John Piper is a well known Christian theologian and Bible expositor. He is well versed and certainly no slouch. He made some waves recently with an article advocating a strongly pacifist position on how Christians should approach self-defense and gun ownership: Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?
He made some fair points which every Christian should consider (seriously). But he also fell for some logical fallacies, in my opinion. I wrote up the following response article. It would make sense to read his article first. My goal here is to remain faithful to the Bible, not overstate anything or draw a conclusion that is not there. Feedback welcome.
Should Christians Be Encouraged to Disarm Themselves?
John Piper’s article, “Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?” approaches some difficult issues regarding Christians owning personal weapons, applying the use of force, and enduring persecution. Piper suggests that for a Christian to carry a weapon is tantamount to taking the hope of security that belongs in God and placing it in one’s pocket. He also wrestles with the question of whether it is ever acceptable for a Christian to use force to defend one’s self – or even to defend even one’s spouse under attack from an assailant.
Although Piper sides strongly with the pacifist position, he did not completely commit to making a Biblical argument against all forms of self-defense. Piper himself acknowledged: “The issue is not primarily about when and if a Christian may ever use force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are significant situational ambiguities in the answer to that question.” Additionally, although Piper chooses not to own firearms for any purpose, he says that he would be “very slow to condemn a person who chose differently” – specifically referring to a person who chose to employ a firearm for a defense of family.
Much of Piper’s critique was directed toward a certain mentality among Christians. He suggested that having access to a firearm was somehow incompatible with trusting in God in every situation. He pointed out that God is our refuge, and that “God will supply every need according to His riches.” One might ask: isn’t it true that God provided us with technology that can be used for our protection?
Piper was particularly critical of Jerry Falwell’s public advocacy of offering firearms training to students at a Christian university. Falwell was quoted to have said, “Let’s teach [terrorists] a lesson if they ever show up here.” That statement was the inspiration for Piper’s article, where he writes that it sounds like a “response learned from Jason Bourne, not Jesus and the Bible.”
Piper continued, “I think I can say with complete confidence that the identification of Christian security with concealed weapons will cause no one to ask a reason for the hope that is in us.”
On this point, Piper may be on to something. Christians have to be careful about how we present ourselves to the world and what our testimonies look like to outsiders. Public statements about teaching bad guys a lesson with armed resistance may detract from the effectiveness of our testimony to Christ’s love. Perhaps some of this controversy could have been avoided if Falwell worded his statement differently, avoiding the charged phrase, “let’s teach them a lesson if they come here.” Instead, he might have said, “Let’s promote a safer society by learning firearm responsibility and proficiency.” This would have promoted firearm education to his students, while remaining morally neutral, without providing fodder to critics – at least regarding the objections regarding Christians coming off like “Jason Bourne.”
Piper’s article would have better received had it not contained certain glaring fallacies.
Fallacy #1: Vengeance. Piper quotes several biblical condemnations against vengeance, addressing vengeance on multiple occasions in his article. Vengeance is defined as a “punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.” This is something intrinsically different from using a means of defense to stop an active threat. The dubious inclusion of vengeance in his article blurs the moral distinctions between defensive and offensive use of force. Self-defense is not vengeance, neither biblically nor legally.
Fallacy #2: Defying Authority. Piper attempts to bolster his argument by pointing out the Biblical position on civic justice: God ordains governments with the authority to wield the sword. By lumping acts of self-defense together with acts of vengeance, Piper seems to also imply that people who use self-defense are in some way defying governing authorities (and therefore defying God’s authority). This is clearly not the case, as self-defense is a thoroughly recognized legal act and a valid defense under our civic justice system. If a government acknowledges something to be a civil right, it is not defiant for a citizen to exercise that right. Similarly, utilizing self-defense does nothing to usurp the God-ordained authority for human government to uphold justice.
Because of this murky logic, Piper has come to the conclusion that he personally will own no firearms and he personally counsels other Christians to follow suit. But, by Piper’s own admission, “the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question [of self-defense].” Given that ambiguity, we would be in error to draw any hard lines where God seems to permit discretion.
Suffering for Christ
Piper is right to point out the New Testament (particularly the First Epistle of Peter) is replete with verses about “accepting unjust mistreatment without retaliation.” He quotes nine verses from First Peter under point #2 of his article. The context of these verses must be brought to attention. I have divided them into three categories.
Arguably the bible does not support physical self-defense in the context of abusive authority, nor in the context of persecution due to the Christian identity. The historical persecutions which Piper referenced all fell into one of those two contexts. Namely, these were the persecutions of the early church (Acts 4:25-31, 5:40-41, 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 12:1-5), as well as the martyrdom of Jim Elliott and the Christian missionaries in Ecuador. All these examples were matters which fit into the two aforementioned categories: (1) persecution by authorities or (2) persecution for the Christian identity.
But can these specific contexts be broadened to apply to Christians in every situation? Is that leap justified by the scripture? Should we conclude that Christians are to accept any and every abuse, at all times, regardless of the context? What if an assailant is not an authority, and does not even know the Christian identity of his victim? Can a Christian resist wanton violence?
This is where that ambiguity which Piper mentioned must be recognized. Some things are not clear-cut, per God’s design. Like other biblical matters, it appears that God prefers that people weigh the scripture on their hearts before making difficult personal decisions about physical resistance.
Piper explores the matter of shooting a random assailant attacking one’s wife. He seems fairly settled in his opinion, refusing to own a firearm, yet he admitted that he did not know exactly what he would do in that situation. To his credit, he was not so bold as to say that his answer was the definitive statement of God’s will. There is room for disagreement.
Self-defense affirmed
There are instances in the Bible which prove that God does condone self-defense under some circumstances. Consider Exodus 22, which says: "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed” (Ex. 22:2). God did not hold it against a homeowner for slaying a thief that comes in the night – an unknown intruder with unknown intentions. The following verse makes a curious distinction about whether the crime occurs in darkness or daylight, presumably meaning that if the thief can be observed and identified, justice should be deferred to the governing authorities. Jesus seems to re-affirm the idea of fighting off thieves by His statement when He was approached by the chief priests who were ready to arrest Him: “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?” (Luke 22:52).
Apparently the natural response to robbers was to take up arms. But note: the two passages above described acts of property theft, not the greater crime of physical assault. If God permits fighting off a thief, it would seem reasonable that he would also permit fighting off a physical attacker. And if God permits fighting off anybody, even under limited circumstances, then it would logically follow that He would permit owning and carrying the tools of self-defense.
Buy a sword
The bible never explicitly states anything to deny weapon ownership; God never commands disarmament. Rather, Jesus does say, “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Even though Piper suggests this command is only symbolic, Jesus would not use something implicitly immoral to make a figurative point. If God were opposed to Christians owning weapons, Jesus wouldn’t have suggested it in his illustration. Hence, there is nothing immoral about owning weapons.
To help interpret Luke 22:36, Piper quotes Darrell Bock, who writes, “[The verse] points to readiness and self-sufficiency, not revenge.” Again, it must be pointed out that it is dubious to associate all applications of owning a sword (such as legal self-defense) with “revenge.” Just because someone owns a weapon does not mean it will be used for vengeance.
As further evidence that Jesus’s command to “buy a sword” was purely symbolic, Mr. Bock cites Jesus’s command to Peter at the time of His arrest, “Put your sword into its sheath.” This is a convenient verse to dissuade self-defense. But isn’t it fair to say that situation at Gethsemane was distinct from typical self-defense situations? For one thing, this was an interaction with governing authorities. And secondly, Christ’s arrest was necessary to fulfill His destiny on the cross according to God’s plan of salvation. Peter’s attempt to physically thwart Jesus’s arrest was a reoccurrence of the same rebellious attitude which appeared earlier, when he rebuked Jesus after forecasting His impending death in Matthew 16. Just as Jesus stated then, “Get behind me Satan!” (Matt. 16:23), He again rebuked Peter by saying, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11). Both of Peter’s reactions were in opposition to the Father’s will, and if Peter had his way, would have thwarted the plan of salvation for humanity. We can clearly see that Jesus’s arrest at Gethsemane was anything but typical, and does not provide compelling evidence regarding applications of self-defense.
Perishing by the sword
Another quote used to support the pacifist position is Jesus’s statement, “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt 26:52). This, too, was given in response to Peter’s rash decision to draw his weapon and attack one of the members of the posse which came to arrest Jesus. This verse is difficult to apply to self-defense matters, not only because of the uniqueness of the events at Gethsemane, not only because he was opposing lawful authorities, but also because of the fact that Peter was acting as an aggressor! The rules of self-defense would not have applied to Peter’s actions, neither according to Jewish standards, nor modern American standards, nor God’s standards. Jesus was warning Peter that God’s law permitted capital punishment for those who attack others: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed also” (Genesis 9:6). These verses apply to aggression, which could have earned him the death penalty, and are not sufficiently applicable to cases of self-defense.
A time to kill
Assuming that “suffering for Christ” is not a blanket command to never resist anyone or anything for any reason, there seems to be biblical support for discretionary use of defensive force. As we have discussed earlier, God explicitly tolerated defending against home-invaders (Exodus 22:2).
Jesus used a parable about a strong man defending his house (Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21), as well as a (possibly figurative) command for his disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Even if His words were symbolic illustrations, it seems uncharacteristic that He would have used sinful activities to make His points.
Paul wrote that Christians should remain at peace “if possible, so far as it depends on you” (Romans 12:18) which seems to indicate that peace might be broken when it does not depend on the Christian. He also said the person who does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim 5:8). Might those provisions include physical protection?
The Book of Proverbs says, “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter” (Prov. 24:11). Also, “The righteous man who gives way before the wicked is like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain” (Proverbs 25:26). Here we see proactive commands to resist the wicked and rescue captives.
Solomon acknowledged that there is a time for every matter under heaven, including “a time to kill” (Ecclesiastes 3:3). David wrote that the Lord Himself trains his fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1).
Does the bible support for a blanket command for a Christian reject all physical self-defense? That is not substantiated in the Bible, nor did John Piper claim that it was. Well then, should Christians be encouraged to disarm themselves? That does not appear to be completely substantiated either. Indeed the Bible appears support narrow circumstances when physical force may be justified to protect innocent lives on a personal level and a national level. And if that is true, then it would be logical that Christians may own the technology to provide those defenses.
However, to show some accord with Mr. Piper, Christians should be very careful about what they publicly advocate, and how they come across in regards to weapon ownership and self-defense. There is a very real danger that careless statements may cause Christians to come across as looking eagerly for a fight, damaging their credibility and testimony to the world. We should also carefully consider where our true trust abides, as well as remembering the Biblical mandates about enduring persecution under certain circumstances, namely coming from authorities or enemies of Christ.
Lastly, we should note that history indicates that there will be times when Christians are faced with competing commands. For example, it is upon Christians to defend their families and the powerless, but on the other hand, we must simultaneously submit to ruling authorities. What happens when government is committing genocide, slaughtering the innocent? Is that an appropriate time to “rescue those who are being taken away to death”? Would we be considered “worse than an unbeliever” if we sat on our hands while our families were murdered? These are not easy delineations and John Piper did not attempt to factor them into his article about Christian disarmament. All in all, we trust that God wants us to search the scriptures for our answers and we trust in His mercy when we err. Many Christians choose to own firearms and make those difficult decisions, God forbid, when the difficult situations arise.
He made some fair points which every Christian should consider (seriously). But he also fell for some logical fallacies, in my opinion. I wrote up the following response article. It would make sense to read his article first. My goal here is to remain faithful to the Bible, not overstate anything or draw a conclusion that is not there. Feedback welcome.
Should Christians Be Encouraged to Disarm Themselves?
John Piper’s article, “Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?” approaches some difficult issues regarding Christians owning personal weapons, applying the use of force, and enduring persecution. Piper suggests that for a Christian to carry a weapon is tantamount to taking the hope of security that belongs in God and placing it in one’s pocket. He also wrestles with the question of whether it is ever acceptable for a Christian to use force to defend one’s self – or even to defend even one’s spouse under attack from an assailant.
Although Piper sides strongly with the pacifist position, he did not completely commit to making a Biblical argument against all forms of self-defense. Piper himself acknowledged: “The issue is not primarily about when and if a Christian may ever use force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are significant situational ambiguities in the answer to that question.” Additionally, although Piper chooses not to own firearms for any purpose, he says that he would be “very slow to condemn a person who chose differently” – specifically referring to a person who chose to employ a firearm for a defense of family.
Much of Piper’s critique was directed toward a certain mentality among Christians. He suggested that having access to a firearm was somehow incompatible with trusting in God in every situation. He pointed out that God is our refuge, and that “God will supply every need according to His riches.” One might ask: isn’t it true that God provided us with technology that can be used for our protection?
Piper was particularly critical of Jerry Falwell’s public advocacy of offering firearms training to students at a Christian university. Falwell was quoted to have said, “Let’s teach [terrorists] a lesson if they ever show up here.” That statement was the inspiration for Piper’s article, where he writes that it sounds like a “response learned from Jason Bourne, not Jesus and the Bible.”
Piper continued, “I think I can say with complete confidence that the identification of Christian security with concealed weapons will cause no one to ask a reason for the hope that is in us.”
On this point, Piper may be on to something. Christians have to be careful about how we present ourselves to the world and what our testimonies look like to outsiders. Public statements about teaching bad guys a lesson with armed resistance may detract from the effectiveness of our testimony to Christ’s love. Perhaps some of this controversy could have been avoided if Falwell worded his statement differently, avoiding the charged phrase, “let’s teach them a lesson if they come here.” Instead, he might have said, “Let’s promote a safer society by learning firearm responsibility and proficiency.” This would have promoted firearm education to his students, while remaining morally neutral, without providing fodder to critics – at least regarding the objections regarding Christians coming off like “Jason Bourne.”
Piper’s article would have better received had it not contained certain glaring fallacies.
Fallacy #1: Vengeance. Piper quotes several biblical condemnations against vengeance, addressing vengeance on multiple occasions in his article. Vengeance is defined as a “punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.” This is something intrinsically different from using a means of defense to stop an active threat. The dubious inclusion of vengeance in his article blurs the moral distinctions between defensive and offensive use of force. Self-defense is not vengeance, neither biblically nor legally.
Fallacy #2: Defying Authority. Piper attempts to bolster his argument by pointing out the Biblical position on civic justice: God ordains governments with the authority to wield the sword. By lumping acts of self-defense together with acts of vengeance, Piper seems to also imply that people who use self-defense are in some way defying governing authorities (and therefore defying God’s authority). This is clearly not the case, as self-defense is a thoroughly recognized legal act and a valid defense under our civic justice system. If a government acknowledges something to be a civil right, it is not defiant for a citizen to exercise that right. Similarly, utilizing self-defense does nothing to usurp the God-ordained authority for human government to uphold justice.
Because of this murky logic, Piper has come to the conclusion that he personally will own no firearms and he personally counsels other Christians to follow suit. But, by Piper’s own admission, “the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question [of self-defense].” Given that ambiguity, we would be in error to draw any hard lines where God seems to permit discretion.
Suffering for Christ
Piper is right to point out the New Testament (particularly the First Epistle of Peter) is replete with verses about “accepting unjust mistreatment without retaliation.” He quotes nine verses from First Peter under point #2 of his article. The context of these verses must be brought to attention. I have divided them into three categories.
- Persecution by Authorities. Verses 2:19-20 are about enduring physical mistreatment in the context of a servant-master relationship.
- Vengeance. Verse 3:9, “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling,” is another command about avoiding vengeance, which is not relevant to the matter of self-defense.
- Persecution for being a Christian. The rest of the verses Piper cited all relate to explicitly suffering for Christ: “suffer for righteousness’ sake” (3:14), “suffer for doing good” (3:17), “share Christ’s sufferings” (4:13), “insulted for the name of Christ” (4:14), “suffers as a Christian” (4:16), and “suffer according to God’s will” (4:19).
Arguably the bible does not support physical self-defense in the context of abusive authority, nor in the context of persecution due to the Christian identity. The historical persecutions which Piper referenced all fell into one of those two contexts. Namely, these were the persecutions of the early church (Acts 4:25-31, 5:40-41, 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 12:1-5), as well as the martyrdom of Jim Elliott and the Christian missionaries in Ecuador. All these examples were matters which fit into the two aforementioned categories: (1) persecution by authorities or (2) persecution for the Christian identity.
But can these specific contexts be broadened to apply to Christians in every situation? Is that leap justified by the scripture? Should we conclude that Christians are to accept any and every abuse, at all times, regardless of the context? What if an assailant is not an authority, and does not even know the Christian identity of his victim? Can a Christian resist wanton violence?
This is where that ambiguity which Piper mentioned must be recognized. Some things are not clear-cut, per God’s design. Like other biblical matters, it appears that God prefers that people weigh the scripture on their hearts before making difficult personal decisions about physical resistance.
Piper explores the matter of shooting a random assailant attacking one’s wife. He seems fairly settled in his opinion, refusing to own a firearm, yet he admitted that he did not know exactly what he would do in that situation. To his credit, he was not so bold as to say that his answer was the definitive statement of God’s will. There is room for disagreement.
Self-defense affirmed
There are instances in the Bible which prove that God does condone self-defense under some circumstances. Consider Exodus 22, which says: "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed” (Ex. 22:2). God did not hold it against a homeowner for slaying a thief that comes in the night – an unknown intruder with unknown intentions. The following verse makes a curious distinction about whether the crime occurs in darkness or daylight, presumably meaning that if the thief can be observed and identified, justice should be deferred to the governing authorities. Jesus seems to re-affirm the idea of fighting off thieves by His statement when He was approached by the chief priests who were ready to arrest Him: “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?” (Luke 22:52).
Apparently the natural response to robbers was to take up arms. But note: the two passages above described acts of property theft, not the greater crime of physical assault. If God permits fighting off a thief, it would seem reasonable that he would also permit fighting off a physical attacker. And if God permits fighting off anybody, even under limited circumstances, then it would logically follow that He would permit owning and carrying the tools of self-defense.
Buy a sword
The bible never explicitly states anything to deny weapon ownership; God never commands disarmament. Rather, Jesus does say, “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Even though Piper suggests this command is only symbolic, Jesus would not use something implicitly immoral to make a figurative point. If God were opposed to Christians owning weapons, Jesus wouldn’t have suggested it in his illustration. Hence, there is nothing immoral about owning weapons.
To help interpret Luke 22:36, Piper quotes Darrell Bock, who writes, “[The verse] points to readiness and self-sufficiency, not revenge.” Again, it must be pointed out that it is dubious to associate all applications of owning a sword (such as legal self-defense) with “revenge.” Just because someone owns a weapon does not mean it will be used for vengeance.
As further evidence that Jesus’s command to “buy a sword” was purely symbolic, Mr. Bock cites Jesus’s command to Peter at the time of His arrest, “Put your sword into its sheath.” This is a convenient verse to dissuade self-defense. But isn’t it fair to say that situation at Gethsemane was distinct from typical self-defense situations? For one thing, this was an interaction with governing authorities. And secondly, Christ’s arrest was necessary to fulfill His destiny on the cross according to God’s plan of salvation. Peter’s attempt to physically thwart Jesus’s arrest was a reoccurrence of the same rebellious attitude which appeared earlier, when he rebuked Jesus after forecasting His impending death in Matthew 16. Just as Jesus stated then, “Get behind me Satan!” (Matt. 16:23), He again rebuked Peter by saying, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11). Both of Peter’s reactions were in opposition to the Father’s will, and if Peter had his way, would have thwarted the plan of salvation for humanity. We can clearly see that Jesus’s arrest at Gethsemane was anything but typical, and does not provide compelling evidence regarding applications of self-defense.
Perishing by the sword
Another quote used to support the pacifist position is Jesus’s statement, “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt 26:52). This, too, was given in response to Peter’s rash decision to draw his weapon and attack one of the members of the posse which came to arrest Jesus. This verse is difficult to apply to self-defense matters, not only because of the uniqueness of the events at Gethsemane, not only because he was opposing lawful authorities, but also because of the fact that Peter was acting as an aggressor! The rules of self-defense would not have applied to Peter’s actions, neither according to Jewish standards, nor modern American standards, nor God’s standards. Jesus was warning Peter that God’s law permitted capital punishment for those who attack others: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed also” (Genesis 9:6). These verses apply to aggression, which could have earned him the death penalty, and are not sufficiently applicable to cases of self-defense.
A time to kill
Assuming that “suffering for Christ” is not a blanket command to never resist anyone or anything for any reason, there seems to be biblical support for discretionary use of defensive force. As we have discussed earlier, God explicitly tolerated defending against home-invaders (Exodus 22:2).
Jesus used a parable about a strong man defending his house (Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21), as well as a (possibly figurative) command for his disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Even if His words were symbolic illustrations, it seems uncharacteristic that He would have used sinful activities to make His points.
Paul wrote that Christians should remain at peace “if possible, so far as it depends on you” (Romans 12:18) which seems to indicate that peace might be broken when it does not depend on the Christian. He also said the person who does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim 5:8). Might those provisions include physical protection?
The Book of Proverbs says, “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter” (Prov. 24:11). Also, “The righteous man who gives way before the wicked is like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain” (Proverbs 25:26). Here we see proactive commands to resist the wicked and rescue captives.
Solomon acknowledged that there is a time for every matter under heaven, including “a time to kill” (Ecclesiastes 3:3). David wrote that the Lord Himself trains his fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1).
Does the bible support for a blanket command for a Christian reject all physical self-defense? That is not substantiated in the Bible, nor did John Piper claim that it was. Well then, should Christians be encouraged to disarm themselves? That does not appear to be completely substantiated either. Indeed the Bible appears support narrow circumstances when physical force may be justified to protect innocent lives on a personal level and a national level. And if that is true, then it would be logical that Christians may own the technology to provide those defenses.
However, to show some accord with Mr. Piper, Christians should be very careful about what they publicly advocate, and how they come across in regards to weapon ownership and self-defense. There is a very real danger that careless statements may cause Christians to come across as looking eagerly for a fight, damaging their credibility and testimony to the world. We should also carefully consider where our true trust abides, as well as remembering the Biblical mandates about enduring persecution under certain circumstances, namely coming from authorities or enemies of Christ.
Lastly, we should note that history indicates that there will be times when Christians are faced with competing commands. For example, it is upon Christians to defend their families and the powerless, but on the other hand, we must simultaneously submit to ruling authorities. What happens when government is committing genocide, slaughtering the innocent? Is that an appropriate time to “rescue those who are being taken away to death”? Would we be considered “worse than an unbeliever” if we sat on our hands while our families were murdered? These are not easy delineations and John Piper did not attempt to factor them into his article about Christian disarmament. All in all, we trust that God wants us to search the scriptures for our answers and we trust in His mercy when we err. Many Christians choose to own firearms and make those difficult decisions, God forbid, when the difficult situations arise.
