John Piper: Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?

In this enlightened age of easily hurt feelings, I understand how the simple use of an good adjective (“wimpy”) to describe a noun in question (“Piper”) may ruffle feathers and make people seek a “safe place.” People automatically assume that adjectives are meant to injure, cause harm, and offend delicate sensibilities.

The fact that the adjective may cause harm is immaterial; the intent is to accurately describe a noun. If Piper has qualms about defending his family from personal attack, then I think “wimpy” is a perfectly good adjective. It is a word that describes, in this context, a lack of courage. When I said I wasn’t trying to be derogatory, I meant that I wasn’t using the term simply to be mean and nasty. I was using it because I think it perfectly describes his attitude and behavior. I think it’s a good adjective. If I didn’t think that, I would have walked it back by now.

I am also disturbed by this bizarre appeal to “conviction.” I have, quite literally, never met anybody who would be conflicted about defending their family. I don’t think that is in the realm of conviction. I think that’s in the realm of basic morality. This entire thread had degenerated into a discussion of “Golly gee, I can’t believe you said that!” instead of actually addressing the point at issue.

I had hoped somebody would be willing to actually address the substance of my point, which I’ve been working towards for several comments now - I know God makes us different, but is it really moral and right to have qualms about defending yourself and your family in a non-ministry context?

Instead, all we’ve had is a bunch of hand-wringing because Piper’s manhood has been allegedly impugned. I think Piper did that to himself. There is a discussion to be had here. We can try to have it, or the hand-wringing can continue. If anybody wants to continue the conversation, feel free to use some adjectives to describe me along the way. If you’re being honest, I won’t cry too hard. I promise.

Behold this short opinion piece by a Pastor and blogger.

SPOILER ALERT: No harmful adjectives were employed by the author, and this is a “safe” read. He even says he has “eminent respect and esteem for Dr. Piper.” What a swell guy! Now you have to read this …

On December 9, 2007, an armed attacker with a semiautomatic rifle and 1400 rounds of ammunition began a shooting rampage at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. He killed two teenagers in the parking lot and then moved toward the building where about 700 people were gathered. His murderous advance was stopped by church security team member Jeanne Assam, who shot him with her concealed handgun. Her quick and decisive action likely saved dozens of lives. I would not deem Ms. Assam more Christlike if she had prayerfully set down her weapon and “accepted unjust mistreatment without retaliation.” And I suspect the students at Liberty University would not either.

I’m not replying to disagree with the position you take, that’s respectable. But having a gun pointed at your head, I believe, is a felony. Threats of violence, at least 4, are criminal. And the bullet through the window, while not deliberate, is still a crime. I’d at least look into some Krav Maga training.

Uh, no, my problem with your name-calling was not due to “easily hurt feelings” and the need to retreat to my safe space. It was because I felt it impugned the character of a Christian brother. You think his qualms about using a gun to kill an attacker is due to a lack of moral courage; others of us are arguing it could actually in fact be because of his (admittedly misguided, in my opinion) moral courage.

Tyler, that kind of bravado works great on Foxnews, but it isn’t appropriate. I’m not saying that you hurt someone’s feelings nor am I asking you to apologize for not making this a “safe place.” But I am saying that you used ad hominem argumentation rather than addressing the content of the article, which is inappropriate and it was also inaccurate.
Merriam-Webster defines “derogatory” as “expressing a low opinion of someone or something : showing a lack of respect for someone or something.” So I suppose you meant to use an adjective to describe John Piper, but didn’t mean to express a low opinion or lack of respect for him?

This entire thread had degenerated into a discussion of “Golly gee, I can’t believe you said that!” instead of actually addressing the point at issue.

Perhaps you missed the posts where we addressed the issue rather than just your ad hominem comment? I think you’ll find them above.

I am also disturbed by this bizarre appeal to “conviction.” I have, quite literally, never met anybody who would be conflicted about defending their family. I don’t think that is in the realm of conviction. I think that’s in the realm of basic morality.

Well that’s the whole point of Piper’s article. I can see that you are disturbed by it and find it bizarre. Perhaps you should take some time to think about it and reflect on it from Piper’s perspective before assailing his character.

I had hoped somebody would be willing to actually address the substance of my point, which I’ve been working towards for several comments now - I know God makes us different, but is it really moral and right to have qualms about defending yourself and your family in a non-ministry context?

I think the key to the disagreement is in the qualification you added at the end. What constitutes a “ministry context” or a “non-ministry context?” Those categories may be tough to define, and brothers in Christ might disagree on those definitions on a case-by-case basis.

I think Piper is putting some cases in a “ministry context,” which you and I would put in a “non-ministry context.” I think he’s wrong, but I think we should consider his opinion rather than simply write it off as “wimpy.”

https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/12/23/john-piper-guns-and-civic-responsibility/

[Doug Flynn]

I’m not replying to disagree with the position you take, that’s respectable. But having a gun pointed at your head, I believe, is a felony. Threats of violence, at least 4, are criminal. And the bullet through the window, while not deliberate, is still a crime. I’d at least look into some Krav Maga training.

In my situation with the gun, I was in a van talking to my wife on my cell phone. When I stopped at a corner in my neighborhood, I looked towards a couple drug dealers, one of them pointed his gun at me with the laser dot from the scope pointed right on my forehead. So that wouldn’t have worked. Here is the entire context to what happened.

http://www.utmgr.org/chapter-1-trauma/

http://www.utmgr.org/170/

http://www.utmgr.org/chapter-i-trauma-part-iii/

As for the bullet through the window, the shooting took place a couple blocks away. We have no idea who fired the gun.

As for the other times that my life was threatened, it happened between 15-20 years ago and with each of them, I was able to deal with them by going to their moms because they were teenagers and suspending them from our programs for a year.

I agree with Tyler, however pejoratively the term “wimpy” may sound. The way Piper described use of force, and his other article calling gun ownership unwise, sounds extremely soft and cowardly. Ultimately it seems as though a lifetime entrenched in the utopian ecosystem of celebrity pulpiteering and academia has buffered Piper from the man arts.

Apparently Piper would be extremely uncomfortable around men like Abraham, David, Samuel, Moses or Elijah. Which in a way speaks to Tyler’s point about God raising up different types of men for different things. But I’ll take David’s view of deadly force over Piper’s bubble world view of deadly force on any day that ends in “Y.”

As to the Biblical content of Piper’s article…it’s a preconceived notion built on a convoluted amalgamation of religious persecution, personal freedoms and criminal justice. He’s plainly wrong and out of his depth on this subject matter.

https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/12/23/john-piper-guns-and-civic…

John Piper has already proven that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about on these issues. In his article : “Power, Police and another Shooting”

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/power-police-and-another-shooting

he says:

“When I look at this video of the shooting in Saint Louis on Tuesday, it looks like an overuse of firepower. In the explosive milieu of the police shooting of Michael Brown on August 9 a few miles away, this video constitutes a powerful call for serious reassessments of how our police are trained and empowered to use their guns.”

He has no training in tactics and weaponry. As a trained Law Enforcement Officer, I watched the video of the said shooting and it was totally justified. It may “look like” an overuse of force because Piper has no training and has probably never been in a life and death situation.

The typical ignorant response of a civilian about a police shooting a man with a knife is “why not shoot him in the leg?”

Let me laugh. You try it. See who gets stabbed while you shoot at a moving small target.

Piper needs to stick to his thing, and not dabble in areas he know little about.

I agree with the consensus that

1. we need to take a look at what Scripture says or implies about self defense and using deadly force
2. we need to know what the law says about self defense
3. we need to know a little more about the reality of self defense methods including guns before making a case about using them

I think Piper does a fair job of considering Scripture, although I don’t agree with all of his conclusions (like #3). However, he says right up front:

My main concern in this article is with the appeal to students that stirs them up to have the mindset: Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson if they come here.

But then he goes on to talk about what the Bible says about facing persecution, which is not (if I understand it correctly )the context of Falwell Jr’s comment to which Piper is responding.

When he says (in #8 point 4)

I realize that even to call the police when threatened — which, in general, it seems right to do in view of Romans 13:1–4 — may come from a heart that is out of step with the mind of Christ. If one’s heart is controlled mainly by fear, or anger, or revenge, that sinful disposition may be expressed by using the police as well as taking up arms yourself.

I believe that feeling and reacting to fear is not always a sin. Fear is a God-designed survival mechanism that keeps us from danger. If someone is looking at you cross-eyed or waving a gun and threatening violence, your body gets ready for your reaction. Your brain tells your heart and lung to prepare for fight or flight by sending blood and oxygen to your large muscle groups. Your body is flooded with adrenaline and noradrenaline, your pupils dilate, your blood sugar levels rise, and non-essential systems like digestion shut down to save energy. This is not a sin, it’s an amazing design feature which I happen to be very fond of.

A ‘fearful spirit’ is another thing altogether.

Piper’s conclusion is that

exhorting the lambs to carry concealed weapons with which to shoot the wolves does not advance the counter-cultural, self-sacrificing, soul-saving cause of Christ.

Are criminals the same kind of wolves that Christ refers to? Are Biblical ‘wolves’ ever a description of rapists and murderers? I’ve always thought of wolves (and heard them described as) spiritual deceivers.

I agree with the premise - a call to Christians to carry guns to teach criminals and terrorists a lesson is poorly worded at the very least.

So to address the legal issues: Most states recognize the ‘Castle Doctrine’, which is that you can use deadly force if someone invades your home regardless of whether or not they are armed. Although over 30 states have adopted ‘stand your ground’ legislation, you are still obligated to walk away if you can. If you must defend yourself, it should be in proportion to the threat. IOW, you can’t shoot someone for punching you in the face. You can shoot them if they attack you with a deadly weapon, such as knife or 2x4. So know your state law before deciding on a self defense plan.

Then when considering how to use guns and deadly force, the first thing to know is that it is very VERY difficult to aim to simply disable someone, especially if they are so impolite as to be a moving target. Shooting to kill is also difficult because a gunshot to over 80% of the body is survivable. It can take as many as 5-7 hits in the chest with a 9mm to stop someone unless you get lucky enough to hit the heart. There are cases where people have survived as many as 20 bullet wounds. Attempting to maim someone is a great way to get yourself and a bunch of other people killed.

In the self defense and gun classes I’ve taken, the main mantra was “If someone is worth shooting, they’re worth killing”. IOW, if you decided deadly force is necessary to save your life or the life of someone else, you’ve already decided to kill them. So get on with it already, and don’t mess around. And unless you practice shooting frequently, you’ll be so full of adrenalin in a life-or-death situation you’ll probably blow holes in everything but the bad guy.

For true ‘stopping power’ (which is almost a misnomer), you either need to be a great shot (to hit the head or spinal cord), or use a large round at high velocity (for the physics geeks, think KE = ½mv2). A .45 is a big round but is rather slow. A 9mm is a smaller, lighter round but travels much faster. You could use a .44 or .357 ‘hand cannon’ which combines a large round and high velocity, but then you have to deal with the recoil.

The answer is to take up jogging so you can run if you ever need to, and get a 9mm or .40 with jacketed hollow point bullets - then practice regularly at your local shooting range and don’t dream about being a hero.

I’m a little late to the conversation, but I appreciated the give and take with Greg, Tyler and others on the question of whether Piper is being wimpy or not. I think it takes immense personal strength to do what he says we should do, but it takes a different kind of strength (and preparation) to act with a godly violence in defense of the defenseless. To me it’s not whether but which kind of moral strength he has. I can be adamantly against Piper’s advice to Christians, even to the point of saying he may be in part responsible for getting innocent people killed (if Christians follow his advice) without calling him wimpy in one narrow sense. He may be a very courageous man who is for wasting his courage in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

The whole question is what does God call us to do? Does he call us to be actively (defensively) violent in the face of violent threats against those who seek harm to our family and friends? Yes I think. If we ignore that call upon us, it may be that God calls us wimpy by his own standards.

And let me add to Alex’s call to read this. Incredibly well written.

https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/12/23/john-piper-guns-and-civic…