Should a Christian Carry a Concealed Firearm?

In the wake of the recent San Bernadino shooting, Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty University (the largest Christian university in the nation) encouraged his students to obtain concealed carry licenses and arm themselves so as to “teach those Muslims a lesson” if they ever came on Liberty’s campus.

Much blowback ensued in response to these comments, including a thorough critique from pastor and author John Piper. For Piper, the problem with concealed carry is both the act itself and the attitude behind the act. The attitude of “Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever come around here” contradicts Christ’s call for Christians to live self-sacrificially. And the issues with the act itself are manifold. For present purposes, Piper’s points can be boiled down to three main issues: (1) Christians are not to seek vengeance, (2) Christians should expect and accept unjust treatment without retaliation, and (3) Christians ought to live in such a way that outsiders wonder what hope within us motivates our radically unique behavior.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a significant backlash to Piper’s article among pro-gun evangelicals. Piper is well-respected in evangelical circles, but on this subject, he has breached American Christian canon. To be fair, Piper has also breached what has been unofficial church consensus since the time of Constantine. Only when two prominent evangelical leaders publicly proclaim opposing views on the subject of concealed carry firearms does it become clear how ingrained a pro-gun culture is among American Christianity. One response, which challenges Piper on a biblical basis, calls Piper’s view shocking, appalling, and “absolutely ridiculous.”

The counterargument to Piper’s first point is that concealed carry has nothing to do with vengeance. The principle against taking vengeance and leaving room for the wrath of God is a separate issue from the purpose of carrying a concealed firearm, which is to defend oneself and innocent victims against violent aggressors. The argument goes that legal concealed firearms, on net, prevent more deaths than would otherwise occur. Someone with a concealed firearm could subdue a violent aggressor—whether that be a mass shooter or a home invader or a petty thief—before they got the chance to hurt or kill. This is preventive violence, not retributive violence.

The counterargument to Piper’s second point is that Christians are only told to accept unjust treatment as it relates to their Christian identities—such as spreading the gospel or behaving in a distinctly Christlike way. Concealed firearms are not meant to defend pastors preaching sermons or missionaries in the field; they are meant to defend innocent victims from indiscriminate violence. Christ’s prohibition of retaliation, the pro-gun folks would say, only concerns persecution of Christians for being Christian.

The counterargument to Piper’s third point is a shift of perspective: the anti-gun folks cast defensive use of firearms in a negative light, but the pro-gun folks cast it in a positive light. Pro-gun folks say that it is brave, noble, and indeed loving to one’s neighbor to put oneself in danger by using a firearm to defend that neighbor from harm. And while shooting (and possibly killing) an aggressor isn’t the ideal way to show them Christ’s love, it is exactly what Christ would do if put in that situation. In short, in order to love one’s neighbor, it is advisable and admirable for the Christian to do exactly what Falwell encouraged his students to do: carry a firearm (the more powerful the better) and be ready to shoot an attacker before he has the chance to harm innocent victims.

I believe that while some of these counterarguments to Piper make sense, the gun advocates still don’t have a biblical leg to stand on. Three New Testament principles should prevent Christians from embracing violence, even for the sake of defending innocent victims: non-retaliation, love for enemies, and kingdom peacemaking. But before I get to them, what Bible passages could lead one to support self-defense?

The Bible on Self-Defense

While there is no specific instruction in the Bible not to use violence in self-defense, there is also no instruction to do so. None whatsoever. Some self-defense advocates cite Exodus 22:2-3: “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.” Notice two things about this verse. First, this is not an instruction to practice self-defense. It is an explanation for how a person is to be judged in retrospect for a certain action—namely, killing a criminal intruder. At best, this amounts to moral permission, not moral virtue or praiseworthiness. Second, notice that this provision is only in effect at night. In other words, one will not be faulted for striking a home intruder when it is dark and when accidental death is more likely, but during the daytime, one is still guilty of bloodshed for striking and killing a home intruder. This does little to support the pro-gun case.

Another passage often used by self-defense advocates comes from Luke 22, where Jesus tells his disciples to sell their belongings in order to buy swords. Gun advocates assert this must mean Jesus wasn’t entirely against his disciples defending themselves with weapons. But it is difficult to see what message we are to garner from this cryptic passage. In response to Jesus, the disciples show him the two swords in their possession, and Jesus says, “It is enough.” In this case, I believe Piper is correct to say that we cannot assume to know what Christ meant by this statement from the passage alone. It seems even the disciples don’t know what he meant. We must look elsewhere, at the whole of Christ’s teachings and the early church’s behavior, in order to understand what Jesus meant when he instructed his disciples to buy swords. When we do, we’ll find nothing at all to suggest he meant that self-defense is proper for his disciples.

The Narrow Way

Before we begin to look at our distinctive calling as Christians living in the world but not of the world, one thing is crucial to remember.

When Jesus is wrapping up His moral teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, He summarizes them with this principle: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12). This handy maxim is known as the “Golden Rule.”

Then Jesus says something interesting: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (verses 13-14). Many Christians think of this verse as concerning only salvation and not the Christlike life a believer is to lead after salvation, but for Jesus, these two are inextricably linked. As Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:3, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The regeneration of spiritual rebirth leads to life in the kingdom of God.

After all, Jesus says that “if you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). The entire sermon prior to this point (Matthew 5:1-7:12) has concerned not salvation as an isolated event but the life one lives because of salvation. Thus, when Christ says “the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life,” He is saying that His teachings are difficult to follow, not that salvation is difficult to achieve. Salvation, we know from Paul, is amazingly easy to obtain, for it is “by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of your own doing” (Eph 2:8). But the rewarding and abundant “life” which Christ came to bring (John 10:10) is most definitely not easy to obtain.

Therefore, as we begin to examine these teachings of Christ, we should not expect that they will allow us to live our lives or respond to things the easy, simple, intuitive way. No, Christ’s way is the hard way.

Now, it is instructive to compare Luke’s presentation of Christ’s teachings with Matthew’s presentation. Sometimes they reveal different aspects of the same teaching. The “Golden Rule” of Matthew 7:12 is one of these instructive instances, because we can turn to Luke’s gospel to see what teachings he links to the hard way of the “Golden Rule.” In Luke 6, we find that Luke links the “Golden Rule” to love for enemies and non-retaliation. It is to those principles we now turn.

The Scope of Non-Retaliation

Gun advocates (rightly, I believe) point out that Piper conflates verses about suffering for the sake of Christ with suffering at the hands of indiscriminate aggressors. But there is a significant difference. When much of the New Testament (especially 1 Peter) instructs believers not to resist their persecutors and to rejoice in their suffering, such teachings are given concerning only their church- and gospel-related contexts. Thus, gun advocates say that non-retaliation is only required in cases of persecution against Christians for being Christian.

However, just because there are many verses in the New Testament which prohibit retaliation in cases of gospel-related persecution doesn’t mean this is the only circumstance in which non-retaliation is applicable.

Jesus says, “You have heard it said, ‘an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth,’ but I tell you, do not resist an evildoer.” Is this principle limited in scope to gospel-related persecution? No, it is not. The examples Jesus cite are non-religious matters: violent insults and attacks, legal battling, forced compliance by governing authorities, and lending. One of those examples refers to Roman soldiers forcing citizens to carry their heavy shields for a mile—a form of political oppression that has nothing to do with a person’s identity as a Christian.

But perhaps the prohibition of retaliation only refers to personal, private situations that don’t seriously threaten anyone’s livelihood. After all, the gun advocate would say, each of the examples given relate to personal, non-lethal situations, not matters of life and death. I offer three considerations:

First, remember that these examples are all situations the average first century Israelite would often find themselves in. It is likely that there were zealots (and zealot sympathizers) among his audience who would fight back against Roman (political) oppression. The call to “go the extra mile” is tantamount to a rejection of the zealots’ approach. It goes beyond the scope of personal, private situations.

Second, remember that the principle he gives (“do not resist an evildoer”) is spoken in response to the lex talionis (“eye for an eye”). The lex talionis, or “law of retaliation,” was the Old Testament’s way of ensuring equitable retribution for crimes committed. It governed all violent crime in Israel, whether purposeful or accidental. The principle Christ gives is incompatible with the lex talionis and thus makes it obsolete. It is now the law of non-retaliation which governs Christians’ behavior toward each other, toward outsiders, and even toward their most bitter enemies.

The argument could be made that “eye for an eye” is attempting to do the same thing Jesus is doing here, because it prevents a person who has been harmed from retaliating beyond the limits of equitable retribution. No one could retaliate against an injury by killing the injurer in return. It limited retaliation, which, the argument goes, is exactly what Christ is doing. But Jesus isn’t merely limiting retaliation; he teaches that retaliation shouldn’t merely be limited but done away with completely.

The word for “resist” here is anthistemi, which means to take an equal and opposite stand against something. Anthistemi was also a military term in Ancient Greek meaning “to strongly resist an opponent.” It calls to mind the image of two armies facing each other in battle and refers to fighting “fire with fire.” Let’s see how this applies to the first example Christ uses: turning the other cheek.

Luke’s gospel, more so than Matthew’s, makes clear that the instruction to “turn the other cheek” doesn’t merely refer to personal insults but also physical violence. Matthew uses the word “slap,” and specifies the right cheek. This leads some to believe that, since most people are right-handed, the slap is backhanded, meant to shame more than hurt. But in Luke’s version, Jesus says, “To the one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also” (Luke 6:29). The word for “strike” unambiguously refers to physical violence. It is used, for instance, in contrast to “slap” in Matthew 26:67: “Then they spit in his [Jesus’s] face and struck him, and others slapped him…” The New American Standard Bible translates “struck” in this verse as “beat Him with their fists.”

So then we could say that “turn the other cheek” applies to both personal insults and violent attacks. Rather than trading insult for insult or blow for blow, followers of Jesus are to eschew both insults and fighting. This is what it means to “not resist the evildoer.”

One might say, at this point, that we are still only talking about how Christians are to handle situations in the personal, private sphere — that we are to eschew retaliation in our personal lives but still ought to pursue it through legal means. If a person punches me in the face, I am not to punch him back, but I am permitted to press charges on him for physical assault and do everything I can from a legal standpoint to ensure he pays for his crime against me.

However, Jesus also applies this principle of non-retaliation to a legal situation: “If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well” (Matt. 5:40). Just like the summary principle of “eye for an eye,” Christ’s summary principle of “don’t fight fire with fire” applies to all areas of life, including legal settings.

Christ’s principle of non-retaliation, then, basically means, “Don’t fight fire with fire. Don’t attempt to enforce ‘eye for eye.’ Whatever evil methods your enemy uses to attack you, do not to respond in kind. Do not combat violence with violence. Do not combat legal subterfuge with legal subterfuge. Do not combat coercive force with coercive force. Do not combat hurtful words with hurtful words. Do not respond to someone who has put a financial burden on you by putting a financial burden on them.” This principle is neither to fight nor to flee, but to follow Christ’s example: engage them through disarming love with the goal of reconciliation. Hence why the command to love one’s enemies directly follows the principle of non-retaliation in Matthew and is unequivocally linked in Luke (6:27-36).

The third consideration is that this principle does not apply for those outside the Kingdom of God. In other words, the principle of non-retaliation is only meant for followers of Jesus who are citizens of His not-of-this-world Kingdom. Hence why Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 5:12: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?” Thus non-retaliation and “turn the other cheek” is not meant to be applied to earthly governments, police forces, or militaries. More on this below.

So the pro-gun (and just war) argument that Christ’s principle of non-retaliation is limited to either gospel-related persecution or non-violent situations simply doesn’t hold up. The Mosaic law of “eye for an eye” governed all scenarios in the Old Testament, and the Christian law of non-retaliation governs all scenarios in the New Testament.

Love Which Enemies?

Gun advocates will point out that Jesus didn’t invent the principle of love for enemies. Rather, love for enemies can be found in the Old Testament. For instance, Proverbs 25:21: “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.” Likewise, Exodus 23:4-5 commands compassionate treatment of an enemy’s pack animals. Gun advocates, who often craft their arguments from a Reformed framework which sees no moral inconsistency between Old and New Testaments, will say that Christ is perfectly in line with this limited sense in which one should love one’s enemies.

It is probable that in these few Old Testament verses enemy-love is basically wrapped up in love of neighbor. They basically call for Old Testament Jews to love even those fellow Jews they consider to be personal enemies. After all, there is little evidence of Jews showing such kindness to their political or military enemies. And since the Mosaic Law does not permit Jews to live amongst the Canaanites (though they often did), it is unlikely the Exodus verses refer to non-Jews.

One could argue that there are some enemies we are justified in hating. Some gun advocates say we ought to agree with the Psalmist, who wrote: “Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them as my enemies” (Psalm 139:21-22).

Jesus radically expands and intensifies the command to love one’s enemies. The instances from the OT in which people are taught to love their enemies are nonviolent, personal, and probably confined to fellow Jews. But the examples Jesus uses do concern violence (striking on the cheek), legal situations (suing for one’s tunic), and non-Jews (carrying a Roman soldier’s shield a mile) situations. Indeed, there is no indication that love of enemies is meant to be limited to any type of person or situation.

Thus, just as Jesus expands and intensifies other OT principles such as murder > anger (Matt. 5:21-26) and adultery > lust (Matt. 5:27-30), he expands and intensifies enemy-love to include both Jew and Gentile, violent and nonviolent, public and personal. There are no enemies which are left out of this calling of love, including violent aggressors. Just as our Father in Heaven’s love is all-inclusive (Matt 5:45), so also should His children’s love be all-inclusive.

At this point, it would be natural to ask why? Why are Christians called to refrain from retaliating against violent aggressors and instead to love them even though it feels so unnatural? The simple answer is: we are citizens of a different kingdom.

The Kingdom of Peace

It is crucial that we keep in mind the doctrine of the two kingdoms: the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of the world. This world belongs, in a proximate sense, to Satan (Luke 4:6; 1 John 5:19), and thus it stands in stark contrast to the Kingdom of God.

Though the Kingdom of God is not here on this earth in its entirety, it is present here on earth to the extent that Christians live it out. Both John the Baptist and Jesus began their ministries by proclaiming that the “Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2, 4:17). Jesus said in Luke 4:43 that preaching “the good news of the kingdom of God” was the very purpose for which he was sent. Likewise, Jesus told His disciples to preach the same message (Matt 10:7). When questioned by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God will arrive, Jesus answers that “the kingdom of God is within you,” also translated as “within your reach” (Luke 17:21). The Kingdom of God has arrived. It is here. Now. In our midst. It is available to be entered into.

To his hearer’s surprise, Jesus announced the arrival (though not total fulfillment) of the very same Kingdom about which is prophesied in the Old Testament. The very same passage which prophesies the “shoot” that “will spring from the stem of Jesse”—talking about Jesus—speaks of a Kingdom in which “they will not hurt or destroy in all [God’s] holy mountain” (Is 11:1-9; 65:25). We know that this Kingdom has not reached its completion because “the mountain of the house of the Lord” has not yet fully been “established as the chief of the mountains,” and God does not yet “judge between the nations” (Is 2:2-4).

And yet, this Kingdom has been inaugurated and established in principle. The king who rides a donkey, prophesied in Zechariah 9:9-10 (Jesus), has come, and one of the characteristics of His reign is His “speaking peace to the nations.” In this Kingdom, “Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety” (Hos 2:18). Again, it is crucial to remember that while this Peaceful Kingdom has not fully arrived — earthly governments still wield the sword (Rom 13) — it has arrived to the extent that Christians live it out or “produce its fruit” (Matt 21:43). Echoing the statement in Jeremiah 2:3 about Israel being the “firstfruits of [God’s] harvest,” James also refers to Christians as “a kind of firstfruits of all He created” (James 1:18).

To be a first fruit is to showcase in a limited capacity the full and bountiful harvest to come. Christians are called to showcase, to the best of our ability in this age, the peaceful and nonviolent Kingdom which is yet to arrive in its fullness.

So back to the basics: the distinction between Kingdom of God and kingdom of this world.

Christians belong to the Kingdom of God, because God has “rescued us from the domain of darkness and transformed us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col 1:13). This Kingdom is characterized by Christ and His teachings. We believers are its citizens, and the Kingdom of God commands our total devotion. The way of Christ is meant to influence every aspect of a person’s life, not merely “gospel-related” or personal aspects. There is no biblical distinction between sacred and secular portions of a believer’s life, nor holy and non-holy, nor personal and public. Christians are nowhere allowed to have secular (public) lives in which they can behave differently than in their sacred (private) lives.

Rather, the “secular” is the way of the world, the kingdom of Satan. That which doesn’t serve the Kingdom of God must then serve this other kingdom. As Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or will be devoted to one and despise the other.” The immediate context of this saying concerns God and money, but the principle can be applied to multiple subjects. After all, Jesus also told his disciples that “anyone who loves their father or mother… or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt 10:37). Indeed, any one who “does not bear his own cross” and “renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:27, 33).

In other words, our devotion as believers ought to be first and foremost to Christ and His Kingdom, which means living as He did and conforming our lives to His teachings. And this devotion is not meant to be merely dutiful but also joyful and heartfelt. The Kingdom of God, remember, is like a great treasure which, when discovered, will inspire a person to sell everything he or she has in order to obtain it (Matt 13:44-46).

In the words of Abraham Kuyper, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, ‘Mine!'”

So it must never be forgotten that we believers are citizens of Heaven (Phil. 3:20) and are called to model the heavenly kingdom’s virtues in all aspects of our behavior.

Paul expresses this truth in stark terms: “Those who live according to the flesh [the world] have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace” (Rom 8:5-6). We believers are “not of this world, even as I [Christ] am not of it” (John 17:16). Therefore, now that we have died to the world, “we regard no one from a worldly point of view” (2 Corinthians 5:16). Even our enemies. Even those who hurt us or treat us unjustly.

Everything about our lives is to be characterized by Christ’s Kingdom and to stand in contrast to the ways of the world. In Christ’s Kingdom, our struggle is not against flesh and blood and thus we do not fight (Eph 6:12). If His Kingdom were of this world, our struggle would be against flesh and blood (John 18:36). If we don’t fight for any heavenly or gospel-related reason, we shouldn’t fight for any worldly reason either, because to do so would be tantamount to fighting for the kingdom of Satan.

Here I will “jump the gun,” if you will, by stating my ultimate view on this subject: The case of carrying a concealed firearm to use against evildoers is to fight the world through worldly means. It is to return evil for evil.

As people of Christ’s kingdom, we are to be recognizable by such qualities as peacemaking, gentleness, self-control, and unqualified love for enemies.”Blessed are the peacemakers,” Jesus says, and one of the fruits of the Spirit is “peace.” We are called to live at peace with everyone (Rom. 12:18) and to let the peace of Christ rule in our hearts (Col 3:15). Likewise, we are called to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19). James reminds us that “the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:17-18).

This is part of what it means to be salt and light. When the world looks at Christians, they are supposed to see a remarkable, otherworldly peace, both in our demeanor and in our behavior. We don’t merely have peace of mind or tranquility of spirit, we make peace where there is violence and strife. Peace isn’t merely an end that we have been graciously given by God, it is also a means to an end. We don’t just have peace, nor do we merely long for peace, we sow the seeds of peace, which leads to righteousness.

It is difficult to see how any form of lethal violence fits with these characteristics. And if lethal violence is incompatible with the characteristics we are supposed to display as people of Christ’s Kingdom, how can we act in such a way that risks lethal violence? How can we carry guns when they hold the staggering power to kill or maim at the twitch of a finger? Such quick and deadly violence may indeed save lives, but it doesn’t make peace. The absence of violence does not equal peace. Peace happens when a conflict, whether violent or not, is resolved, not when one party is forced into submission. When one party is forced into submission through violence, the conflict doesn’t really end; it continues, only without the violence. If the party is killed, it negates even the possibility of peace, because it negates the possibility of resolution or reconciliation.

In the New Testament, peace is almost synonymous with reconciliation (e.g. Col 1:20), thus reconciliation ought to be our primary goal as peacemakers.

I agree with John Piper here in that there is no straightforward answer from the New Testament on the questions of violence for the sake of self-defense and defense of innocent victims. On the one hand, we are called to love our neighbor as ourself, which inclines us to act in defense of our victimized neighbor. But the way we are to stand in defense of our victimized neighbor is not as sword-(or gun-)bearing upholder of justice or destroyer of evildoers but as peacemaker. Our distinctive job as ambassadors of Christ (2 Cor 5:20) is to facilitate reconciliation between person to person and person to God (2 Cor 5:18). How can this be possible when we are using a gun to fight back against a gunman?

Such a use of defensive force may be common sense, but it doesn’t do anything to display or advance the Kingdom of God as taught and modeled by Christ. Thus, we ought to view it as a “worldly” way of responding to evil. It is an attempt to overcome evil with evil. The Christian response ought to model distinctly Christian principles and virtues, and there’s nothing distinctly Christian about the use of violent force to take out a violent evildoer.

It is crucial to realize, however, that the moral principles of Christ’s kingdom are not meant to be applied to those outside the Kingdom of God. The only way believers are able to refrain from fighting “against flesh and blood” but instead “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness” and the “spiritual forces of evil” is by putting on “the whole armor of God” (Eph 6:11-13). Without the empowering indwelling of the Spirit, it is impossible to put on the armor of God, because “the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh” (Gal 5:17).

These principles of non-retaliation, love of enemies, and peacemaking are distinctly Christian precisely because we have supernatural empowerment to live them out. Therefore, it is both wrongheaded and pointless to try to force those outside the church, whether individuals or nations, to take on a role which is specifically meant for the church. Hence why Paul asks, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Cor 5:12).

He Who Lives by the Gun Will Die by the Gun

When it comes to the question of whether we Christians ought to arm ourselves, we should draw wisdom from Christ’s saying to Peter in Gethsemane.

When an angry mob (who Matthew describes as “a great crowd with swords and clubs”) came to apprehend Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest. Think about the act itself: Peter used violence in defense of a truly innocent victim against violent aggressors. And yet, when Christ rebukes him, he does not merely say that this must be done to fulfill prophecy. He also gives a moral principle which critiques Peter’s action: “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.” In our present-day context, the saying would go, “He who lives by the gun will die by the gun.”

The statement is structured like a proverb, expressing a general (though perhaps not absolute) truth. Again, it may be argued that this principle holds true only in a limited context, applying only to gospel- or church-related violence. But again, even if this is correct, it makes little sense to say violence in defense of Christ is inherently wrong but violence in defense of other innocent victims is permissible or virtuous.

The general truth of the saying negates the legitimacy of applying violent force for the sake of defending the innocent, because violence begets violence. The use of weapons elicits counteractive use of weapons. Note that, like other proverbial wisdom, this may not hold true in all cases; there may be some instances where a quick shot to an attacker’s head undoubtedly saves lives. But Christ’s saying is a general truth that followers of Christ are to live by.

We are not called to be armed utilitarians—trying to mentally calculate when retaliatory force will save more lives than it kills. We are not to view the end as justifying the means. Rather, we are called to display outrageous love toward both neighbor and enemy.

Love Your Neighbor and Your Enemy

Gun advocates often make the argument that Christians are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, and since there’s nothing loving about sitting by and letting a person be victimized by a violent aggressor, the only proper Christian response to that violent aggressor is to use whatever means necessary to subdue them. Hence carrying a concealed firearm.

There are two flaws in this argument. The first flaw is that it ignores all the New Testament principles which are discussed above. We are called to respond to every situation as Christ would respond to it, and as Christ taught His disciples to respond. The second flaw is the assumption that a nonviolent response is tantamount to passivity—i.e. letting the violent aggressor rape, torture, or kill whomever they want.

To stand by and do nothing while innocent victims are harmed would be unloving. Christians are not called to cower in fear or run away from a violent aggressor harming an innocent person. Nor, I think, are we called merely to pray for God to intervene. On the contrary, I think a distinctly Christian response of the person-being-mugged-in-an-alleyway scenario would be to intervene — but to do so in a way that marks us as loving, peacemaking children of God (Matt 5:45).

The ideal way to intervene in any conflict, as we have already said, would be to act as a mediator and peacemaker, risking our own livelihoods for the sake of mutual reconciliation. Since most violent conflicts begin with an argument that leads to verbal threats, the ideal time to insert oneself is in this buildup to violence. Of course, reconciliation is not always possible, especially when we enter the conflict at its most heated point. If we pass by the alleyway and see a man pointing a gun at a woman, preventive reconciliation may not be possible.

The next best option, I think, would be to put ourselves in harm’s way in order to save the innocent victim. Putting oneself in the line of fire with hands up and a calm, unthreatening face is protective of the victim but also loving and gentle toward the attacker. Sometimes this disarming approach de-escalates the situation—that is the goal. Sometimes it doesn’t, and the attacker instead uses his weapon on you. Hopefully, this at least gives the victim time to escape. In any case, when a Christian identifies him or herself as a follower of Jesus who will do no harm, there is power in that. There is power in the name of Jesus Christ, and invoking His name can never hurt the situation.

Consider this: the moment a Christian inserts himself into a conflict, making clear that he is a follower of Jesus and refuses to fight the attacker no matter what, any suffering he endures after that will be a form of persecution. And as such, it will put on display the loving and self-sacrificial disposition of Christ. What better, more disarming way to show the love of Christ than being willing to lay down one’s life for a friend (John 15:13) — or even an enemy (Rom 5:10)?

And, of course, it is never a bad idea to call the police, if it seems like there’s a reasonable chance they would arrive in time. It is not a sin for a Christian to rely on the police. Policemen are trained to take control of conflict situations and de-escalate violence using the least amount of force necessary. Granted, there are plenty of cases where the police have abused their power, but in general, we must trust in the God-ordained legitimacy of sword-bearing authorities. Christians should not call the police as a way to shirk their enemy-loving, peacemaking duty but rather as a form of “backup” in case our own peacemaking efforts fail.

Again, though, sometimes there is no time to call the police or even to insert oneself between the attacker and the victim. Sometimes the attacker is mentally unstable or drunk or high on drugs or doesn’t speak your language or hardened in some extreme ideology. Even this person we are called to love. But we are also called to love and protect the innocent victim. Sometimes it is most loving to use some measure of physical force to restrain the attacker (tackling, pinning down, pepper-spraying, stun-gunning, tasering) in order to prevent them from committing a heinous sin. It will prevent them from doing something that they may someday deeply regret.

This physical force is not to be carried out in a way that fights “fire with fire” but rather a way that gives the victim a chance to escape without causing permanent injury to the attacker. Permanent injury severely reduces the likelihood of bringing about eventual reconciliation. The point is to restrain or incapacitate immediately, not to engage in a fight. Thus, kicking, punching, slapping, and tripping make little sense as they more often escalate the violence rather than de-escalate it.

How far can we take this line of reasoning? How much physical force can be used while still holding onto our Christian principles of love, peacemaking, and self-sacrifice? If it is sometimes, in dire circumstances, the most loving thing to all parties to use pepper-spray, a stun-gun, or a taser, that means those objects must be carried on a person. So what’s the difference between carrying a stun-gun and carrying a handgun?

The difference, I submit, is in both intention and degree of severity. A stun-gun says that I wish to restrain the violent aggressor without seriously harming him or her. A handgun says that I will harm the violent aggressor however necessary in order to defeat them. The goal, however, is not to defeat one’s enemy but to love them and make peace with them. A handgun may forever destroy one’s chances of making peace with their enemy. A stun-gun merely restrains the person until further peacemaking can be done.

I believe that sometimes, in the direst of circumstances, it is permissible for a Christian to use a limited measure of physical force in order to restrain a violent person. I don’t think of this as “violence” because violence is physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill. It intends to overcome evil by fighting and defeating it. The Christian, however, should never intend to fight or defeat, but rather to love and make peace. Only when absolutely necessary should physical force be used, and only in order to restrain or temporarily impair.

The handgun does more than restrain or impair. Never forget that it is a weapon designed to maim or kill, and that is precisely what it does. Even if a bullet wound doesn’t kill a person, it will leave a lasting wound and a permanent scar. It may even leave the person disabled for life. We may be tempted to think that some people deserve nothing less. Consider the rapist: doesn’t he deserve to die or bear a lifelong wound for the lifelong wound he has undoubtedly caused?

Here we must return to the hard teaching of the New Testament not to retaliate or seek vengeance, for to do so would be to repay evil for evil. Even when everything in us cries out to hurt and destroy the one who has deeply hurt us or our loved ones or innocent strangers, we are taught to love, to have mercy, to make peace, to forgive. Though it may be the hardest thing we ever do, we Christians are called to respond to violent aggressors as Jesus did.

A Father and His Children

Christians are called to love our enemies and to make peace with them because God the Father does precisely this with us (Matt 5:9, 45; Luke 6:35, Rom 5:10). God doesn’t only love those who love him. God loves the whole world (John 3:16), even sinners (Rom 5:8).

So what does God feel when one of his beloved creatures violently attacks another? If a third creature intervenes in this conflict between two of God’s beloved creatures, how would God want him to handle it? Isn’t it obvious why God wants His children to be peacemakers?

Imagine if you were a father or mother, and one of your children comes home one night in a bad mood. Maybe they are drunk or high, or maybe they’ve been influenced by some hateful extremist, or maybe they are mentally disturbed. But in any case, you love them and you know their true worth as a human being. Imagine if that child of yours becomes violent and attacks another one of your children. What do you do? What is your instinctive reaction? Do you immediately go find the gun in the house and shoot your violent child?

No, of course not. No loving parent’s initial reaction is to harm their child, even if he or she is violent. Rather, I would imagine most loving parents would walk through each of the options of peacemaking above before resorting to violence, if they resorted to violence at all. In fact, there would be no greater display of love for that child than for the parent to sacrifice him or herself for the sake of saving his children—all his children, even the hostile one.

This, I believe, is why the author of Hebrews urges Christians to “Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14).

May God grant us the strength to love and make peace with everyone —friend and enemy alike — with the same love and peace He has given us.