Gary North and Joel McDurmon vs. John Piper on Pacifism and Self-Defense

A biblical response to John Piper’s denial of the Right to bear Arms
Dec 22, 2015 by Dr. Joel McDurmon 1,179 Comments
John Piper has posted a response to Jerry Falwell, Jr’s. call for Christians to arm themselves and his provision for students to carry arms on the Liberty University campus. Piper’s position as outlined is about as close as one can come to individual pacifism without saying so. His response unfortunately ignores much of the context of the New Testament passages it cites, and ignores the Old Testament entirely. As such, I not only view it as unbiblical and disagree with it strongly, I think it would be dangerous and unloving for Christians to accept in society.
At the outset, Piper gives a qualification to illustrate he does not intend to give a comprehensive argument against self-defense in general, but he quickly undermines that qualification, and with each successive point, his position grows progressively absolute. He writes, “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.” He wants to narrow the argument: “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.”
While he never addresses these “significant situational ambiguities,” he keeps mentioning them while at the same time making broad, general statements like this: “The concern is the forging of a disposition in Christians to use lethal force, not as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries.” That’s a very broad position which entails that unless they are agents of the civil government, Christians ought not to use lethal force at all. Thus, while he says he wants to leave that issue to the side because of its ambiguities, he immediately posits a policy which answers it in the negative definitively.	Policemen and soldiers should also beat their "swords into plowshares." Intentionally killing someone ("lethal force") is never justified.
Dr. Piper continues in this vein through the entire piece. And I think he feels his own inconsistency here, for he immediately sets up the contrary position as a straw man: “Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, ‘I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me’? My answer is, No.”	Here's what Jesus commands: "Thou shalt not kill." Mark 10:19, quoting Exodus 20:13). Better to be killed than to kill. Better Red than dead. "Thou shalt not steal." Matthew 19:18, quoting Exodus 20:15. If you think God is telling you to kill someone, you cannot steal from me to buy your Smith & Wesson or your military-industrial complex. Forgive your enemies (Matthew 6:14-15) Love your enemies (Matthew 5:44) Bless your enemies (Romans 12:14) Pray for your enemies (Luke 6:27-28) Give gifts to your enemies (Romans 12:20; Matthew 5:42; Luke 6:30) Render unto Caesar, your enemy who invaded your country, slaughtered thousands of your countrymen, and put your country under tribute (an undemocratic military occupation government that enslaves and pillages your people) (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) Exhort your enemy to repent (Matthew 18:15-17) And if all these fail to bring repentance, restitution, and reconciliation, Leave vengeance to God (Romans 12:19-21) In short, to follow "in His steps" (1 Peter 2:21), you have a moral obligation to "be subject" to sinful acts which the defendant/perpetrators have a moral obligation to repent of.
Simply put, nobody argues for this. This is not the position of Christian leaders who are trained and informed on the biblical view of defense. Not even Falwell, Jr.’s borderline-intemperate remarks are well represented by such an extreme position. To represent the pro-self-defense position this way is irresponsible on Dr. Piper’s part.
Piper then follows with nine considerations which he believes backs up his position, and one of these is broken into seven parts. I will not take the time to address them all at length, but only those couple that I believe are most central to his position. (Some of my more comprehensive biblical arguments can be found here and elsewhere.)
Piper’s primary argument is that Romans 12:17–13:4 prohibits private Christian individuals from engaging in vengeance. The power of the sword, the text says, it clearly left only to the civil government. And even though in a Republic like ours the people are the government, Paul did not envision “that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.”
While it is true that Paul (and Jesus, Matthew 5:38–39) instructs against personal vengeance, and that the power of the sword belongs to civil government, this does not mean that God’s people are absolutely forbidden in any and all circumstances from self-defense of their lives or property, or especially the defense of the lives of loved ones and neighbors.
It is here that Piper’s problem resides most clearly in his understanding and use of Scripture. By abstracting passages like these not only from their historical context, but virtually any context, he absolutizes them to teach that citizens must always be passive before thieves, robbers, rapists, and murderers, and by extension terrorists, invaders, and tyrannical governments.	Nobody I know advocates being "passive" before evil doers. While every situation is different, every situation allows *action*.
But is this how we handle Scripture?
No. First, Piper does not deal anywhere with clear Old Testament passages that instruct in both principle and practice that God’s people have the right even of lethal self-defense. Readers ought to be familiar with Exodus 22:2: “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.”	Does Exodus 22:2-3 Justify Killing an Intruder?
The principle is that when an attacker attacks in a lethal situation, that attacker may legitimately be met with up to lethal force. The “no vengeance” principle is here overridden by exigency. It was for this reason that Jesus told Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane to put away his drawn sword. It was not, as Piper alleges, because we are pilgrims who have no right to use swords. It was because Jesus was intimately familiar with the Old Testament principle: the moment you reveal yourself in public as a lethal offense, you make yourself a target for a lethal force defense. This is exactly why Jesus said what He did: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52).
Likewise, when King Ahasuerus granted the captive Jews the right to defend themselves against attackers it included the right “to assemble and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill and to annihilate the entire army of any people or province which might attack them, including children and women, and to plunder their spoil” (Esther 8:11).	To say "Jesus is the Christ" is to say "Jesus is King." So the question is, which king do you follow: King Jesus or King Ahasuerus.
The Jews knew that the Scriptures allowed them the right of self-defense already, but they knew spoiling the attacker was across the line. So when the time came, they openly defended themselves: “the Jews struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying” (Esther 9:5); but note: “they did not lay their hands on the plunder” (Esther 9:10).	I can take the life of an invader but not his watch?
This law and example are clear, and they are not rescinded by New Testament teachings. Indeed, while Christian pietists like Piper may be tempted to say the “No vengeance” principle is a New Testament principle which does away with the Old, the truth is just the opposite. To establish that principle in Romans 12:19–20, Paul quotes two Old Testament passages: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” is quoted directly from Deuteronomy 32:35 (the Old Testament law!). The following statement about loving your enemy is taken directly from Proverbs 25:21–22, which is itself based again upon Old Testament law (Exodus 23:4–5).
So it will not suffice to argue that the “No vengeance” principle is a New Testament improvement upon the Old. That principle is itself an Old Testament principle.
But this means we must realize it is perfectly reconcilable with the rest of the Old Testament law which, despite including the principle against personal vengeance, also make allowances for self-defense and lethal force when appropriate. The two principles are not at odds; they are perfectly in accord as they apply in different situations and contexts.	This is a common argument: if one thing from the Old Testament is valid, everything in the OT is.
Thus, it is here where Piper’s view of Scripture seems to be molded and shaped by pietism and an unacceptable neglect of the Old Testament which together would leave Christian families defenseless before violent attackers. This reflects the kind of New Testament-only heresy which creates the pietist-humanist alliance—a capitulation and neglect on the part of Christian leaders which leaves social issues to the whims of Bible-hating liberals who are all too eager to accept the gift. I won’t stand for it. Read the Old Testament basis for your New Testament principles, and then accept that that basis demands the balance of the Old Testament as well except where explicitly replaced.	Repudiation of lethal force is not a repudiation of all defensive actions.
But Piper is shockingly consistent with his New Testament-only position of defenselessness, and it is here that his argument get most troubling. He argues that one retort to his position will boil down to, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant.” What should be a no-brainer biblically speaking, Piper calls an “instinct” and offers seven points on his way to answering “No.”	"New Testament-only" is indeed an erroneous position. That does not mean we should reinstate ritual blood-shedding.
I was shocked and appalled that Piper is so anti-gun and anti-defense that he expects Christians to stand by watching their wife or children being assaulted, raped, or murdered before their very eyes without reacting in defense. He doesn’t like to accept that his answer is “No,” and even says there is no direct answer, but then again immediately makes it clear: “there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military.”
This is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Why would the God of the Old Testament give clear guidelines for self-defense in such cases, but suddenly in the New Testament retract them and give that right only to a handful of government agents who can’t get to the scene any more quickly than an average of 10 minutes? What love is this?
People let’s be clear. Police, for what good they do, do not protect you from criminals, rapists, and murderers. Police more often than not show up late and write reports about what happened before they got there. Your wife’s best hope at this moment is a gun in her husband’s hand. That would be the most Christ-honoring item that could be on the scene.	A phaser set on "stun" is more "Christ-honoring" than a lethal weapon.
I am shocked and saddened as I read Piper’s defense of this position. When viewing his wife being raped, he would contemplate within himself: “Our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life. So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.”
NO. There is only one variable in this situation: the angle at which you shoot the rapist in the head.	Nope. I'm more on Piper's side. Presumably Piper would have tried many strategies to keep the invader from touching his wife. McDurmon's hypothetical is unrealistic.
There is one principle at play here, and it is another Old Testament principle repeated nine times in the New Testament: love your neighbor as yourself. How is it showing Christ’s love if we allow someone to be raped or murdered before us and do nothing? There are no variables here. The love of neighbor compels every person to protect innocent life and to level criminals who have made themselves a lethal threat.	Maybe Piper asked his wife, and his wife said she would rather try everything possible to persuade the attacker not to commit rape, but at the end of the day, Piper's wife would rather endure a few moments of suffering than dispatch the attacker to an eternity of suffering.
If Paul said that a person who merely doesn’t provide for their family is worse than an infidel and has denied the faith (1 Tim. 5:8), what in the world do you think He would say of a guy who sat contemplating pious platitudes while his family was beaten and slaughtered before him?	1 Timothy 5 is about feeding widows, not killing attackers.
Piper continues applying his principle: “I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances.”
I would counsel Christians to listen to someone who has not made the love of Christ a meaningless abstraction. Arm yourself Christian. Love your neighbor as yourself.
In closing, Piper hits upon a theme he mentions several times. He argues that we are pilgrims in this world, and that Jesus told us to expect “violent hostility.” We should just remember that we are lambs among wolves, and that our lot is not to shoot the wolves but resign ourselves to be devoured.	"Shoot or be devoured" is a false alternative. "Wolf" is a metaphor. In reality, the attacker is created in the Image of God and God's Word is powerful to arrest the attacker. God's Word does not return void.
Let’s just say that this was part of the truth when the disciples were facing a persecuting government where armed resistance would have been not only futile but would have been met with government force as sedition. But as I have made clear here and here and elsewhere, the “pilgrim” motif of the New Testament was a temporary phenomenon for that generation until the persecuting authorities of the unbelieving Jewish culture were destroyed. The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the disciples had arrived at the Zion that Abraham sought, and it was not something they should wait to expect until after they died.
Even if it were the case that we are still in a “pilgrim” situation, it would still not invalidate the abiding aspects of the love commanded the Old Testament consistent with self-defense. Christians have the right to self-defense, home-defense, and the defense of relatives and neighbors.
To say otherwise is to neglect too much of the Bible, and indeed that’s what Piper’s article actually does: it neglects the context of what it quotes and neglects the Old Testament entirely. For that reason, and for demanding Christians stand idly by while criminals attack and murder people, even family, and indeed even to check introspectively one’s heart even before calling the police for help (!)—Piper’s position is dangerous to society.	Piper's position may well be dangerous to society, but so is McDurmon's. Piper neglects Christian Reconstruction, and both seem to excuse the military and the police.
Further, it is indicative of those who categorically reject the Old Testament as informative of the New. It is symptomatic of pietistic (closet) Christianity, and those “two-kingdoms” types who say the Bible has nothing to say to the public square. It’s time to abandon all of those positions and adopt a robust biblical worldview that puts the love of God and love of neighbor into practical action in the ways Scripture commands and illustrates—and that includes the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense.	I reject "pietism" and "two kingdom" theology, but defense does not require killing.
Like I said, we have not dealt all we could with Piper’s comments, but these hit the core of why his position is unbiblical. It is divorced from the context of Scripture and denies what the Bible teaches regarding something as central and foundational as loving your neighbor. His views are pietistic. Where the Bible speaks to such areas of life, he ignores it, and subverts the principles by transforming them into issues only of abstract love of the individual contemplating him own heart in the prayer closet. I say we let the Bible speak to all of life like it does, and then apply it wherever it speaks. And be well armed and trained in arms while doing so. (And find a seminary or college that will allow you to do so.)

Rev. John Piper: Unarmed Christians for Jesus!
Gary North - December 25, 2015
The humanistic state needs chaplains. Its most effective chaplains in the United States are recruited from the ranks of the evangelical Protestants.
I wrote about this in 1980, although I used Great Britain's leading evangelical as the model. I republished that essay earlier this month: "Humanism's Chaplains." The timing could not have been better.
John Piper, a widely respected Baptist theologian/pastor, recently wrote an article favoring unarmed Christians (and only Christians): "Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?" His answer was "no." The Washington Post immediately picked it up, for good reason. The new headline: "John Piper: Why I disagree with Jerry Falwell Jr. on Christians and guns." The Washington Post is, along with The New York Times, one of America's two premier news outlets for liberal humanism. Inside the Washington Beltway, it is #1.	I'm sure Piper also wants unbelievers to be unarmed. The mainstream media loves pitting Christians against each other. The mainstream media loves pitting Christians against more conservative Trump-leaning Christians.
He begins the article as follows:
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.
On the contrary, this is exactly what the debate is about. Rev. Falwell understands this. The parents who send their children to Liberty University -- the largest evangelical university in the world -- also understand this.
"NEW TESTAMENT ONLY" CHRISTIANITY
Piper, a "New Testament only" theologian, does not bother to explain this passage: "If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him" (Exodus 22:3, ESV). The language is too clear.	The actual language of the passages says anyone who kills a home invader must be put to death -- unless the invasion occurs at night. Then the Lord will cut the murderer/homeowner some slack. Does Exodus 22:2-3 Justify Killing an Intruder?
Then what of Jesus' words?
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough (Luke 22:35-38, KJV).	But the disciples did not take Jesus literally -- at least after the pouring out of the Spirit. They didn't sell their clothes, they didn't buy swords, they didn't use swords to prevent becoming martyrs or use swords to impose the Gospel by force. Jesus was using "hyperbole." John Calvin says if you actually believe that Jesus was literally telling His disciples to buy swords, you are guilty of "truly shameful and stupid ignorance." Scholarly Commentators on Luke 22 (including Calvin) Does Jesus Command His Followers to Take Up a Sword? Did Jesus advocate the use of a sword for self-defense purposes? The idea that Jesus told His disciples to buy swords to prevent being martyred is contradicted by . . . Christian martyrs.
Well, Rev. Piper just doesn't think they are to be taken literally. Rev. Falwell does.
I do not think that Jesus meant in Verse 36 that his disciples were to henceforth be an armed band of preachers ready to use violence to defend themselves from persecution. Jerry Falwell Jr. said in his clarifying remarks on Dec. 9: "It just boggles my mind that anybody would be against what Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36. He told them if they had to sell their coat to buy a sword to do it because he knew danger was coming, and he wanted them to defend themselves."
What are Rev. Piper's reasons? The usual refrain for theologians facing an inconvenient text: "It is all symbolic! It is all figurative! It cannot possibly mean what it obviously says!"
If that is the correct interpretation of this text, my question is, "Why did none of his disciples in the New Testament ever do that -- or commend that?" The probable answer is that Jesus did not mean for them to think in terms of armed defense for the rest of their ministry. Jesus's abrupt words, at the end of the paragraph, when the disciples produced two swords, were not, "Well, you need to get nine more." He said, "It is enough!" or "That's plenty!" This may well signify that the disciples have given a mistaken literal meaning to a figurative intention.	Although Greg Bahnsen does not agree with Piper's conclusion, he agrees with Piper and Calvin, and says that Jesus was disappointed with His disciples for proffering two swords, which was not His intention, and Jesus said "I've had enough."
How does he know that none of his disciples ever did this? He implicitly adopts this argument: we are never told in any text that they did it. This is the argument from silence -- generally speaking, the least convincing of all theological arguments . . . or non-theological arguments, for that matter.	Their death as martyrs is not "silence."
The best Scriptural argument from silence regarding weapons is the fact that the man who had been robbed by thieves and left at the side of the road is not said to have carried a sword. The good Samaritan then picked him up and delivered him to an inn-keeper until he convalesced. I think it is reasonable to conclude that he was unarmed, possibly because his theology of self-defense was close to Rev. Piper's. But I admit that this is a weak argument, however plausible, although not nearly so weak as Rev. Piper's.	Not just weak, but lame.
He then offers nine arguments for why Christians should remain complacent sheep in a world of wolves. It is significant that in all but one, he refuses to address the issue of self-defense against criminals. All of the biblical references have to do with persecution based on state coercion.
DEFENDING WIVES
There is one exception. He knows it is the largest caliber weapon in the arsenal of gun rights advocates: Can you morally intervene to kill an assailant when he threatens your wife? He says no, you may not.
A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question: "Can I shoot my wife's assailant?"
Notice, he calls this a natural instinct. In other words, this question and its cocked-and-locked answer are not the product of practical Christian theology, millennia of social theory regarding men as defenders of women, and training in the use of handguns.
He offers seven arguments against this "natural instinct." They all boil down to this: "Sorry, honey, but I am limited to calling 9-11 on my cellphone. But since it's an iPhone 6, I'll let Siri do it."
I am exaggerating. But I am exaggerating the wrong way. He is more muddle-headed than my exaggeration indicates. Maybe you should not call the police. After all, you may have the wrong attitude. He writes:
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.
In short, better a raped wife -- or a dead one -- than a bad attitude.
This is what passes for rigorous and practical theology in "New Testament only" circles.
I assume that you are of a different opinion. You want to inflict pain on the assailant before he inflicts pain on innocent people -- namely, your wife and you. You are spiritually short-sighted, he thinks. He writes:
This instinct is understandable. But it seems to me that the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question. We don't like this kind of ambiguity, but I can't escape it."
He can't escape it because he is soft-headed. He justifies his soft-headedness by invoking his role as a soft-hearted lover of Jesus.
There is, as I have tried to show, a pervasive thrust in the New Testament pushing us toward blessing and doing good to those who hate, curse and abuse us (Luke 6:27--28). And there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military.
So, the state -- and only the state -- is allowed to threaten violence. There is no legitimate concept of an armed citizenry. That is a lot of Second Amendment nonsense. It has no biblical standing.
Christians must take the lead on this, he thinks. They must disarm themselves first. They must become role models. Meanwhile, they must become willing victims of evil-doers.
My father was an FBI agent. Early in his life as a Christian, he asked his pastor if it was right for him to shoot someone who was armed and threatening immediate violence. His pastor gave him the best spiritual counsel I have ever heard on this matter. "Shoot him. He's going to hell anyway." (The pastor was Milo Jamison, the first Presbyterian pastor in the fundamentalist controversy to be thrown out of the northern Presbyterian Church for orthodoxy. There was no trial. They simply erased his name from the local presbytery's records. That was in 1933.)
This kind of clear-cut spiritual counsel is much too black and white for Rev. Piper.
Our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life. So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.
You may have heard the phrase, "He is too spiritually minded to be of any earthly good." That would seem to apply to Rev. Piper. But, ultimately, any definition of spirituality that is of no earthly good is a bad definition. It is bad theology. It is the theology that humanistic power-seekers want Christians to adopt. "The state will protect you. You must not protect yourselves." The primary function of humanism's recommended spirituality is to disarm the faithful in the face of the corrupt. It hands over history to the enemies of God and to indecent men. The Washington Post is on board 100%.
I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances.
This is Rev. Piper's version of Jimmy Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy. "The Crips thank you. The Bloods thank you. And Jesus thanks you."
I do not know what I would do before this situation presents itself with all its innumerable variations of factors. And I would be very slow to condemn a person who chose differently from me.
I have spent over 50 years hearing arguments like his on the supposed illegitimacy of using of lethal force in self-defense, although never so silly as his arguments are. If this is too quick to condemn bad theological arguments, I stand condemned.
Back to the first point, it seems to me that the New Testament does not aim to make this clear for us.
On the contrary, it is quite clear to those of us who are not advocates of "New Testament only" Christianity.
CONCLUSION
In a world of wolves, unarmed sheep are desirable morsels. Armed sheep raise the risk of being a predator.
Or, in one phrase: "Shoot the bastard. He is going to hell anyway."	The machismo and braggadocio evident in the articles by North and McDurmon approaches the pathological. Why is there such a passion, if not hysteria, for KILLING the attacker rather than STOPPING the attack? There are many ways to stop an attack without killing the attacker, but killing the attacker has only one outcome. There is no evidence that "Love your enemy" has any weight in this casuistry at all.

December 22, 2015
Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?
Article by John Piper Founder & Teacher, desiringGod.org
As chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary, I want to send a different message to our students, and to the readers of Desiring God, than Jerry Falwell, Jr. sent to the students of Liberty University in a campus chapel service on December 4, 2015.
For the sake of the safety of his campus, and in view of terrorist activity, President Falwell encouraged the students to get permits to carry guns. After implying that he had a gun in his back pocket, he said, “I just want to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permit. We offer a free course. And let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here.” He clarified on December 9 that the policy at Liberty now includes permission to carry guns in the dormitories.
Falwell and I exchanged several emails, and he was gracious enough to talk to me on the phone so I could get as much clarity as possible. I want it to be clear that our disagreement is between Christian brothers who are able to express appreciation for each other’s ministries person to person.
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. The concern is the forging of a disposition in Christians to use lethal force, not as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries.
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. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me”? My answer is, No.	In other words, Piper doesn't have a strictly exegetical objection, or a concrete policy based on Biblical Law that is not being obeyed; this is basically a *stylistic* difference. It's a difference in emphasis, or perspective. Second Amendment people engage in pugilistic rhetoric, and Piper adopts a softer tone. But as I read through his article, I'll be on the watch for specific *actions* being critiqued.
Here are nine considerations that lead me to this conclusion.
1. The apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and instead to return good for evil. And then he said that God gave the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world.
The movement from Romans 12:17–21, laying out the mindset of the Christian toward his enemies, to Romans 13:1–4, laying out the rights and duties of government, is crucial. God intends to reveal his justice in the common grace of police and military (Romans 13:1–4). And he intends to reveal the supreme worth of his Son and his salvation in the special grace of a Christian people who have the miraculous power to entrust themselves to his care while suffering unjustly.
Romans 12:17–21: Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 13:1–4: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
To be sure there are ambiguities in the way Christian mercy and civic justice intersect. But neither can be absorbed into the other. Any exaltation, or Christianization, of the sword that silences Romans 12:19–20 has lost its way.	Lest there be any ambiguity, I believe the civil magistrate should be disarmed (Micah 4:3).
For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “[The ruler] does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christian citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.	But this is exactly what the U.S. Constitution says. The Framers said everyone should keep and bear arms. Piper is out of sync with the government.
2. The apostle Peter teaches us that Christians will often find themselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.
Before we fire back our objections and exceptions to this truth, let us do our best to hear and embrace and be transformed in our self-protecting hearts by these texts from 1 Peter.	Anarcho-Pacifist Apologetics in 1 Peter. [audio]
This is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. (2:19)
If when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. (2:20)
Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless. (3:9)
If you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. (3:14)
It is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. (3:17)
Rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. (4:13)
If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed. (4:14)
If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. (4:16)
Let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good. (4:19)
Few messages are more needed among American Christians today than 1 Peter 4:12: “Do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.” Fiery trials are not strange. And the trials in view are hostilities from unbelievers, as the next verse shows: “But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings” (1 Peter 4:13). These trials are normal. That may not be American experience, but it is biblical truth.
Peter’s aim for Christians as “sojourners and exiles” on the earth is not that we put our hope in the self-protecting rights of the second amendment, but in the revelation of Jesus Christ in glory (1 Peter 1:7, 13; 2:11; 4:13; 5:1). His aim is that we suffer well and show that our treasure is in heaven, not in self-preservation.	I think it's possible to not "put our hope" in feeding our children, while still feeding our children. I think it's possible (in theory) to put our hope in "the revelation of Jesus Christ in glory" while still killing someone trying to kidnap our children and turn them into sex slaves. That's not my advice, but a criticism of Piper's argument.
3. Jesus promised that violent hostility will come; and the whole tenor of his counsel was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not with armed defense.	"The whole tenor" can be subjective and can distract us from the actual truth.
“They will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake. This will be your opportunity to bear witness. . . . You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives.” (Luke 21:12–13, 16–19)	Luke 21 and Matthew 10 are dealing with conditions in "the last days" of the Old Covenant. The passages are not directly relevant to conditions under the New Covenant. (Of course we can always learn something from every passage of Scripture, but the situation here is quite diffrent.)
“Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. . . . Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:16–18; 21–22)
What is the moment of life-threatening danger for? Is it for showing how powerful and preemptive we have been? Is it to show our shrewdness — that we have a gun in our back pocket and we can show you something? That is a response learned from Jason Bourne, not Jesus and the Bible. That response appeals to everything earthly in us, and requires no miracle of the new birth. It is as common and as easy as eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Jesus says that the moment of life-threatening danger “will be your opportunity to bear witness” (Luke 21:13). It will be a moment for fearless stepping into heaven (Matthew 10:28). A moment for enduring to the end and being saved (Matthew 10:22).	"fearless stepping into heaven" is not exactly what Jesus said. Details matter.
If we teach our students that they should carry guns, and then challenge them, “Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here,” do we really think that when the opportunity to lay down their lives comes, they will do what Jim Elliot and his friends did in Ecuador, and refuse to fire their pistols at their killers, while the spears plunged through their chests?	Jim Elliot was an admirable person, but his biography is not Scripture. The question is a thought-provoking one, to be sure.
4. Jesus set the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian cause with the sword.
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)
Jesus said to [Peter], “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)
To be sure, there are many ambiguities about being exiles on this earth with our citizenship in heaven (Philippians 3:20), while at the same time being called to serve in the structures of society (1 Peter 2:13). But no book of the Bible wrestles with this more directly than 1 Peter, and the overwhelming thrust of that book is this: As you suffer patiently and even joyfully for your faith, do so much good that people will ask a reason for the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15).	I'm not sure what Piper means by "serve in the structures of society." I don't get that from 1 Peter 2:13. I don't think a Christian should enlist in the marauding, invading armies of a pagan empire. I'm largely in agreement with Piper on 1 Peter. Anarcho-Pacifist Apologetics in 1 Peter. [audio]
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. They will know perfectly well where our hope is. It’s in our pocket.
5. Jesus strikes the note that the dominant (not the only) way Christians will show the supreme value of our treasure in heaven is by being so freed from the love of this world and so satisfied with the hope of glory that we are able to love our enemies and not return evil for evil, even as we expect to be wronged in this world.	Too "other-worldly" for me.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38–39)	When Jesus was slapped in the face, He did not retaliate, but He did rebuke. We are not called to be completely passive and other-worldly. We are called to make disciples of the nations, and build Christian civilization, where cheek-slappers are "in the closet." More.
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:44–45)	God gives gifts that are "this-worldly." So should we.
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11–12)
The point of Matthew 5:11–12 is that Christians are freed to rejoice in persecution because our hearts have been so changed that we are more satisfied in the hope of heaven than in the hope of self-defense. This is the root of turning the other cheek and loving the enemy. The steadfast love of the Lord is better than life (Psalm 63:3). Or as Paul put it, “Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Philippians 3:7–8).	All valid concerns, but I think we need to have a more principled opposition to lethal force, and a more worldly outlook on the future of Christian civilization. Piper is weak in his opposition to lethal force because he concedes the legitimacy of killing when it comes to "civil government." But he is too "other-worldly" to imagine systems, networks, and social structures which can replace the State and reduce crime. Again, more here.
Jesus struck the note that the way his disciples demonstrate most forcefully the supreme value of knowing him is by “letting goods and kindred go, this mortal life also,” and calling it “gain” (Philippians 1:21).	Luther is also not Scripture.
6. The early church, as we see her in Acts, expected and endured persecution without armed resistance, but rather with joyful suffering, prayer, and the word of God.	The circumstances in which the early church found herself, should not be the norm. Piper understates the role "the church" should play in creating a society where "suffering" does not exist. That doesn't mean killing those who persecute Christians, but it means more than simply waiting passively to go to heaven.
“Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:29–31)
When they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. (Acts 5:40–41)
Saul approved of his [Stephen’s] execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. (Acts 8:1–3; see Acts 9:1–2; 12:1–5)
In all the dangers Paul faced in the book of Acts, there is not a hint that he ever planned to carry or use a weapon for his defense against his adversaries. He was willing to appeal to the authorities in Philippi (Acts 16:37) and Jerusalem (Acts 22:25). But he never used a weapon to defend himself against persecution.	This is a valid point against the invocation of Luke 22. Scholarly Commentators on Luke 22 Does Jesus Command His Followers to Take Up a Sword? Did Jesus advocate the use of a sword for self-defense purposes?
7. When Jesus told the apostles to buy a sword, he was not telling them to use it to escape the very thing he promised they should endure to the death.
[Jesus] said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough [that’s plenty].” (Luke 22:35–38)
I do not think that Jesus meant in verse 36 that his disciples were to henceforth be an armed band of preachers ready to use violence to defend themselves from persecution. Jerry Falwell, Jr. said in his clarifying remarks on December 9,
It just boggles my mind that anybody would be against what Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36. He told them if they had to sell their coat to buy a sword to do it because he knew danger was coming, and he wanted them to defend themselves.
If that is the correct interpretation of this text, my question is, “Why did none of his disciples in the New Testament ever do that — or commend that?” The probable answer is that Jesus did not mean for them to think in terms of armed defense for the rest of their ministry. Jesus’s abrupt words, at the end of the paragraph, when the disciples produced two swords, were not, “Well, you need to get nine more.” He said, “It is enough!” or “That’s plenty!” This may well signify that the disciples have given a mistaken literal meaning to a figurative intention. Darrell Bock concludes,
Two events [are] commentary on this verse [36]: Jesus’ rebuke of the use of a sword against the high priest’s servant (22:49–51) and the church’s nonviolent response to persecution in the Book of Acts (4:25–31; 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). In fact, Acts 4:25–31 shows the church armed only with prayer and faith in God. Luke 22:36 sees the sword as only a symbol of preparation for pressure, since Jesus’ rebuke of a literal interpretation (22:38) shows that a symbol is meant (Fitzmyer 1985: 1432; Marshall 1978: 825). It points to readiness and self-sufficiency, not revenge (Nolland 1993b: 1076). (Luke, volume 2, page 1,747)
What seems plain to me is that the uncertainty of this text (which I share) should not be used to silence the others I have cited.
8. A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”
My answer is sevenfold.
1) This instinct is understandable. But it seems to me that the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question. We don’t like this kind of ambiguity, but I can’t escape it. There is, as I have tried to show, a pervasive thrust in the New Testament pushing us toward blessing and doing good to those who hate, curse, and abuse us (Luke 6:27–28). And there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military. This is remarkable when you think about it, since I cannot help but think this precise situation presented itself, since we read that Saul drug men and women bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1–2).	The military and the police will not save your wife. Justifying their existence cripples Piper's ability to make a clear statement of the Biblical position. (Unless Piper is making some kind of distinction between protecting your wife from a "private sector" intruder and protecting your wife from the military or police.)
2) Our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life. So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.	False antithesis: Christ vs. Life. Trying to save my wife's life *as well as my wife's attacker* brings more glory to Christ than thoughtlessly, unconsciously killing the attacker.
3) Jesus died to keep that assailant from sinning against my family. That is, Jesus’s personal strategy for overcoming crimes was to overcome sinful inclinations by giving his life to pay debts and change hearts. It is no small thing that Peter based non-retaliatory suffering from unjust treatment on the atoning work of Christ as exemplary: “To this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).	Valid point: Jesus did not kill His attackers to save His own life.
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.	"Vengeance by cop."
5) I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances.
6) I do not know what I would do before this situation presents itself with all its innumerable variations of factors. And I would be very slow to condemn a person who chose differently from me.
7) Back to the first point, it seems to me that the New Testament does not aim to make this clear for us. Its aim is a radically transformed heart that lives with its treasure in another world, longs to show Jesus to be more satisfying than life, trusts in the help of God in every situation, and desires the salvation of our enemies.
9. Even though the Lord ordains for us to use ordinary means of providing for life (work to earn; plant and harvest; take food, drink, sleep, and medicine; save for future needs; provide governments with police and military forces for society), nevertheless, the unique calling of the church is to live in such reliance on heavenly protection and heavenly reward that the world will ask about our hope (1 Peter 3:15), not about the ingenuity of our armed defenses.
God is our refuge and strength. (Psalm 46:1)
My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:19)
“You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But not a hair of your head will perish.” (Luke 21:17–18)
Once more let me say that God ordains the use of the sword by the state in upholding justice (1 Peter 2:13–17; Romans 13:1–4). Therefore, this article is not a position paper on governmental policy regarding ISIS. Nor is it about the policies of how police should be enlisted to protect private institutions.	I disagree. Why Postmillennialists Must Be Pacifists
This article is about the people whom the Bible calls “refugees and exiles” on earth; namely, Christians. It’s about the fact that our weapons are not material, but spiritual (2 Corinthians 10:4). It is an argument that the overwhelming focus and thrust of the New Testament is that Christians are sent into the world — religious and nonreligious — “as lambs in the midst of wolves” (Luke 10:3). And 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.	We are not "exiles." Are We In Exile? Daniel and Joseph in "Public Service"
John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books, including Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist and most recently What Is Saving Faith?

John Piper: the latest chaplain of humanism
Dec 26, 2015 by Dr. Joel McDurmon 92 Comments
In my biblical response to John Piper’s unfortunate piece on gun rights, I said that Piper’s view was an expression of the “pietist-humanist alliance.” (I have highlighted this unspoken alliance elsewhere in a bit more detail.) The very next day, the universe confirmed my assessment: the most liberal news outlet in the nation scooped up Piper’s article and ran it as an op-ed column. This, despite the fact that Piper’s article as nearly five times longer than their standard word-limit for op-eds. In other words, the liberals loved Piper’s view so much they made a radical exception to their own policy in order to share his contribution.
I shared this news with some friends and was preparing to write a follow up regarding the “pietist-humanist alliance” so clearly exhibited between Piper’s theological surrender of this issue to humanists and statists, and their eager acceptance of the gift. It was at that point I learned Gary North had recently posted one of his old newsletters from 1980 entitled “Humanism’s Chaplains.” The timing could not have been better.
That 1980 piece, as Gary relates (see below), used Martin Lloyd-Jones as a representative figure. I would have assumed Lloyd-Jones was a typical two-kingdoms-type on social action, but I had no idea just how extreme he was.
Well, here we are in 2015, and if you were to take Martin Lloyd-Jones’s name out of that piece and replaced it with John Piper, and if you replace the subject of the welfare state with gun rights, the 1980 article is just as descriptive and prophetic.
As I prepared to write my piece with this material, I saw that North had already done one. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I reproduce his in its entirety below, with his permission.
I hasten to add that Piper has written some great stuff which I admire and appreciate. I especially appreciate his Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian. But on this issue, I hope he can come to see what tremendous damage he is doing, and in what tremendous danger he is asking Christians to place themselves and their vulnerable loved ones.
I hope that all Christian leaders who argue the Bible demands such an approach for Christians in the public square, or any area of life, will begin to see that they are merely capitulating to humanism and thereby implicitly sanctioning whatever the liberal humanists do. These Christian leaders are, as North notes, Chaplains for Humanism. On this issue, Piper has become their latest ordinee.
—JM
P.S.—As alliances go, opponents and enemies are not welcome to participate. As such, the Washington Post has not responded to my request for equal space.

North/McDurmon vs. Piper

About the Author

Thou shalt not kill.

Exceptions: Mandated Killing

9th Commandment vs. 6th Commandment

Does God Command Lethal Self-Defense?

Does Exodus 22:2 legitimize lethal self-defense?

Piper's article

Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?

1. The apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and instead to return good for evil. And then he said that God gave the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world.

2. The apostle Peter teaches us that Christians will often find themselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.

3. Jesus promised that violent hostility will come; and the whole tenor of his counsel was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not with armed defense.

4. Jesus set the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian cause with the sword.

6. The early church, as we see her in Acts, expected and endured persecution without armed resistance, but rather with joyful suffering, prayer, and the word of God.

7. When Jesus told the apostles to buy a sword, he was not telling them to use it to escape the very thing he promised they should endure to the death.

8. A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”

Joel McDurmon on Piper

A biblical response to John Piper’s denial of the Right to bear Arms

North's Article

Rev. John Piper: Unarmed Christians for Jesus!

McDurmon Piles On

John Piper: the latest chaplain of humanism