Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

If you don’t want to own a gun, don’t own a gun.  No one should force you to own one.  But if you are a law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, no one should be able to prevent you from doing so.  This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. 

The author of this article does a good job of debunking poor theology, and explaining why it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to arm and DEFEND themselves.  The gun in the hands of the righteous is NOT a tool of vengeance, but rather a tool of defense.

+



A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

I named my daughter Piper, after John Piper. I regretted that terribly the moment John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2011 Desiring God conference, lending him his credibility and, I believe, metaphorically kissing his ring. That was too much for me. Since then, Piper has repeatedly partnered with the Mystichicks, Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, and others. With Piper, enough has to be enough. Perhaps it’s the “charismatic” in him, but for all his commendably deep theology, Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.

It seems that the growingly obvious lack of discernment in Piper’s life and ministry is evident in his latest article at Desiring God, Should Christians Be Encourged to Arm Themselves. With that title, you can bet that there would be plenty of Evangelical Intelligentsia nuance within the article. Pulpit & Pen will cut through that for you.

Piper begins his article, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves, by providing a stark contrast to Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr, who recently encouraged his students to carry a weapon in case any terrorists came there.

My main concern in the [Liberty University] article is which appeal to students that stirs them up to have a mindset to “Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson of they come here. The concern is the forging of the disposition in Christians to use lethal force, no as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries. 

Piper’s concern is the disposition that ordinary Christian citizens use lethal force against harmful adversaries and not just as policemen or soldiers. This is an odd argument for Piper to make. First, he seems too reluctant to acknowledge himself a pacifist, per se, appealing to civil authority to use necessary force. Certainly, Piper would affirm Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as the texts giving the civil magistrate the right of the sword for punitive punishment of the wicked. And in 1 Peter 2, Christians are to submit ourselves to “every human ordinance.” Among those human ordinances we are bound to obey in our Christian duty are the concealed carry and firearm laws in our states or local municipalities. If the civil magistrate has given its citizens the right duty to use firearms for the purpose of self-reliance, then certainly carrying a firearm wouldn’t be sinful. One could more easily argue not having a firearm, in this case, would be sinful. Piper continues,

The issue is not primarily about when and if the Christian may ever use the use of force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are serious situational ambiguities to answer 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 that attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket so don’t mess with me?” My answer is, No.

I’m not sure where these “serious situational ambiguities” lie in relation to defending the lives of our family and friends. In Why Some People Need a Good Killing, I laid out the case from Christian ethics as to why a violent response to unprovoked violence is godly and necessary. It’s really not that complicated. If someone breaks into a home, God’s law states that killing the intruder is justified and necessary, and the defender would be free from legal retribution (Exodus 22:2). Where are these “serious situational ambiguities” regarding the legal use of deadly weapons in the defense of the lives of family and friends? Piper seems to be (A) unwilling to answer the question as to whether we can kill to protect innocent loved ones and (B) deflecting to subjective, feeling-based, tone and “tenor” poppycock rather than providing clear, non-ambiguous answers from the Scriptures.

Next, Piper questions whether the New Testament encourages a particular “attitude” of  self-defense. This demonstrates a theological failure in understanding the abiding nature of the general equity within the Old Testament civil code. The foundation for Christian ethics rests in the Old Testament civil code. We apply the “general equity” (what is eternal and moral) of those laws to our own circumstances today. There’s absolutely no indication that the right (and duty) of Biblical self-defense has been abrogated or that somehow men are no longer required to protect their wives and children because you can call 911 and hope for the best.

Piper then presents nine considerations as to why he believes Christians should not have a self-defense mindset:

The Apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and to instead return good for evil. And, he said to return the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world. 

One wonders what Piper’s malfunction is that he doesn’t understand the difference between self-defense (or keeping your child from being sodomized and your wife kidnapped) and vengeance. Vengeance is expo facto while self-defense is in the moment. No one in their right mind would accuse someone who was stopping a rapist in the act, dead in his tracks, of enacting vengeance. No, he was stopping a crime in progress. That is more than just the job of the magistrate. That’s what anyone who truly loves their neighbor would do. If one would not stop a rape-in-progress using deadly force (if necessary), they do not love their neighbor as their own self.

Piper also overlooks the reality that our emperor (which in our case is the Constitution) has specifically entrusted his citizens with the privilege and duty of the ownership and use of firearms. But of this, Piper writes…

For example, 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.

First, Piper needs to understand that stopping a crime in progress is not bearing the sword in a Romans 13 fashion. Romans 13 deals with trial and penology. The man stopping his wife from being kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in a gas station restroom (like what happened in North Dakota a few weeks ago) is not “bearing the sword” Romans 13 style. He’s not enacting vengeance. He’s stopping a crime in progress. Throughout this article, Piper repeatedly cites verses that speak against vengeance, misapplying them to his position on self-defense. Any serious Bible student or teacher should know better than this simple but subtle difference-turned-distraction.

2. The Apostle Peter teaches us that as Christians we will often find ourselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.

Piper then cites 1 Peter 2:19, 2:20, 3:19, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19 and so on, all stating in one way or another that we are blessed if we are persecuted, that we should rejoice if we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer according to God’s will we are doing well.

A plethora of verses aside, none – and I’ll write it again for the affect, none – of  Piper’s proof-texts disavow the right to self-preservation nor do they abrogate the Bible’s clear teaching on self-defense. What they do, however, is point out that we’re blessed if we’re persecuted. Amen and amen. And I point out in Why Some People Need a Good Killing that being killed for Christ, even if you’re defending yourself, still earns you the honorary title of martyr. At no point does “martyrdom” equate to “surrendered victim.”

If Christian refugees in Syria pick up rocks to fight back at their attackers in a desperate attempt to save their children and are captured and subsequently beheaded, they are still martyrs, thank you very much. And if, for whatever reason, in whatever dystopic future you contrive that allows Christians in this country to be rounded up like Jews in 1939 Germany and the 3% fought back, we would still be Christian martyrs.

3. Jesus taught that violent hostility would come; and the whole tenor of his council was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not armed defense.

Piper then cites Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, and Matthew 10:16-20. All of these passages deal with Jesus’ End Time prophecy (unless you’re of a different eschatological persuasion and they’ve already been fulfilled) concerning the state of the world prior to the return of Christ. In short, it’s going to be brutal. Being brought before governors, taken before kings, delivered up by mothers and brothers–rough stuff. So then, Piper’s logic deduces that if we are to “die for Jesus” then we need not carry a weapon or practice self-defense.

Here’s where Piper’s theology fails, and why I implore him to get outside of his academic bubble once in a while. George Zimmerman wasn’t almost killed by thug, Trayvon Martin, because of Jesus. Zimmerman almost died because Martin was using the pavement as a deadly weapon against Zimmerman’s head. It had nothing to do with Jesus. It was senseless violence. When the pastor’s wife, Amanda Blackburn, was raped and died along with her unborn child, it had nothing to do with Jesus. She didn’t give her life for Jesus (perhaps I should say she didn’t give her death for Jesus). Although Piper references Jim Elliot getting stabbed with a spear, George Zimmerman and Amanda Blackburn and 99.99999% of the murder victims in this country aren’t dying for Jesus. They’re dying for the clothes they’re wearing, the money in their pocket, or their flesh to be abused. This render’s Piper’s point completely null and void.

4. Jesus sat the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and is not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian Cause with the sword. 

This is the most absurd and disappointing of any of Piper’s points. Who on earth – WHO, I ASK YOU – is suggesting we advance our Christian cause with the sword? This is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve literally never met a Christian, not even a theonomist, who would make the argument that we should be advancing Christianity at gun point. Does Piper not know this? Is he just trying to score cheap points with the HuffPo crowd? Or is Piper so insulated in his little glass bubble in the inner city, and knows so few firearm owners, that he’s somehow under the impression that there are Christians trying to advance the kingdom by force. Seeing this section of Piper’s diatribe is surreal, just on account of how out-of-place it is in reality.

[Editor’s Note: This is Part A in addressing Piper’s errors. Part B will come shortly after Christmas. This post was contributed by JD Hall]

*Update: JD was intending to write Part B to address Piper’s errors. Because of his holiday schedule, he will instead be on the Bible Thumping Wingnut Program to discuss the rest of his concerns, this Christmas evening. You can listen here.

Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/12/23/a-response-to-john-piper-why-gun-ownership-is-biblical-and-good-part-a/
+


The Fate of a Disarmed Populace

Show this to anyone who tells you gun control is a good idea. If they still think it’s a good idea after seeing what happens to unarmed people, they are the enemy and someone to be feared.

 

Unarmed Christians

Reality Check: The 2nd Amendment

Here are two short videos that clarify what why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, and why you should fear a government that attempts to curtail those rights.

The 2nd Amendment boils down to the argument between the federalists (“The government will never take away the rights of the people“), and the anti-federalists (“They might, and what if they do?“).  If you can’t look around at what our government has become, what is doing to the Bill of Rights, and see the wisdom of the anti-federalists, then I can’t help you.

John Kerry Signs UN Gun Ban Treaty – US Now One Step Away From Revolution

We are now one step away from a revolution.  The senate needs to understand that if this treaty is ratified, and the government attempts to take our guns, or force us to register them (a prelude to confiscation), the government will have irrevocably crossed a line that we WILL NOT stand by and allow them to cross. 
+



Secretary of State John Kerry Signs United Nations Gun Ban Treaty Against Wishes of U.S. Senate

by Warner Todd Huston | August 26, 2015 4:13 pm

If U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has his way the United Nations will be able to say if Americans are allowed to have their Second Amendment rights. He has just signed an anti-gun treaty with the United Nations that the U.S. Senate has already said it is against.

 

The treaty Kerry signed[1] without authorization from the Senate would create an un-Constitutional registry of all US gun buyers and would lead to the UN controlling American’s gun rights.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.

“This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong,” he said. “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”

U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.

He claimed the treaty raises “fundamental issues” concerning “individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an “invasive registration scheme” by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on “end users.”

“The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom.”

Once again Obama’s regime tries to end the Second Amendment by stealth.

Link to Article:  http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/secretary-of-state-john-kerry-signs-united-nations-gun-ban-treaty-against-wishes-of-u-s-senate/

Letter to ISIS: We could use a little help

Our government is completely out of control. We have a president who may not even be qualified to hold the office, but congress won’t even ask legitimate questions about his eligibility. He has violated the Constitution and broken the law so many times that they will have to add a new wing to the Library of Congress just to document all of his transgressions. He has been caught lying on video, in his own words, time and time again. In his latest constitutional violation, he said on video more than 20 times over 6 years that he didn’t have the constitutional authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws. Yet as soon as the midterm elections are over, what does he do? Unilaterally changes the law without congress. Then when he is confronted about previously saying that he didn’t have the authority to do so, he denies he ever said that, even going as far as saying “I can rewind the tapes for you.”

Where is congress while they are being rendered irrelevant by a tyrannical president? Cowering in the corner trying to preserve their perks and privileges, but doing NOTHING to exercise the checks and balances at their disposal to defend the Constitution. Rather than use the power of the purse which is exclusively theirs, or the power to impeach a runaway president, they further enable the out of control president by funding ALL of his unconstitutional agenda.

Where are the “Supreme” Court and the federal courts while the lawless president tramples the Constitution and breaks the law? They have been rendered irrelevant. Even in the few instances where they have ruled against Obama’s agenda, he has simply ignored the courts and done whatever he wants to do. Obama controls all of the agencies in government with the means to physically stop him. I’m pretty sure you won’t see Ruth Bader Ginsberg or John Roberts storming the White House with an AR and a knife in their teeth. Thus you have a lawless, tyrannical president whose STATED goal is the “fundamental transformation” of America, and neither of the other two branches designed to keep his branch of government in check doing anything to stop him.

What alternatives are left to heal the ailing patient that is our Constitution?

We administer a 3% solution of 2A.
+


Dear Bad Guys

An Open Letter to the Men and Women of the Connecticut State Police: You are NOT the enemy (UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO BE.)

This letter sent to the Connecticut State Police is a great example for all of us, and sums up very well the crossroads at which we stand.  We are at a time and place in our history when our government has left the reservation that the citizenry established for it, and that government has now turned against the people whom it is supposed to serve.  The government is forcing us into a corner from which the only escape is to fight.  The bloodshed and violence toward which this nation is heading at breakneck speed will happen by the government’s choosing, nor ours.

The question is, when the government begins trying to enforce its unconstitutional laws (in this case, gun registration and confiscation), will law enforcement stand on the side of the Constitution and the people, or will they be our enemies?  There are many who have come out publicly stating they will not enforce these laws.  I applaud these patriots.  Those who have refused to say they will not enforce unconstitutional laws have done us the favor of identifying themselves to us as collaborators whom we will be pitted against once the ‘festivities’ begin.  At least we know who they are.

Get to know your local police, and your sheriff.  Find out where they stand.  Also petition your state government to follow the course of nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, and making it illegal for federal agencies to attempt to enforce them with your state’s borders.   Also find out where your governor and legislators stand on the possiblity of secession and a constitutional convention.  Those may be the only chance we have left for a peaceful resolution to our predicament.  However, I suspect that the federal government won’t let us go without a fight since those power hungry tyrants want control, and without people to control they have no power.

Our only hope to salvage our constitutional republic is to stand UNITED behind our Constitution.  But we must stand with resolve backed up by force, and the willingness to use it.
+


Saturday, February 15, 2014

An Open Letter to the Men and Women of the Connecticut State Police: You are NOT the enemy (UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO BE.)

 The following letter was sent via email to members of the Connecticut State Police, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. There are 1,212 email addresses on the list. There were 62 bounce-backs.

15 February 2014
To the men and women of the Connecticut State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection:
My name is Mike Vanderboegh. Few of you will know who I am, or even will have heard of the Three Percent movement that I founded, though we have been denounced on the national stage by that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton. Three Percenters are uncompromising firearm owners who have stated very plainly for years that we will obey no further encroachments on our Second Amendment rights. Some of you, if you read this carelessly, may feel that it is a threat. It is not. Three Percenters also believe that to take the first shot in a conflict over principle is to surrender the moral high ground to the enemy. We condemn so-called collateral damage and terrorism such as that represented by the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco massacre. We are very aware that if you seek to defeat evil it is vital not to become the evil you claim to oppose. Thus, though this letter is certainly intended to deal with an uncomfortable subject, it is not a threat to anyone. However, it is important for everyone to understand that while we promise not to take the first shot over principle, we make no such promise if attacked, whether by common criminals or by the designated representatives of a criminal government grown arrogant and tyrannical and acting out an unconstitutional agenda under color of law. If we have any model, it is that of the Founding generation. The threat to public order and safety, unfortunately, comes from the current leaders of your state government who unthinkingly determined to victimize hitherto law-abiding citizens with a tyrannical law. They are the ones who first promised violence on the part of the state if your citizens did not comply with their unconstitutional diktat. Now, having made the threat (and placed the bet that you folks of the Connecticut State Police will meekly and obediently carry it out) they can hardly complain that others take them seriously and try by every means, including this letter, to avoid conflict.
Continue reading

Pew Professional

%d bloggers like this: