John Piper’s Argument Against Concealed Weapons

Jerry Falwell, Jr.When Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr. exhorted the audience at the school’s convocation to (legally) carry concealed weapons, it was his careless allusion to the religion of the shooters at San Bernardino that seemed to generate the most controversy: “I’ve always thought that if more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in, and killed them.” Even as the criticism from fellow Christians started to come in, Falwell stepped back from that remark. But he told the Washington Post that “That’s the only thing I would clarify… If I had to say what I said again, I’d say exactly the same thing.”

I’ve got friends and readers who — even as they rejected Falwell’s comments about “those Muslims” — resolutely affirmed his call for ordinary Christians to take advantage of Virginia’s gun laws, carry concealed weapons, and prepare themselves to take other lives. To their minds, it’s unfortunate but necessary that people — even followers of the Prince of Peace — may wield deadly weapons in order to defend themselves and others.

If that’s how you feel, please read John Piper’s post this morning at the Desiring God blog:

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.

John Piper
Bethlehem College and Seminary

John Piper and I probably disagree as often as we agree, but I’m hugely grateful that he would write this piece. All the more so because he issued this statement in his capacity as chancellor of a Christian college and seminary, while most leaders in Christian higher ed (though not all) have stayed disappointingly silent in the wake of Falwell’s comments.

Lengthy as it is (there’s a seven-fold response just to the hypothetical of defending a loved one), please do read the whole essay. Here I’ll just pull out a couple of Piper’s arguments as a preview:

First, what of the argument that God ordains (e.g., in Romans 13) the use of “the sword” to protect the innocent from the wicked? Consequently, as I tried to acknowledge in my original response to Falwell, “there are ambiguities in the way Christian mercy and civic justice intersect.” But Piper argues that “neither can be absorbed into the other. Any exaltation, or Christianization, of the sword that silences Romans 12:19–20 has lost its way.”

But in a democracy whose constitution has been amended so as to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” shouldn’t citizens (including Christians) be prepared to defend themselves, say, against a mass shooting? By no means, says Piper:

…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 Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.

Indeed, the main theme emerging from Piper’s exegesis of Romans and 1 Peter is that Christians need to remember that their highest citizenship is not in this world: “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 1:7134:135:1). His aim is that we suffer well and show that our treasure is in heaven, not in self-preservation.”

Holstered pistol
Wikimedia

Again, there’s nothing simple about living as “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:

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.

We can have a debate about what it means for Christians to live as citizens of any state that, in some way, is ordained to uphold some earthly approximation of peace and justice via violence — with dissent from any such use of “the sword” being an important part of our collective response — but I don’t know how you can read Scripture so as to arrive at any conclusion other than Piper’s:

…the overwhelming focus and thrust of the New Testament is that Christians are sent into the world — religious and non-religious — “as lambs in the midst of wolves” (Luke 10:3)…. 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.


6 thoughts on “John Piper’s Argument Against Concealed Weapons

  1. So the assertion here is that when a police officer killed two terrorists in Garland Texas before they carried out their mass shooting he was justified due to his role in the government, however if a Christian Conceal-Carry holder had stopped the shooting in San Bernardino he “cannot possibly [have] come in the name of Christ” to quote Gehrz’s original response to Falwell.

    Piper confesses the potential for “significant situational ambiguities” in this rule when discussing the defense of one’s family, so theoretically he has no problem with the use of force when stopping a rapist or home invader, yet he seems to shy away from that force when a gun comes into the equation. I would call for clarification. When is force acceptable? Is it only Christian to use a firearm to defend your family at home? What if they are with you at the mall, should they then die for the sake of maintaining a peaceful reputation, or is it acceptable to engage an active shooter?

    Furthermore how is it incompatible with Biblical morals that a Christian protecting the lives of people potentially unreached by the gospel would do so with a gun? Or should that Christian become a law-enforcement officer before its ok? The dividing line this article attempts to place between civilians and those in an authoritative position only results in confusion and self-confessed ambiguity. At the end of the day, man places the hope of his salvation in the hands of Jesus Christ, and the protection of his life and those of loved ones on his own shoulders.

    If only more people followed the example of Rev. Aaron Guyton of Freewill Baptist Church, who was able to defend the lives of his congregation from a mass shooter by drawing his own concealed weapon, we wouldn’t see horrible killings like the Charleston massacre.

  2. The need is to start from what God sets out in the scripture. Other than intervention by the authorities/government which is the God-given mechanism in our Christian dispensation to deal with evil and violence, the taking of a human life (whether in self-defense or not) is homicide. The single most vital scripture applicable to the primary thought of God on this subject of homicide is “Thou shalt not kill.” We cannot break the scripture (see John 10:35) – “thou shalt not kill” is as clear as “thou shalt not commit adultery” or “thou shalt not steal”. Here is a paper on the subject that may be of interest: http://www.bible-ministry.com/exegetical-what-is-the-christians-place-in-this-world

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s