The Christian & Guns.

,In December, pastor John Piper published an article in which he gave his reasons for believing that it is a sin for a Christian to own or use a firearm for self-defense (he didn't discuss hunting). He said that he wasn't sure that he would kill an assailant who was trying to murder his wife, because killing the assailant would mean the assailant could never receive Christ as his savior. You can find the article at DesiringGod.org.

I do think this is a legitimate subject of Christian ethics that is important for us to consider. I'm going to just sum up some of my thoughts on the subject, since I have read brother Piper's article as well as the best of the rebuttal articles that came out in the weeks that followed.

This issue isn't really about guns. The topic pertains to the use of all weapons, because what it's really about is whether Christians have the right to injure or kill someone else in self-defense or defense of someone else. So whether it's a firearm, a baseball-bat, a bow-and-arrow, a knife, this is really about the right or wrong use of force by a Christian in his/her role as a private citizen.

Romans 13 is clear that God recognizes a government's right, indeed responsibility, to use force as part of punishing evil and rewarding good. However, Romans 13 is not the entirety of what the Bible has to say about the right or wrong use of force. One problem with Piper's essay is that he confines himself almost exclusively to the New Testament, so as a result he does not draw upon the whole counsel of Scripture. We can't leave out 2/3rds of the Bible, and say we've covered the topic.

Piper also applies Romans 13 as if the apostle Paul said that only government is given the right to use force. However, if you read the relevant section, you can see that Paul never says that the government's right to use force is exclusive. The Old Testament builds the case that private persons can and should use force, under certain circumstances.

Moses quotes God as telling "man" to shed the blood of those who shed blood (Genesis 9:6). God's directive was given to "man" in general, not just to kings. Noah was the one to whom God told that precept. Noah was not a king, he was a father. The family is the root of all other social organization, including the state. 

The martyr Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, described Moses' killing of the cruel Egyptian as a virtuous act -- an act of defense against oppression, and a legitimate act of vengeance (Acts 7:23-25). Moses later goes on to write, by the inerrant inspiration of God, that a homeowner who kills a thief breaking in during the night is guiltless (Exodus 22:2). The commandment not to murder (Exodus 20:13) presupposes that a threatened person has the right to prevent such a crime from happening, whether to himself or someone else.

David attributed his lethal skills with weapons to the Lord (Psalm 144:1). This was not a spiritual allegory having to do with David being good at prayer. David attributed his lethal abilities with sword and sling to the empowerment of God in his life. God was teaching David how to be a lethal warrior, years before David was part of the government (1 Samuel 17:36). 

Two distinctions also should be made, which many other commentators have made regarding Piper's reasoning (see, for example, an excellent article at www.calvinistinternationl.com).  

First distinction: crime is not persecution. Therefore, verses that speak about Christians suffering persecution for Christ do not apply to crime. A writer can pile up NT verses such as, "Blessed is he who suffers for righteousness' sake". All of them are true, but none of them refer to terrorists firing into a crowd of children. 

Second distinction: defense is not vengeance. Joab murdered Abner (while their mutual armies were operating under a white flag of truce) because Abner killed his brother Asahel in the battle of Gibeon (2 Samuel 3:30). That was vengeance. That was a situation to which Romans 12:19 would indeed apply. 

But me calling 911 because I see some men dragging a woman from her car into the bushes is not vengeance. John Piper says he isn't sure he would even call 911 if someone was being murdered, because (he says) his heart might have wicked feelings in it while he made the call, which would make the police coming and shooting the assailant just as much a sin as if he had done it himself.

On the contrary. If I had a firearm in my car, me getting out of the car and ordering the men to back off, and/or shooting them, is me loving my neighbor. If I don't have a firearm, maybe I need to try to run them over with my car. The woman being attacked is my neighbor; and no, the assailants are not my neighbors, not as long as they are committing murder. You forfeit normal neighbor status once you start attacking and killing people.

Piper says that using force to defend another person's life is the sin of vengeance. No, brother. Using force to defend an innocent person's life is loving my neighbor as myself, instead of looking the other way (as happened in the infamous Kitty Genovese murder case in NYC). 

Luke 22:35-38 is the only passage in which Christ tells his disciples to own weapons. Prior to that moment, Christ had told them to go forth in their preaching mission without bringing an extra cloak, or money-bags, or, presumably, swords. God took care of all of their needs. But now, Christ changes the rules. He affirmatively tells them to sell the extra cloaks, and go buy some swords. He doesn't simply give them permission to buy swords. He orders them to go get some. They go buy two swords, and Christ tells them that's good enough. 

There is nothing about the passage that is unclear, and it is not symbolic. Christ didn't tell them to sell their physical cloaks to buy spiritual swords. Christ saying, "It's enough" was not code for Christ saying, "No, you misunderstood me, I mean spiritual swords" The cloaks weren't spiritual, the money-bags weren't spiritual, so the swords weren't spiritual. It also doesn't matter that the NT doesn't follow up with any more teaching about the use of force. Jesus just has to say something one time for it to count.

His instruction about swords was harmonious with the Old Testament. In fact, his earlier directive not to take the usual preparations and precautions was the unusual part. Remember, Piper's argument against self-defense ignores the Old Testament. Once you factor in the OT, Christ was restoring a normal rule of conduct. Christ was putting conduct back to what the Old Testament normally had it be.

What are the real bottom lines? What would I preach from the pulpit, or advise in counsel?

1.  Every Christian has the right to defend himself and his property, though he might freely choose not to exercise that right (especially if danger pertained only to property). Jim Eliot, Nate Saint, and the other missionaries who were killed by a band of Auca Indians chose not to use their firearms. 

2.  The Christian also has the responsibility to defend others. There is a difference between right and responsibility. But you never have the right to force death onto somebody else. In fact, that's what David did. He had Joab put Uriah on the front lines, then withdrew troops and so refrained from properly protecting Uriah. God held David accountable for murdering Uriah, even though the Philistines were the ones who physically did it. In the same way, a Christian man who knowingly chose to permit his wife to be assaulted, if he could have used force to prevent it, is guilty of assaulting his wife. 

3.  The Christian husband and father has the God-given responsibility to defend his own wife and children. This responsibility is far greater, and more primary, than the responsibility God lays on the police.

The idea that a Christian husband should ever permit his wife, or his children, or his neighbor, to be assaulted or murdered, if it was within his power to at least attempt to prevent it, is wrong. We can thank the Lord for those many temperate Christian brethren who are not "gun nuts", who do not trust in their weapons any more than David trusted in his sling, but whom we can count on if we and our families are ever in danger.