John Piper: Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?

As an inner-city missionary that lives in the neighborhood where we minister where people have been shot and killed less than a block from my house or held up at gunpoint within a couple blocks of my house, we have chosen not to have a gun for protection. But we have always had dogs. And if you know the ‘hood, you realize that young thugs with guns are much more scared of dogs than someone else with a gun. My fear of having a gun is the amount of collateral damage that can happen in a neighborhood like ours, especially since I’ve had 3 of my students accidentally shot and killed by stray bullets. The houses in our community are in close proximity to each other. About 13 years ago, a bullet entered our window that was shot a few blocks away. Because of the work that i do, my life has been threatened on 4 different occasions, including have had a gun pointed at my forehead.

As for protecting my family, being connected to our neighbors along with the dogs we’ve had, have been a successful deterrent from any crimes being committed against us for 2 decades.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/12/piper-pacifism-and-complementari…

Hays (Steve, not Richard-in which case Piper would be praised) nails the issue squarely. I couldn’t agree more.

[TylerR]

• I once unintentionally made a young, female Corpsman watching her first autopsy faint when I told her, in great detail, what the small circular saw was for. I told her to watch for the dust as the pathologist cut off the top of the victim’s skull. “It’ll look like sawdust,” I told her, “but it’s really skull dust. Get it?” She fell down and her comrades had to drag her out of the room. To be fair, I didn’t know she’d faint … My partner and I went to Applebees and had ribs after the autopsy. .

Tyler, you have a sick sense of humor and I salute you! :-)!!

Agreed with your thoughts about Piper wimpiness.

I don’t own any guns, but I believe I have a Biblical right to defend myself, my family, and those weaker than I. If that means using a gun to mitigate or eliminate a threat, then so be it. Yes, I have a mandate to share Christ with others including those threatening me or my family. However, I believe my first obligation is self-preservation and defense of my family. I can share Jesus with the perpetrator when he/she is in jail or in the hospital because I hit him/her with a few rounds of a 9mm.

I don’t believe in flaunting that right nor do I think it makes sense to be overly consumed with guns beyond a hobby.

I think there is something to be said about removing a menace to society at large. For Piper and others to feel even calling 911 is questionable is silly. Get the guy off the streets so he can’t harm myself - or others.

I obviously disagree with Piper’s position, but I think it’s uncharitable to call him “wimpy.” How do you know the reason for his view isn’t Bible-based conviction rather than timidity, wimpiness, or fear? Would you call Nate Saint and the other missionaries “wimpy” for refusing to defend themselves with their weapons? Do you call Joel Schaffer “wimpy” for refusing to buy a gun while living in a crime-ridden neighborhood?

For all the times I’ve heard/watched Piper speak and read his writings, the word “wimpy” has never come to mind.

This comes down to temperament again. If I had been in Nate Saint’s position, I certainly would have fired my gun. I can’t even imagine not doing so.

If Piper is serious about not defending his own wife, or about feeling conflicted about dialing 911 lest a root of bitterness creep into his heart, then he certainly is being wimpy. I don’t intend to be uncharitable, but what else should I call it? I actually thought I was being charitable by sticking with “wimpy.”

What kind of “temperament” is “wimpiness”? Wimpiness is not a temperament. I think you are throwing a bunch of different things like temperament, so-called “manliness” or lack thereof, Biblical conviction over leaving vengeance to God, aversion to guns, aversion to killing, etc. in a pot and calling it “wimpiness.”

Personally, I don’t think you are automatically any more “manly” (or whatever the opposite of wimpiness is) than Piper just because you think you have no aversion to killing people.

And again, this is coming from someone who disagrees with Piper’s position.

God makes us different. I am glad that God makes people like Piper, who feel conflicted about defending himself or his family in an active-shooter situation (which is the context of his response to Falwell’s statement). He seems like a sensitive soul. That’s fine.

Before I entered the ministry, I actually pondered whether I was fit for it, because I’m so cynical and can be rather “cold-blooded” about certain things. I’ve always read about Pastors who weep over their congregation’s poor choices. I haven’t wept yet. Why not? I’m not quite sure. I’ve been situations where I (1) listened to a wife cry to me over the phone about why her alcoholic husband has cheated on her again, (2) prayed with her honestly, (3) given her earnest counsel, (4) then hung up the phone and gone back to my novel. I compartmentalize my emotions and wall them off from the rest of my life. I did it when I was in the military police. I do it in the ministry.

My response isn’t about false bravado, manliness, or a desire to appear tough. I’m just presenting my views in a straight-forward way. God makes people different, and shapes us in different contexts - the result is that some Christians are very different than others. God makes sensitive souls like Piper. That’s good. I’m also glad God makes people different than Piper, people who don’t fret about a potential “root of bitterness” if they have to defend their families. I can’t understand Piper’s response. I can’t understand Nate Saint’s response. I can’t even conceive of it. We’re different. That’s what I mean by temperment. We’re just different.

I think Joel hits the nail on the head. The triablogue article does point out Piper’s inconsistency on Biblical manhood, but it doesn’t give a full view of man’s duty. I do not believe “my first obligation” is to self-preservation and defense of my family.”

Joel, your story seems like 2 good examples of a Christian’s exercise of rights and fulfillment of duties. 1) You have a right to bear arms, but have laid that right aside for the sake of the ministry. 2) You have prioritized fulfilling your duty to make disciples while also fulfilling your duty to protect your family. Your family might be safer in the burbs, but that would inhibit your gospel ministry in the city. You didn’t ignore your duty to protect your family, but you did prioritize your duty to the gospel.

I think that is a good example of Biblical manhood.

“Sensitive” is better, but just to press the point…

Piper is not saying he wouldn’t defend his wife by shooting the attacker because he thinks guns are icky, or because he doesn’t know how he could possibly kill someone, or because he gets sick at the sight of blood, or because he thinks he might run away rather than put up his dukes (or his gun) and fight. He is basing his position on his biblical conviction regarding the use of force to defend one’s own person (or someone else, which is where I strongly disagree) in light of the biblical commands and examples he listed.

You just need to be very careful in making a charge like that, because you would have a very difficult time explaining to me how you couldn’t call Nate Saint, or Joel Schaffer, or…….Jesus, or Paul, “wimpy.”

Please don’t take my last post as me “walking back” the “wimpy” comment. I wasn’t; I meant it. I was simply explaining that God makes people different. I find Piper’s position inexplicable and foolish. I’m being honest about it. I could have wrapped my disapproval up with a lot of soft adjectives to make it easier to swallow. I decided not to. I don’t understand Nate Saint’s position either. Can’t even conceive of not defending myself. Perhaps that’s why God hasn’t sent me to minister to war-like tribes in a third-world context yet?

It doesn’t mean I despise Piper, or those who agree with him. It just means I don’t share that position, and can’t possibly understand it. To be honest, I find that position “wimpy.” Wouldn’t you rather have me be honest? Should I have said, “I have some fundamental misgivings about the soundness of Piper’s position?” If I were writing an academic essay, I’d use that language. I’m not writing that essay, so I’ll be honest and straightforward instead.

God makes us different. I doubt I’ll ever understand Piper on this one.

I’m glad you’re being honest. I’m not glad you’re being uncharitable. Call Piper mistaken, misguided, wrong, even dangerous (because it might influence other men to refrain from defending their wives) but to call him “wimpy” is an attack on his manhood and personal character, and is something you can’t possibly know simply from reading his post.

You are the first person I have ever heard refer to Nate Saint, Jim Eliot, and the others as “wimpy” (not directly, but you can’t avoid that implication of your position). And you still haven’t answered how this applies to Jesus and Paul.

My comment about Piper being wimpy was in the context of him not defending his wife. If Piper is serious about being conflicted about defending his wife, then I find his position rather cowardly. Even the good ole’ Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “wimpy” as somebody who “lacks confidence or courage.” In this context, the point at issue is courage. I find his prevarication about defending his wife to be “wimpy.” I find it to be rather less than courageous. I assume he takes his marriage vows seriously?

Nate Saint wasn’t a wimp. I didn’t say he was a wimp. I said I can’t conceive of not defending myself when being attacked. He and his companions showed amazing and remarkable courage. I was reading from the anthology A New Eusebius about Christian martyrs just yesterday. These are courageous and amazing men and women. I assume that Nate Saint and his companions did not open fire because they valued their ministry to these lost people too much to ruin it by killing them. That takes courage; tremendous courage. They’re better men than me. I would have fired.

Jesus’ passive obedience precluded Him taking vengeance on His enemies in His first advent. That won’t be the case in the second advent.

Paul was an amazing man. I wouldn’t have kept on going after being stoned outside Lystra. I would have wanted to kill those folks, and might have tried. Paul didn’t, and he kept going. I wouldn’t have. He was a better man than me. Case closed.

God makes people different:

• That’s why it took Philip, a Hellenistic Jew, to reach the Samaritans. The apostles never tried. I think their Pharisaical baggage hindered them.
• That’s why Peter and John kept getting released by the Sanhedrin in the early chapters of Acts, but Stephen was executed. Stephen was less circumspect and much more bold about pressing home the implications for Jesus’ ministry and the 2nd temple. Peter and John didn’t mention that stuff. They focused on Jesus’ resurrection, and other matters. Stephen didn’t do that - he zoomed right in on how the temple was obsolete, and how the Mosaic Law was obsolete. He died; Peter and John lived (for a while). I think these men had very different temperments. Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew, and wasn’t as tied to the temple as Peter and John were.
• God led Nate Saint and his companions to minister to people in a context that I wouldn’t have succeeded at.
• I spoke to a Pastor last month who is ministering in a terrible slum in a suburb of East St. Louis. He was saved out of that precise environment, and it’s obvious that God intends him to minister and preach the Gospel to people from that environment. I don’t think I’d make it there.
• God formed and fashioned John Piper to be a more introspective and sensitive soul than me. I confess I don’t understand people like that. I think they’re living in a different world. I’m glad I’m not like that. I’m glad God shaped me by different contexts to be a different person.

If anybody is offended by the use of the word “wimpy,” please understand that I’m not using it to be derogatory. I honestly find his position inconceivable, bizarre and cowardly (hence the word “wimpy”). I understand God made us different, but I can’t fathom how he can justify his own position to himself.

I asked my wife about Piper’s position. She said, “If he feels that way, then he shouldn’t even have a family.”

I think this would be an excellent topic for Ed’s next poll!

[TylerR]

At the risk of seeming to be theologically shallow, let me be brutally honest here - Piper is a complete wimp.

Wait, so when you said this you didn’t mean for it to be derogatory? Am I missing another way of interpreting that comment? I’m not a moderator nor the son of a moderator, but it seems derogatory to me.

You said the definition of “wimp” is someone who lacks confidence or courage. If that definition is accurate then you can’t call him a wimp because based on his comments, he doesn’t have a lack of confidence or courage. He didn’t say that he wouldn’t hurt an assailant because he can’t overcome his fear of violence or guns. He said he wouldn’t do it because of a moral conviction. That is courage, misguided courage in this case, but still not a lack of courage. I disagree with Piper, but you can’t call him wimp for refusing to fight because of a genuine moral conviction. If you think he’s using the moral conviction as just an excuse to justify his fear, that would be another matter.

There are cases when we all should refuse to fight or follow an illegal order. That is not a sign of being a wimp, but a sign of courage. We may disagree with someone on what constitutes a case where we should refuse to fight because of a moral conviction, but that doesn’t mean the other person is a wimp.