This brings us full circle now on why our security group chose the option we did:

A. The administration was not willing to support the use of force to suppress an attack.

2. Active security measures were viewed as repulsive to the purposes of the call to worship. Cameras, signs, and detection equipment was actually considered an impediment to the extended invitation and was voted down.

d - A visible security force/team present during service was considered too distracting and intimidating for the general congregation.

Thus, we were left with really only one viable option for this limited situation, which seems as practical as will be allowed. Under different conditions and facilities, a more layered and proactive security plan would be much more feasible.