John Piper vs. Jerry Falwell Jr. on the question of Christians carrying guns

Before you secularists start popping popcorn so you can sit back and watch the show, I'm sorry to disappoint you here. John Piper and Jerry Falwell Jr. are not angry with each other and they're not attacking each other. They're having a very substantive and very respectful discussion - in public, to be sure - about whether calling on Christians to arm themselves is consistent with Christ's larger call on our lives.

It's a great question. Falwell is calling on those at Liberty University - where he is chancellor - to do just that. Piper believes this is contrary to two commands of Christ - one of which is to ensure persecution, the other of which is model love that will attract others to the light of our lives. Both are faithful men of God, and both are taking the issue very seriously in trying to get on the right side of Scripture with their answers. They actually spoke to each other directly so they could understand each other better on the subject. That's how Christian people should deal with each other. I come down on Falwell's side, and I'll explain momentarily why I think Piper has got the issue wrong, but first here are two points that I believe represent the crux of Piper's argument:

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).

---

It's a great question. Falwell is calling on those at Liberty University - where he is chancellor - to do just that. Piper believes this is contrary to two commands of Christ - one of which is to ensure persecution, the other of which is model love that will attract others to the light of our lives.

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. . . . 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.

Honestly, there is a lot more than this to Piper's argument than just those two points. He makes nine points, all of which backed up by multiple Scripture references, and I'd be amazed at the Washington Post's willingness to publish such a piece but I suspect they only did so because it was used in opposition to guns and to a guy with the last name Falwell. But I still think Piper is wrong, and it's primarily because he's misapplying the notion of Christian persecution for the purposes of this discussion. I actually agree with him that Christians are called upon by God to endure persecution because of our faith, and that we should expect to. I'd even go Piper one better (although for all I know he agrees) and say that Christians complain publicly about it way too much. Not that we shouldn't point out that it's wrong or that it's on the rise - as we've clearly seen lately in connection to the culture shoving gay marriage down our throats - but Christians don't need to be getting on social media decrying that Christians are being persecuted and that it needs to stop. It's not going to stop, certainly not because we tell the secular world how wrong it is. Our weapon against it is truth, love and perseverance - to keep doing God's work in spite of the persecution. But here's where Piper goes wrong here: Falwell isn't telling the Liberty University community to pack heat so they can shoot people who persecute Christians. It's not a defense against being forced to bake a gay wedding cake, or against the IRS putting heat on pastors for their sermon content, or about a sportscaster getting fired because he supports traditional marriage. Falwell wants the Liberty community to carry because the nature of the terrorist threat we now face is that attackers can show up any time, anywhere, and they especially favor "gun-free zones" where they know they will meet no armed resistance. We've talked about this plenty here. Those who plan an attack on a crowded institution - especially jihadists who don't care if they die - understand that they can kill a lot of people before the police have any chance of arriving, and more than that, they can create a hostage situation that will leave the police helpless as they wait outside in a standoff. What Falwell is talking about here is changing that status quo for the purpose of saving innocent lives. Nowhere in Christ's many warnings to us about persecution did He suggest we should fail to protect the innocent from murder. One of Piper's arguments is that the bearing of arms is meant for governmental authorities, and that we are called as Christians to submit to the authority of government. Two problems with that: 1. Our government's Constitution acknowledges the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so there is no conflict between submitting to authority and packing heat; and 2. ISIS understands all too well how to set up an attack scenario so they can murder large numbers of people before the governmental authorities have a chance to arrive. Simply put, enduring persecution for our faith does not involving letting yourself be a sitting duck for an attack you know could be coming, or failing to take steps that are available to you to protect other innocent people. And while I certainly agree that the light of our love is the greatest thing we can use to attract people to Christ, there is no inherent conflict between love and protection of the innocent. Indeed, if we as Christians laud the police for the work they do protecting us - as we should - then how can we at the same time claim it's un-Christian for us to do it when we really have no other line of defense? It's a very good and serious discussion these men are having. I'm glad they had it. And for all the reasons discussed here, I think Jerry Falwell Jr. has the better of the argument.