Running Head: CHURCH SECURITY 1

Church Security: A Complex Nexus

Full Name

Name of University

June 5, 2016
 CHURCH SECURITY 2

In examining the challenges that are associated with providing private security to a

church or other house of worship, the challenges that a security director faces are multi-

faceted. While traditional loss prevention and physical plant protection activities are key

responsibilities of a church security director, the latter must also cooperate with local and

federal law enforcement so as to protect the house of worship against terrorism and hate

crimes in a period wherein churches and other houses of worship are commonly targeted

by such types of attacks. Moreover, and given that church activities are heavily dependent

on volunteer labor, this brings about a context in which the church security director must

liaise both with church officials and law enforcement so as to conduct background checks

on volunteers, especially those working with children, so as to ensure that no impropriety

is taking place within the context of the church’s power dynamics. Finally, and given that

churches are increasingly using cyberspace for coordination and fundraising, the church

security director has an emergent responsibility to securitize the church’s digital spaces

from hackers and others who might seek to do harm to this digital infrastructure. Writ-

large, the responsibilities of the church security director are thus wide-ranging, and

increasingly sophisticated in nature.

Loss Prevention and Physical Plant Protection in the Church Context

Beginning with the traditional loss prevention function of the security director,

Clifford (2004) notes that this is an almost universal function of the security director that is

predicated on protecting organizational assets from internal or external shrinkage. In this

regard, church collections, which are typically carried out by volunteers, represent one of

the most critical points of loss prevention in the context of church security. With Clifford

(2004) noting that loss prevention efforts must always walk a fine line between prudence
 CHURCH SECURITY 3

and suspicion, the participation of volunteers in the church collection process brings about

a context in which the church security officer must exercise vigilance all the while ensuring

that he does not offend a volunteer to the point where the church suffers from a loss of

credibility in the eyes of its members.

Simultaneously, Clifford (2004) notes that physical plant protection is a critical

function of the security officer. Noting that this is typically premised on access control and

denial to sensitive areas, the church context is different inasmuch as it is an open space of

worship which is ostensibly open to all. Based on this reality, Clifford (2004) makes it clear

that the church security director’s role in protecting physical plant is far more complex in

relation to a church because of the fact that access control is not a legitimate protective

protocol. Rather, Clifford (2004) proposes that, in providing security to these types of open

spaces, security directors must exercise vigilance though surveillance as well as outreach to

organization members that is germane to providing them with information regarding

individuals or groups who pose threats to the church’s physical plant. By encouraging these

individuals to proactively report these types of threats, Clifford (2004) thus argues that it

becomes possible to securitize the physical plant without detracting from the openness of

this type of space.

Intelligence-Gathering, Strategic Planning, and Law Enforcement Cooperation

Moving forwards, many of the threats dealt with by contemporary houses of

worship go far beyond the loss prevention and physical plant protection that is typically

associated with the provision of private security. Indeed, and as per Soule & Dyke (2010),

American churches have regularly found themselves to be the targets of arsonists and other

terrorist-like actors. With churches thus representing prime targets for those seeking to
 CHURCH SECURITY 4

engage in these types of hate crimes, Soule & Dyke (2010) note that it is critical that church

security directors engage in cooperation with entities like the FBI and the Southern Poverty

Law Center.

Because these groups engage in intelligence-gathering and analysis activities in

relation to these hate and terrorist groups at a level that an individual church could not

hope to achieve, the work of Soule & Dyke (2010) thus makes it clear that security directors

must perform their due diligence by cooperating with these groups and agencies in relation

to determining which if any of these groups might be legitimate security threats at any

given time and place. By maintaining regular contact with these agencies, Soule & Dyke

(2010) propose that a church security director can preempt the threats which these groups

pose, notably through acts like arson, by hiring additional security when necessary and by

encouraging extra vigilance on the parts of parishioners and other important stakeholders.

Writ-large, this cooperation is thus absolutely critical to maintaining the safety of the

church and its physical plant because of the organized, violent and often sophisticated

tactics which the hate groups make use of in attacking churches.

Managing and Securing Volunteer Contributions

In this context, the role of the church security director also differs significantly from

that of the mainstream security director inasmuch as the church relies heavily on voluntary

labor so as to exercise its key functions. In this regard, O’Dougherty (2006) notes that staff

screening is critically important because of the potential for abuse which emerges in the

context of the power dynamics of a church or other house of worship. Indeed, and because

these are sacred spaces, an inherent power imbalance might emerge between a volunteer
 CHURCH SECURITY 5

and a member of a vulnerable population in that the latter might find themselves beholden

to the perceived power of the member of the church’s volunteer corps.

In this context, Clifford (2004) notes that the security director is responsible for the

screening of all personnel. In this regard, background checks for church volunteers,

specifically those who work with children, money or vulnerable populations is absolutely

necessary so as to ensure that an inside threat does not come to jeopardize the security of

the church’s operations or reputation. With this in mind, Clifford (2004) notes that this role

brings about a context in which the security director might occasionally enter into conflict

with organizational leadership or members who feel that these security and background

checks are intrusive in nature. Nevertheless, Clifford (2004) proposes that it is the security

director’s responsibility to sensitize these stakeholders to the importance of these checks

by explaining their necessity in relation to the specific mandate of the organization, and the

specific vulnerabilities which might emerge from this mandate.

Emergent Cyber-Security Threats in the Church Context

Finally, Hoy & Phelps (2003) proposes that an increasingly significant cyber-security

aspect is emerging as it pertains to the role of the church security director. Indeed, Hoy &

Phelps (2003) note that churches are increasingly using the worldwide web to broadcast

sermons, engage in fundraising, and even sell products through e-commerce activities. This

means that large databases of parishioner information as well as stored credit cards might

be available on church serves. While Hoy & Phelps (2003) note that “megachurches” might

often have internal web security departments which ensure the security of this online

infrastructure, smaller independent churches typically do not have the resources which are

necessary to ensure the security of their web presence.

 CHURCH SECURITY 6

Based on this reality, Hoy & Phelps (2003) argue that church security directors thus

face imperatives to educate themselves in relation to web security and, if necessary, to work

with external contractors so as to improve the online security of their organizations. While

noting that the costs of these external consultancies can be high, Hoy & Phelps (2003) note

that the financial gains which can be derived from a sophisticated web presence serve to

justify these costs, and create a context wherein the church’s security director faces an

incentive to convince church administration to make use of these services. Thus, while web

security most certainly does not fall directly under the church director’s area of

responsibility, Hoy & Phelps (2003) argue that a responsible security director will take a

prominent role in this areas because of the importance of church growth in this specific

area.

Conclusion

In the end, the challenges associated with holding a church security director

position are wide-ranging. With the church representing an open space that is vulnerable to

attack or defacement, the security director cannot make use of traditional access control

mechanism to ensure the protection of physical plant, and the protection of infrastructure.

Moreover, and given the predominance of volunteer labor within the church context, it can

be difficult for a church security director to make important headway in relation to

implementing proper checks and verifications all the while maintaining a positive

relationship with the congregation and church leaders. Ultimately then, the church security

director’s position is challenging because of the unique nature of the church, and the

unique ways parishioners contribute to its running.

 CHURCH SECURITY 7

References

Clifford, M. (2004). Identifying and Exploring Security Essentials. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Hoy, M. G., & Phelps, J. (2003). Consumer privacy and security protection on church web

sites: Reasons for concern. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(1), 58-70.

O'Dougherty, M. (2006). Public Relations, Private Security: Managing Youth and Race at the

Mall of America. Society and Space, 24(1), 131-154.

Soule, S. A., & Dyke, N. V. (2010). Black Church Arson in the United States, 1989-1996.

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(4), 724-742.