Piper is dead wrong. If he thinks I'm going to leave my children at the mercy of some psycho, he's lost his mind. Maybe he's read too much from Ben Witherington. But I had no idea that Piper was a de facto pacifist.

I like and respect Piper, but I don't understand where this extremist position comes from. It is not demanded by the New Testament. There are times to fight and times to die. Piper's statement about leaving his family vulnerable is very troubling to me. It has nothing to do with Jim Elliot's correct decision for his particular calling.

No one has quoted Scripture in these arguments. But I do know that Piper seemed to have felt the same when his four boys were home. And he actually still has a daughter in the home.

You may believe your arguments do not apply to Elliot and his friends ... but they would certainly apply to the people who are persecuted as believers in other countries ... would you say they should also defend themselves when beaten in China, North Korea, Eritrea and Muslim countries the world over because those people will only go on to hurt someone else in the jail who is "not ready for heaven"? And yet, the stories are of officers coming to the Lord through being loved in return/prayed for/blessed ... and of others who hear of and see what happened coming to a saving knowledge of Christ because of the believer's strength to not return what was given. We don't argue based on someone's past and future capabilities of sin in our Christian response (and I don't mean governmental punishment ... but I do mean our day-to-day Christlike responsibility).

Not defending oneself is truly leaving oneself in the hands of God. It is not allowing evil to go unchecked. It is extremely unbiblical to say that if believers don't react in retaliation rather than obeying Scripture, God's hands are tied to defeat evil. Now, I don't have all the answers to this, I don't know really where I stand on the issue of self-defense. I was never raised as a pacifist and we are raising four boys ... so this is an issue that is difficult to understand for us. But I do know that Jesus does tell us to turn the other cheek, to go the extra mile, to pray for our enemies, to bless, to not return evil for evil, to leave room for the wrath of God, to give a soft answer,... It tells us that anyone would be willing to die for a good man ... but who is there righteous enough willing to die for an evil man? Now there are some verses that would have to be gotten around before determining that the righteous thing to do would be to point and shoot first ... who cares about God's design or commands?

As for Elliot ... well, those Indians who killed him and his missionary buddies ... they fell exactly into every category you listed. The Indians had killed in the past those who were "not ready for heaven." They would easily go on to kill those who were "not ready for heaven." The threat of guns could definitely have subdued them out of fear (because they have gone on to say they killed out of fear), and could have caused them to expect weapons from other visitors to their region. They in all likelihood expected the missionaries to be armed, but were not stopped. Sacrificing their lives allowed those Indians to live on capable of killing others "not ready for heaven." Instead, Elliot's own wife, Saint's own sister, Elliot's own daughter ... went to show Christ's love to them. Saint's own children were baptized by the believers of the same tribe. The fruit of these men's choices and their family's choices afterwards was amazing. Here they were, in the same situation you described in trying to say they were NOT in the same circumstance ... they reacted the opposite of what you recommend ... and their fruit is likley the opposite of what we would humanly expect.

(not that I have an answer in this difficult topic ... but I certainly don't fall categorically on one side of this argument without reading scripture)

Brooke,

I agree with you that the issue is not simple. But let me put it in the concept of masculinity. Are not two of the responsibilities of a man to protect and to provide for his family?

There are OT precedents/principles to consider as well. (Not direct carry-overs to our day, but principles...)

There is a difference in taking persecution for oneself for the sake of Christ and in the name of the faith.

But I believe it would be immoral to leave the helpless and defenseless at the mercy of madmen. Just look at the movies that are made today on the extreme of violence. For those who wish to act out that way, I believe the smell of gunpowder should be what greets them when they prey on the innocent.

I firmly believe it is immoral not to defend your children.

It seems a pretty slippery slope to me. How much self defense is acceptable/godly? Can we lock our doors at night? Can we have unlisted phone numbers. How far do we stretch, "I am going to heaven so I will not provide security for myself or my family in any way" ??

I mean, if we are saying that there is some biblical warrant for a "level three" defense, is a "level four" defense too carnal?

I haven't been following this, and frankly, if it is just Piper's opinion or personal preference, I have nothing to say about it except that if he is pleased in his opinion, I am by no means offended by it. But if he is suggesting that the bible teaches us that it is un-Christian to defend ourselves, I should like to learn how deep that rabbit hole goes.

I read or heard a message by Mike Pearl that really settled it for me. He said that in the name of Jesus he would not fight. If someone punched him because of sharing the Gospel then he would not strike back. But on the other hand when he came across a woman being raped in the woods he didn't hesitate to shot the rapist either. To stand by while evil is being done is wrong. The Bible says to protect those that can not protect themselves.

If someone breaks into my home I certainly will defend my family, to the death if I have to. But, in the name of Jesus, I will try my best to turn the other cheek. I can't say I would absolutely because I am human and tend to react to violence with violence. For our family, that settles it.

And I agree with you. It is immoral to not defend our children. I couldn't look my child in the eye knowing I did nothing while they were being raped or beaten.

Brooke — OK, no one has quoted Scripture; let me be the first:

Luke 22:35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.”

I wonder why Jesus said that. I suppose they might have needed swords for cutting their food, eh? Or maybe for opening envelopes.

Self-defense is preventative, not retaliatory. And retaliation is what the admonition to “turn the other cheek” addresses.

The notion that there is no difference between the savages who killed those missionaries and a criminal breaking into my house and threatening my family is baffling. The differences are striking. Here are just a couple:

• The indians didn’t come to the missionaries homes bent on mischief; the missionaries went to their world, knowing full well it might end badly.
• Shooting the indians would not have had the same deterrent effect. It would only have put them in fear of future visits from white men. The others would have gone on with their lives as before. (And, I dare say, the knowledge that other tribes were armed was already a deterrent to conflict between them. So there’s a similarity for you.)

Anyway, to get back to my original point, Piper’s motive is good; but it isn’t well served by his pacifism, and his pacifism is not required by Scripture.

I'm a BBC member and it always amazes me what I find in the blogosphere when Pastor John says something. I don't really think this was much more than a passing observation. He wasn't making some long, eloquent speech about how we should all put away our guns and leave our children to the mercy of evil. (In fact, in his sermon series on marriage, he suggested that the man of the house better get up and lay the smack down on any intruder - even if his wife has a black belt in karate!).

It's his opinion, he's allowed to have it. :)

I respect Piper's decision but I don't agree with it. A person who comes into my house knowing that my family and I are home intends to do harm to us. It is my job to protect my family by whatever means necessary. I will not hesitate to defend my family with force if the need arises.

Shannon — Now that you mention it, I think I’ve heard him say that. My first impression of this latest statement was that it was born of an emotional impulse, and not too well thought out. Nevertheless, he did say it, and since he is very influential and gravely wrong, I thought it good to rebut it.

Shannon, drive past a typical men's prison during exercise time and tell me that the typical cubicle dweller like myself is going to be able to "lay the smackdown" on one of those guys without a little help from Mssrs. Smith and Wesson, or at least without "home security by Purina"--especially considering that a large number of home intruders are packing as well.

The reality is that your pastor has missed here what the book of Judges well notes as the shame of Israel at times; there was not a sword, spear, or shield to be found in all Israel. God didn't tell Israel to "lay the smackdown" on Midianite invaders with fisticuffs. He told them that from about age 20 to 50, they were to provide themselves with arms.

I do wonder whether arguments along these lines are more "cultural" than a "christian issue"

Not being American I have noticed the tendency to equate American culture with Christian culture. This is a complete non-issue in my country. I have certainly never heard of anyone owning a firearm to protect their family.

Just a thought....
Rachael

Rachael — You haven’t heard of it most likely because it isn’t allowed in your country. Cultures whose individual right to self-defense has been taken away become conditioned to depend on police protection, even though it is ineffectual. And so they say, as you have, that owning a gun has never even occured to them — because it hasn’t. What one generation neglects, the next forgets.

And therein, David, lies another whole issue- what are our "rights"? We must be careful about viewing our Christian "rights" by virteu of our cultural "rights."

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this post. I can't say that I didn't have them as well.

Andrew - that is a philosophical discussion, but I would say that Scripture quite clearly paints a picture of the "natural rights" which all human beings possess, but which tyrannical governments run by fallen men frequently seek to restrict or obliterate. Among those being one of the most fundamental - the right to defend yourself against an aggressor.

I wonder what Piper would say to those who serve in military service. Are they allowed to act in defense of themselves - or more importantly of others? Or are they to simply go into combat unarmed and let the enemy shoot them because they are ready for heaven and the enemy most likely isn't?

Brooke -
Your scriptural references there need to be addressed, and I don't have time right now to do justice to your objections, but I do wish to make a couple of comments. Hopefully I'll have some time later to come back and say more.

You have taken the passages about our response to the evil of others out of context. I do not say that to suggest you are doing it on purpose - most people today do that. This is the single most prevailing view of those passages. So I can't fault you for holding it.

However, you must understand the cultural context in which Christ said those words. There was a specific meaning behind striking a person on the cheek, in terms of a slave/master relationship. To turn the /other/ cheek would require them to strike you in such a way as to treat you as an equal. It would demean them to strike you again.

In those days, a roman soldier was allowed to (and frequently did) force you to carry his equipment for 1 mile. But that was the limit. By going with him two miles voluntarily you would cause him embarrassment and potentially trouble with the law.

Each of the things Christ lists carry cultural weight which shows an often non-violent response to aggressive, but non-violent actions against you. It is not a command to be a footstool for the wicked.

I do agree with the poster above regarding when and how and why we act in self-defense, and particularly excluding persecution for the sake of Christ. I don't believe that we can't do anything (see Paul's objections on the grounds he was a Roman citizen to flogging at their hands) but we should not respond in violence to it.

Shannon,

I continue to appreciate John Piper, but I disagree with him on this point. He did make a public exhortation not to use stimulus checks to buy guns. I uphold his right to his own opinion...and mine to respond.

Concerning the intruder: If it is the man's job to put a smackdown on an intruder, he be better make the smackdown potentially fatal. What's the difference between breaking someone's neck and shooting him?

I'm amazed at how twisted and evil our culture becomes. I have no assurance that an intruder simply wants my TV. If I knew that was all he wanted, I'd give him my DVD player too.

But I have no such assurance.

Smackdowns or bullets. Its all the same.

John made a sincere mistake concerning a very emotional issue.

I'm going to move on and continue to listen to the Desiring God podcasts! :)

Andrew — We possess both natural rights (to do that which we were designed to do, and that which God has commanded us to do) and legal rights. In the United States, the right to self-defense is not only natural, but legal. So I am not confusing actual rights with cultural rights. And I am not primarily saying that it is my right to defend my home, but that it is right to do so, i.e., my duty.

Does anybody remember what it said in the Bible about Paul taking a beating from the Romans even though it was against the law to flog him because he was a Roman? As far as I remember, he decided to not tell them about his rights as a Roman citizen and to take the flogging.

At another time he decided to prevent a flogging by letting them know about his citizenship... I am sure he had his reasons.

It is up to each man's conscience.

I like the above comment that Brooke left...

All these references to Paul are interesting and relevant to our dealing with the law and suffering for the sake of the gospel, but they have nothing to do with defending our homes.

To repeat what I’ve already said, this is not primarily about rights, but about right.

Ruth, remember what Paul did the day after the flogging? He reminded the jailers of his citizenship--terrifying them.

I'm not particularly convinced he had much say in whether he'd accept the flogging or not, but he certainly did point to his rights as a citizen after it had been administered.

Read James White’s rebuttal. It addresses the questions coming up here.

I really do love your reasoned out argument for home protection! Many times I have prayed about what I would do if an intruder broke in and meant to rob or kill us, or both.
At the risk of being soundly rebuked by many-I have to admit that I have a loaded 20 gauge shotgun in my bedroom, and I know how to use it.
I feel pretty sure I would use it--that is after I prayed!

Victoria, I will certainly think twice before breaking into your house.

If you have any doubts about 2nd amendment, consider Canada, where we don't have it.

Google 'Caledonia', 'Oka' or 'Burnt Church', and see a few of the standoffs between one (very well armed) sub-set of the population [which group is secondary, the dynamic would be the same even if some other group did it], the legitimate government, and the beseiged *unarmed* property owners caught in the middle.

If the property owners were equally armed, such uprisings would not be so boldly undertaken.