Sorry John Piper, I Disagree

Last updated on: April 13, 2016 at 11:00 am by Grayson Gilbert

Sorry John Piper, I Disagree 2016-04-13T11:00:16-05:00 Grayson Gilbert

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

While I love John Piper and have greatly benefited from his ministry, especially in the early days of my faith, I feel that his latest article has been a gigantic misstep in many ways. Below, I interact with what I sense to be the thrust of his argument in four main counter-points. One could go point-by-point, however, many of Piper’s nine points are overlapping in their theme and there is no need to do so. This is, unfortunately, one of the instances where I believe a man has been more guided by personal conviction than biblical implication. This should be readily apparent by the self-contradictory nature of some of his points that I will demonstrate below – yet even more so in the blatant misuse of scripture from its immediate context.

1.) Death does not a martyr make

While it is tempting to say that a Christian who dies at the hand of violence has become a martyr, this isn’t the case. Throughout all of church history, there have been fairly firm convictions and qualifications on what it takes to be a martyr. While death is a necessary component of this, in and of itself, death does not qualify one as a martyr. Dying as a Christian in a violent act does not even qualify one as a martyr. Historically, martyrdom has been defined as a Christian suffering the ultimate punishment this earth can offer – because of the testimony of the gospel they bear. This does not necessitate they be in the midst of preaching the gospel to be considered a martyr, but rather, they are directly targeted and quickly assailed on the basis of the proclamation of the gospel of Christ.

However, this offers even more nuance in one respect, for many who have adorned the banner of “Christian” in our history have been snuffed out – yet they were not considered martyrs by the church. Why is this? Some reasons involve dying for what they believed to be true and according to the gospel, yet unfortunately, it wasn’t. Others involve men who brazenly sought out martyrdom for the sake of vain glory. There are a host of others, but these two examples serve the point well. If one who died for convictions they believed were biblical, yet did not attain the status of a martyr after their demise, it is far beyond a stretch to say a victim of violent crime where one’s faith is not even known to the assailant becomes a martyr.

2.) Persecution is not blind violence

The biblical witness resounds with a testimony toward what persecution is. Piper is even quick to quote quite a few of these passages in more than one of his points – however, he vaguely defines persecution in this context. This is disappointing, and truthfully, sad, seeing that Piper has so often ably defined what true persecution is. When Peter speaks to the one who suffers unjustly; when the apostles were beaten, stoned, or executed; when Christ was sought after by the hostile Jews – it was for the express result of their faith and the testimony of the gospel. By extension, this is the substance of Piper’s argument, for by refusing to bear arms and protect others against an assailant, he is arguing that they are directly suffering for the gospel.

However, this is a dangerously faulty presupposition on many levels because it assumes that Christians suffering unjustly in the midst of violent, unpremeditated crime are suffering for the sake of the gospel. Unless the assailant has a personal vendetta against Christians and has intentionally sought them out for this reason, rather than for their goods, it just isn’t the case. Persecution has an object: the gospel, not principles adorned by personal convictions and assumed implications of the gospel. This is at the crux of John Piper’s argument – as all of his points deal in the assumption of random acts of violence being the result of one’s faith.

3.) Self-defense is not vengeance

Scripture is replete with examples of casuistic laws in order to specifically determine what happens in precisely this case. Exodus 22:2-3 is just one that determines a homeowner, if striking a thief dead, has no blood-guilt upon their hands. The oft quoted, “turn the other cheek” has nothing to do with violence with intent to kill, but everything to do with receiving the insult of being back-handed across the face. To slap someone in the face is an incredible insult that while demeaning, is not intended to take the life of the innocent. It is meant to bring shame, which in an honor and shame society is a big deal. For a Christian to take a slap to the face, offer the other side for another backhand, would be socially radical – for they would be willing to double-down on open shame.

Yet perhaps the most troubling portion of Piper’s argument in this point is found within the assumption that revenge is the same as self-preservation, or preservation of another’s life. Revenge begets vindictiveness; self-defense is reactionary. Revenge makes you the arbiter of justice, as you determine a fitting punishment for the crime; self-defense or preservation of another’s life is not a means of intentional homicide. Even preparation of one discerning what they might do in a given scenario is not premeditated homicide; all of it is reactionary and under the constraints of an ethos to preserve life. To give a clear example: seeking vengeance would be going to shoot up an abortion clinic because of their evil practice; preservation of life and loving one’s neighbor, would be an officer gunning down the assailant and protecting those same people who revile Christ. Now, swap out the officer with an armed civilian. Should he let the murderous tyrant shoot up the abortion clinic and show deference to the gun-toting assailant over preference to the abortionists he is attacking?

4.) Owning and using a firearm is not mistrusting in the Lord’s sovereign protection

This argument falls flat on the face. By implication, it is a form of blind determinism that by essence, argues for complete passivity. Carry this implication into other spheres of biblical ethics and it would be quickly revealed how very narrow-sighted this is. The simple point being: simply because God has ordained all things does not mean He has left us without a means to walk in that. In part, the civil authorities, by extension of their power to bear the sword, have given that right to others. We have similar case laws on the basis of self-defense as found in the Old Testament. Were the Jews, whom bore no blood guilt in the death of a thief, condemned for their lack of faith in the sovereign protection of God? Would we likewise be found guilty of blood for protecting another? Is God’s immediate justice not meted out through intermediary means?

Some crimes have immediate implications by virtue of their crime. Some acts have immediate consequences by virtue of what they are. This is a simple principle of wisdom laid out plainly over and again throughout the book of Proverbs. The point being, the criminal has laid a snare for themselves by unintended consequence to their heinously sinful acts. There is a reason why Solomon plainly states that one who lays siege to the innocent will end in death; it can and does contain a physical and spiritual dimension, and based on casuistic law, does not require that this penalty be met by only those who are in the position of civil government.

In conclusion, I was genuinely discouraged in seeing Piper’s response for a plethora of reasons, from laying a burden down on the conscious that is simply not in the text, to saying one would be in the wrong for the preservation of innocent life. I am not saying I am in complete agreement with Jerry Falwell Jr’s mildly cavalier attitude, yet I am in complete disagreement with Piper on this extreme form of pietism that places inappropriate emphasis on rolling over like a dog rather than being a man of valor. If I am being quite frank, it is cowardice, misleading, inappropriately making martyrs of random victims of violence, and more. I’ve seen hosts of people saying how they would use less fatal methods to subdue an attacker, but I daresay you haven’t met a crack-head who wants your money while you are unarmed.

Yet more so, I believe you missed the point. The purpose in Piper’s post was not necessarily the method by which you use to defend yourself against the assailant, however, but that the disposition of a cavalier heart is the same as any means of self-defense. I would naturally agree that a cavalier heart toward the potential taking of an image bearer is not right – yet I would emphatically disagree on all of Piper’s premises, seeing that he is conflating defense with the desire to kill. The two are simply not the same, as one intentionally seeks to end a life and takes glee over it, while the other seeks to uphold the life of the innocent, and does not rejoice in the death of a sinner.

Previous Post

December 22, 2015

The Exclusivity of Inclusiveness

Next Post

January 4, 2016 The Ology - Book Review

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category #ShoutYourAbortion 10 Commandments 2016 Election 2017 2020 Election Abortion Accelerate Books Adultery America Andy Stanley Arminianism Ashley Madison Atonement B&H Academic Baptism Barry Horner Beauty Biblical Elders Billy Graham Blog Book Review Bruce Jenner Caitlyn Jenner Calvin Calvinism Cheating Chick-fil-A Children Christ Christian History Christian Living Christian Podcasts Christianity Christmas Church History Church Leadership Civil Disobedience Constitutional Coronavirus Culture Death Demoninations Discipleship Doctrine Doctrine of God Donald Trump Ecclesiology Entertainment Eschatology Ethics Evangelical Evangelism Evil Evolution Fear Forgive Yourself Forgiveness Francis Chan Future Israel Gay Marriage Gender Genesis George Floyd Gospel Government Gun Control Halloween hamartiology Heavenly Reward Hermeneutics History Hollywood Holy Spirit Homeschool Homosexual Homosexuality Hope Hospitality Humor Husband Infant Baptism Interview Jesus John Piper Josh Duggar Joshua Harris Judgment Justice Kathy Griffin Kim Davis Leadership Logic Love Manhood Marriage Martin Luther Messianic Prophecy Miscarriage Mocking Modesty Money Movie Reviews Music Music Review Netflix New Testament Obergefell Old Testament Parenting Pastor Pastoring Persecution Planned Parenthood Podcast Politics Pop Culture Pornography Prayer Preaching Predestination Pride Prosperity Gospel Rachel Held Evans Racism Ravi Zacharias Redemption Reformation 500 Reformation Day Reformed Theology Relationship Repentance Salvation Same Sex Marriage Satan Satire Scripture Seminary Sex Sin slavery Sola Scriptura Soteriology Sovereignty Spiritual Gifts Spurgeon Star Wars Steven Furtick Suffering Sufficiency of Scripture Sunday School Supreme Court Technology Testimony The Church The Lord of the Rings The Problem of Evil The Shack Theology Theonomy Tithing Transgenderism Tullian Tchividjian Uncategorized Universalism Vanity Fair Video Games Virgin Birth Voting Wife Women Worldview Worship

Select a Month June 2025 April 2025 March 2025 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 June 2023 April 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz