Jerry Falwell Jr, John Piper, Self-Defense, and Guns

Jerry Falwell Jr. of Liberty University has started a debate when he announced during chapel that Christians should arm themselves. John Piper has weighed in against him. Although he has presented numerous arguments against gun ownership and self-defense I will address only one of them. (Actually, it is unclear what Piper is arguing against. On the one hand, he claims that he is only arguing against the attitude that a gun-carrier might cop, but he also seems to be arguing against self-defense.) Piper argues that:

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

Certainly, we should not retaliate or seek revenge. However, Piper argues that our calling to suffer for Christ argues against self-defense and offers these verses in support:

• This is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. (1 Peter 2:19)

• 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 suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. (3:14)

While it is true that we must suffer for Christ’s sake, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t alleviate suffering in others or even in ourselves. We correctly ask others to pray for us and even go to doctors. If we take steps to remedy suffering in this way, why shouldn’t we also try to remedy rape and murder by carrying a gun?

However, 1 Peter 3:9 instructs us to “not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but … bless.” Nevertheless, this should not rule out reporting a crime to the authorities and seeking prosecution. Doing this certainly is not a matter of evil. Instead, it is a matter of seeking justice:

• Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-- the LORD detests them both. (Proverbs 17:15)

It is a mistake to conclude that seeking justice is somehow in contradiction to blessing and loving our enemy. In fact, Piper’s first argument recognizes this fact. He cites Romans 12:14-21 (loving our enemies) followed by Romans 13:1-4 (leaving room for the governing authorities to exercise God’s vengeance). By doing this, he acknowledges that we can bless and also bring criminal charges at the same time. (However, based upon this distinction, Piper argues that we should not have to resort to using a gun in self-defense. However, when an assailant breaks into our home, we do not have a chance to call the police. The Hebrew Scriptures also recognize this critical exception – Exodus 22:2)

Certainly, the New Testament isn’t adverse to punitive measures. It contains many teachings about church discipline and its “harsh” treatment of the unrepentant. Even the One who instructed us to turn-the-other-cheek instituted excommunication:

• If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17)  

Clearly, loving the offender is not contrary to church punishment, as Paul indicates:

• When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)

Paul’s reasoning would go like this: If we love we may have to discipline.

• Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:19-20)

Excommunication might seem harsh, but it is also loving, not only for the church but also for the unrepentant. The health of the church depended on it:

• I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. (Romans 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14; 2 John 10-11)

It is therefore understandable that some would want to safeguard the church by carrying firearms, especially in view of Islamic threats to kill Christians.

SELF DEFENSE, FAMILY DEFENSE, FIREARMS: A CHRISTIAN DEFENSE

Do Christians have a duty to defend their families? Evidently, Syrian Christians think so:

• “A group of about 50 Syrian Christian women have left their homes, jobs, and children to form a new battalion to fight the encroaching ISIS terrorists… ISIS, which has forced many women and girls into sexual slavery, has also driven thousands of Syrian Christians from their homeland since civil war began in the region in March, 2011.” (CNSNews.com)

Some cite Jesus’ teaching to turn-the-other-cheek against self-defense. However, Paul argued that taking care of one’s family is our duty:

• If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8; All verses from the NIV)

However, providing support for our families is the focus of this verse. Could this principle also pertain to defending our family? It must! Just think of the absurdity of telling your daughters:

• I will gladly provide you food, clothing, and shelter, but if ISIS comes to make you their sex-slaves, I must turn-the-other-cheek.

This, of course, is absurd! But some will argue that the Christian faith is absurd and that we should be willing to live according to its alleged foolishness. Really?

Embodying God’s wisdom in our lives is intended to win the respect of the skeptic. Therefore, Paul instructs Titus to:

• Encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. (Titus 2:6-8)

Turning-the-other-cheek to ISIS by letting them take our wives and daughters as sex-slaves will win no one’s respect but rather their contempt and disgust.

Likewise, Peter argues:

• Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us… For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:12,15)

Sometimes, to love the oppressor is to hate the innocent. If we fail to do good by protecting our families and even our pagan neighbors against the horrors of ISIS, we will be regarded with the contempt as we would deserve. It will bring humiliation, not honor! This will also bring disrepute upon our faith by showing that it lacks wisdom.

But didn’t Jesus teach passivity in the face of death? While He did teach non-retaliation, as did Paul (Romans 12:14-21) and the rest of the NT, He never taught against self-defense, either for ourselves or our families. Instead, He acknowledged that we have a right to protect our families:

• “But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.” (Matthew 24:43)

Jesus acknowledged that it is understandable and legitimate to protect our families. His teaching is in keeping with the Hebrew Scriptures, which Jesus fully endorsed (Matthew 5:16-19; 22:29; 4:4). The Israelite had a legal right to defend his household:

• "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” (Exodus 22:2)

Today, we can’t even consider defending our family without a firearm, especially in view of the current threats. But I do not own a firearm; nor do I plan to obtain one. My wife and I have no one else in our household, but if I did have children, I believe that it would be my responsibility to obtain one.

But shouldn’t loving one’s enemies take precedence over self-defense? Aren’t we supposed to overcome evil with good?

• Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. (Romans 12:17-18)

We have to “do right in the eyes of everyone.” However, doing right might entail defending our families and neighbors. Yes, we are to “live at peace with everyone.” But only “if it is possible!” Sometimes, it is not, and evil must be resisted. Paul resisted the evil of Elymas, who was speaking against the Gospel, by striking him down, by the grace of God, with blindness (Acts 13:11).

Paul didn’t live at peace with the Philippian authorities who had him unlawfully arrested and beaten him. Instead, he had them put to shame by demanding and receiving an official escort out of the city (Acts 16:37).

There are times when passivity isn’t appropriate. Instead, self-defense is sometimes the appropriate response. Did Jesus denigrate all forms of violence? Certainly not! While He wouldn’t allow Peter to drive away His assailants with a sword, He drove the money changers out of the Temple with a whip (John 2:15). There are times when force is appropriate. For this reason, God had ordained the rule of law to exercise God’s wrath upon evil (Romans 13:1-4).

How then should we understand Jesus’ command to turn-the-other-cheek? Most commentators agree that Jesus was correcting the unbiblical Jewish practice of personally taking revenge. Instead of revenge, Jesus taught that it is better to suffer indignities and to turn-the-other-cheek than to seek revenge:

• In the present case, Jesus aims to correct the revengeful spirit and practice to which the Jews were greatly addicted, and which they justified by a loose application of the law of Moses. (2) Our Lord here, as we have observed in former instances … selects an extreme case, in order to exhibit more vividly the principle by which we should be guided. So far from vengeful resistance and retaliation being right, it would be better, if that were the alternative, voluntarily to submit ourselves to a yet greater wrong. Better to turn the other cheek, to give up the other garment, to double the impressing officer's requisition, than to permit ourselves to practice that passionate resistance and that revengeful retaliation to which we are all prone, and which the Jewish teachers defended. (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.)

Ideally, we are to leave retaliation in the hands of the police and the armed forces. However, what do we do when these ordained powers are collapsing? We must restore order, even with force.