force in a church environment is a contradiction—that it goes against the principles of peace and nonviolence that define many religions.  Yet, even when seeking communion with the divine, there is still a responsibility to uphold laws that ensure order and justice in the world.  To do harm to those who would harm the innocent for the purpose of protecting the innocent is more “just” than allowing the innocent to suffer without intervening on their behalf.  Despite the legal complexities involved, self-defense is a necessary evil when malicious actors target religious schools and churches.

Fundamentally, self-defense comports with moral law because using self-defensive force—which may include deadly force—is intended to preserve and protect life.  Protecting the defenseless and vulnerable is a moral obligation in each cycle of human evolution, not an antiquated legal artifact that fades away like the latest fad.  The situations in which self-defense can be lawfully used as reflected in the Code confirm the righteous nature of this justification:    

The third limitation on the use of self-defensive force relates to the occasions when deadly force may be used.  Deadly force is not justified unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat [rape].³⁴ 

The call to “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”³⁵ distinguished the divine from the earthly.  It reinforced the universal truth that although we, as human beings, may be able to touch the divine through mind, spirit, and soul, we must exist on this earthly plane in our physical form—the human condition.  Consequently, we must contend with the vicissitudes of life to the best of our abilities. 

Thus, in this sense, self-defense and the defense of others is a moral responsibility because it prevents the immoral deprivation of life thereby preserving this life.  This remains true whether self-defense happens in secular settings or the church context.  Importantly, use of self-defensive force lawfully does not violate divine law but comports with it.

In the context of Judeo-Christian doctrine, the scriptures distinguish “murder” from killing in general.  The King James Version of the Judeo-Christian bible translated the following commandment thus: “Thou shalt not kill.”³⁶  This is a transliteration of the actual Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:13 for kill, which is râtsach³⁷ and means, “to kill, murder, slay.”³⁸  Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance stated the following about this word:

This verb occurs 47 times in the Old Testament, and its concentration is in the Pentateuch.  Ratsach occurs primarily in the legal material of the Old Testament.  This is not a surprise, as God’s law included regulations on life and provisions for dealing with the murderer.  The Decalogue gives the general principle in a simple statement, which contains the first occurrence of the verb: “Thou shalt not kill [murder]” (Ex 20:13).  Another provision pertains to the penalty: “Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses…” (Num 35:30).  However, before a person is put to death, he is assured of a trial.  The Old Testament recognizes the distinction between premeditated murder and unintentional killing…³⁹     

Thus, in its original Hebrew, the commandment “thou shalt not kill” was a statement of the law of that time pertaining to murder.  Legally distinguishable from the use of self-defensive force, the act of murder was prohibited then as it is in our time now.  In short, there is no conflict in the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” historically and linguistically, because this is comparable to current laws that prohibit murder and not use of self-defensive force.  It is therefore the case that using self-defensive force to prevent unlawful force against the congregation is both doctrinally and legally consistent and comports with both Caesar’s law and God’s law.      

CONCLUSION

Those who lead a church have a responsibility not only to look after the moral welfare of their congregants but also to ensure their safety and security in the church environment.  It does little good to fortify the defenses of the soul when the body is faced with harm and destruction.  Current events involving violence against churches have become so common that not taking proactive steps to mitigate these threats becomes irresponsible.  Here, dereliction of duty by church leadership goes beyond negligence; it reaches into moral ineptitude.  The shepherd guides and guards their sheep.  Hiring properly trained security personnel competent in self-defense law will produce returns that far outweigh the costs.  No earthly price can be put on the responsibility of protecting the souls that seek guidance because this duty has eternal implications that extend beyond this life.  As a nonprofit, The Kincade Society understands the moral duty of giving back to society, and it does this through its Church Security Program by offering comprehensive security assessments with educational programs that enhance self-defense protocols for religious organizations.  This service integrates the strategic, tactical, practical, and spiritual aspects of security because safety is sacred.   

References

¹ KING JAMES VERSION, KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE, https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-24/#6 (last visited Apr. 16, 2026).

² See Christina Maxouris, et al., A woman walked into a Houston megachurch with a child and began shooting. Here's what we know, CNN (April 16, 2026, 3:52 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/us/joel-osteen-lakewood-church-shooting-monday/index.html.

³ Id.

⁴ See NBC News, Live updates: 3 dead in shooting at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin. NBC NEWS LIVE BLOG (April 16, 2026, 2:20 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/abundant-life-school-shooting-madison-live-updates-rcna184404.

⁵ Erin Keller, Natalie Rupnow Alleged Manifesto, Dad’s Facebook Tell Two Different Stories, NEWSWEEK (April 16, 2026, 4:04 PM), https://www.newsweek.com/natalie-rupnow-dad-manifesto-wisconsin-christian-school-shooting-2003646.

⁶ See Sal Christ ed. et al., All 14 injured children expected to survive after shooter at Minneapolis Catholic school kills 2, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (April 16, 2026, 2:20 PM), https://apnews.com/live/minneapolis-annunciation-school-shooting.

⁷ See Globe Staff, FBI director says Minneapolis shooting being investigated as domestic terrorism and hate crime targeting Catholics. See how the day unfolded, THE BOSTON GLOBE (April 16, 2026, 2:59 PM), https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/08/27/nation/minneapolis-shooting-live-updates/.

⁸ WIKIPEDIA, List of attacks against houses of worship in the United States, WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC. (Apr. 16, 2026, 4:30 PM), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_houses_of_worship_in_the_United_States.

⁹ FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, About FRC, FRC (Apr. 16, 2026, 4:58 PM), https://www.frc.org/about-frc#gsc.tab=0.

¹⁰ AMERICAN FAITH, 1,384 Attacks on U.S. Churches Exposed—Shocking Rise Since 2022, AF (Apr. 16, 2026, 5:10 PM), https://americanfaith.com/1384-attacks-on-u-s-churches-exposed-shocking-rise-since-2022/.  

¹¹ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Search: Attacks against churches, SEARCHGOV (Apr. 16, 2026, 5:15 PM), https://search.justice.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=justice&query=attacks+against+churches.   

¹² Attorney General, Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty, DOJ MEMORANDUM FOR ALL EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES (2017), https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1006786/dl. 

¹³ KING JAMES VERSION, KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE, https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-22/#21 (last visited Apr. 16, 2026).

¹⁴ KING JAMES VERSION, KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE, https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-13/#7 (last visited Apr. 16, 2026).

¹⁵ THE WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE, Natural Law, Natural Rights and American Constitutionalism, NEH (Apr. 16, 2026, 8:10 PM), https://www.nlnrac.org/american/american-civil-rights-movements/primary-source-documents/letter-from-a-birmingham-jail.html.

¹⁶ MERRIAM-WEBSTER, MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY OF LAW 628 (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated 2016).

¹⁷ Id. at 627.

¹⁸ Religious Freedom Restoration Act, H.R. 1308, 103d Cong. § 3(a) (1993).  

¹⁹ DOJ MEMORANDUM, supra.

²⁰ Id.

²¹ UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS: SELECTED PROVISIONS ON FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE, AND RELIGION OR BELIEF (2026), https://www.uscirf.gov/international-human-rights-standards-selected-provisions-freedom-thought-conscience-and-religion-or.

²² Id.

²³ Id.

²⁴ Id.

²⁵ UNITED NATIONS, UNITED NATIONS CHARTER (full text) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter.

²⁶ Id.

²⁷ Id.

²⁸ DOJ MEMORANDUM, supra.

²⁹ MERRIAM-WEBSTER, supra, at 274.

³⁰ AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, MODEL PENAL CODE 44 (1985).

³¹ Id. at 46-47.

³² Id. at 48.

³³ UNITED NATIONS, supra.

³⁴ AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, supra.

³⁵ KING JAMES VERSION, KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE, https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-22/#21 (last visited Apr. 16, 2026).

³⁶ KING JAMES VERSION, KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE, https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-20/#13 (last visited Apr. 20, 2026).

³⁷ HENDRICKSON PUBLISHERS, THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE 65 (Jay P. Green, Sr. trans., 2d ed. 1986) (1984).

³⁸ JAMES STRONG, LL.D., S.T.D, THE NEW STRONG’S EXPANDED EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE 266 (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers 2010) (1822-1894).

³⁹ Id.

Author’s Bio

Richard Mathewson has a diverse collection of experiences and education.  He entered into the U.S. Army young, trained as a military police officer, learning order, force, and discipline inside a structured authority.  After military service, his work as a private investigator and psychological profiler involved refining surveillance, behavioral analysis, and evidentiary precision.  He pursued formal study in religion, grounding in moral architecture and belief systems.  He completed a master's degree in psychology, deepening his understanding of trauma, radicalization, and human behavior under stress.  He earned a Juris Doctor, equipping himself with the language of law, institutional limits, and lawful force.  Now he leads The Kincade Society, operating at the intersection of governance, advocacy, and public responsibility.

He can be contacted at thekincadesociety@protonmail.com or (860) 374-8759 for further information on this topic and how The Kincade Society can offer practical solutions related to these real-world problems.