Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 204 | Should Christians Own Guns?

Episode Date: January 13, 2020

Is an armed Christian man doing the godly thing if his wife and daughter are threatened? Allie explores the tough issue of the right to bear arms through scripture and the work of Pastor John Piper.

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Thanks so much for listening or watching if you are watching on YouTube. If you do love this podcast, I would greatly appreciate you leaving a review on iTunes or just telling your friends about it, whatever you want to do to show your love of Relatable. That would mean so much to me. You guys have been faithful to do that over the past couple of years and it is awesome. best listeners ever. So thank you so much for that. Today we are going to talk about a subject that I get asked about a lot is the Second Amendment. We're going to talk about it a little bit. Really, I could go in depth into the history of the Second Amendment and all of that. But I want to approach it more from answering it as a Christian because there has been this debate that's kind of broken out over the last couple of weeks among Christians. It's really been around for a

very long time, but it comes and goes about whether or not Christians should own guns. Should we care about the Second Amendment? Should we support the Second Amendment? And so I'm really just going to scratch the surface of that conversation. And the reason we're not going fully into it today is because there are some other questions that I got from you guys that I want to answer. But let's start with this gun debate. So like I said, this has been happening. If not for centuries, at least for decades. And certainly the past few years, years as things have just gotten more and more political, but especially even more recently over the past couple of years, there have been all kinds of divisions within the church about political

issues. And I would say guns probably hasn't been the biggest one. Some of the most divisive issues have been gay marriage, transgenderism, race, abortion. Guns hasn't necessarily been at the forefront. But because a couple of weeks ago, there was that terrible shooting in white settlement, Texas, where the awesome FBI agent shot the shooter in the head. And so instead of dozens of people being killed that day, only two people were killed. And most people, I mean, most people on the right, most conservatives. And I would assume most conservative Christians hailed this guy as a hero, I believe rightly so. I mean, he was brave. He didn't hesitate. I don't hesitate. I I don't know if you have seen the video.

It might be kind of, and I don't say this word ironically. I say this sincerely. It might be kind of triggering. And so, because you do see someone get shot. But you also see a stunning act of heroism of someone who was so well trained that he got out of his gun. He leaned forward. He shot the shooter in the head. And so many people were saved because of that.

I mean, I just think that it is a stunning act of bravery. And I am so thankful for the selfless. and the preparation and the sacrifice of this man, even though he didn't have to sacrifice his life. Thank goodness. He did sacrifice his safety, certainly. So there was a tweet that went out by someone who is a Christian who has an interesting perspective on this, and we went back and forth on Twitter, and I don't know enough about this person, so I'm not questioning their faith. We obviously have different political perspectives. Apparently, we have different political perspectives. Apparently, for theological perspectives too. I'm not going to malign his entire character or his entire

faith or heart or anything like that. I just happened to passionately disagree with this. So he in general said that this guy who shot the shooter that this trained, I think he used to be an FBI agent, but he certainly was well trained with his gun. He owns a gun range in Texas. He said that this guy, this tweeter said that this guy did that pragmatic thing, but not the godly thing. And that Christians are called to be godly, but not pragmatic. So obviously, this got Christian conservative Twitter very upset, and I was included in that. But to give him credit, or to be fair, he is certainly not alone in this thinking. John Piper, for example, he wrote an article back in 2015 that is titled, Should Christians Be able to Arm Themselves? And I will link it. It's from Desiring God.

want you to be able to read that on your own. As always, John Piper, it lays out a very biblical argument, or it's an argument that is based in the Bible. And I love John Piper. I go to him as my source, not personally, I don't know him personally, but I go to Desiring God. I go to his podcast, ask Pastor John for many of my theological questions. And in this particular article that he wrote from this, I have more questions than I do counter arguments to him. I've, would just want to ask a bunch of clarifying questions, and maybe some of them are rhetorical questions. I don't want them to come across as sarcastic, but they are rhetorical. So some of the points that John Piper makes in this article from 2015 is that Christians are not to return evil

for evil, but they are to return evil for good, or evil with good. And I think that's from Romans 12. He makes the point that our hearts are to move away from the desire for self-protection and self-preservation and towards willing suffering and sacrifice. He makes the point that we are to enter into heaven gladly and that that is a testimony of our faith in Christ. He also makes the point that we are to trust in God as our refuge, not in a gun. So he also says, well, here's one of my first questions that he does address in this article and that I did ask the person who tweeted that this man who defended his church,

against a mass shooting did an ungodly thing. This is the question I have and John Piper addressed it. Would you protect your wife and kids from an armed intruder? Or would you simply stand to the side? Would you try to karate chop them? Like what would be the options here? And I didn't say this part, but I'll say it now. And it's kind of graphic because I really want people to think about this who hold to the position that John Piper apparently does and that this guy apparently does just to put this into focus. And I'm warning you now, you probably don't want your kids to hear what I'm about to say. Could any Christian man honestly say that if his wife and daughter were being raped, were being assaulted and murdered in his own home or wherever he can see it, and he had the

power, he had the ability to do something about it, that this man would not employ every possible tool that he had to stop it? If the criminal had a gun and therefore he probably couldn't be stopped by hand-to-hand combat, at least not effectively, would it be the loving and godly thing to do for this husband and father to sit back and to watch or to employ knowingly ineffective tactics or ineffective means to protect his wife and daughter when he could have a very effective meme. It means in wielding a firearm. Now, Piper says that this question is ethical reductionism, but I don't think so. I think so. I think. think it's a legitimate question. Because if we shouldn't protect ourselves against violence and

instances of religious persecution, should we, according to his interpretation, protect ourselves against other kinds of violence? And beyond that, can we protect other people? Is that, according to John Piper's interpretation and this guy who tweeted this, is that godly? Is a husband who refuses to defend his family against violence? Really loving his wife, as Christ loves the church, as he's called to do in Ephesians 5? It's just, I'll just be honest with you, it is very hard for me to see how a capable man stepping aside or employing ineffective memes like some kind of karate chop or, I don't know, trying to stop him from wielding his AR-15 with his bare hands, that to me, when you have the

option of having an equalizer of a gun, a stepping aside or using ineffective means, it to me it seems it seems like cowardice it seems wrong it seems like not a true reflection of God the Father, not a true reflection of the sacrificial behavior of Christ other questions that I have in this

am I loving my neighbor if I see that he, she or she is in danger and I don't help them by doing what I can defend off their attacker? Am I really helping the least of these if I don't use whatever means I can to defend the vulnerable against murder or violence. I may be taking the life of the shooter or attacker, but in doing so, I'm also saving the life of dozens, maybe hundreds of people. Sure, the ideal would be to stop their violence without deadly force. I agree with that,

but what if that's not possible? Should I just stand by a watch? Should I hide as women and children and babies and handicapped people as people who can't defend themselves get slaughtered? that really my most loving role? Is that how I care for the least of these? I just don't see, I don't see that being the biblical case. Is defense with a gun? This is another question that I have. Is defense with a gun the only impermissible form of defense according to this pacifist interpretation? What if you kill someone with your bare hands because they're trying to kill someone else? Is that allowed? And if so, why? Why is a gun the only restriction here? In light of the logic of this article is all war also condemned by the New Testament? The biggest thing for me

is that it simply seems to lack compassion, not to do everything possible to help those who are in danger as much as we can. I cannot imagine not taking every measure possible to protect a child, for example, from a murderer or a kidnapper. I am open, of course, to being wrong on this, but I cannot bring myself to agree with this interpretation of this issue. And to go beyond that, when we're not just talking about self-defense or defense of someone else, defense of the vulnerable defense of, which I would argue anyone standing in front of a shooter is vulnerable, but especially people who are physically incapable of defending themselves. I mean, I just cannot imagine that the godly thing to do would be to stand by

and to watch that happen as a baby is gunned down. If I am physically able to stop it, I cannot imagine that that is what that is the right thing to do. I just can't. But even beyond that, if we're just talking about the defense of the Second Amendment, I very much think that there is a Christian defense for the Second Amendment, not because you have to be a gun, not you don't even have to own a gun yourself. You could be totally uncomfortable with guns yourself and still support the Second Amendment.

Why? Because you believe in what the founders believed in. like you believe in a protection from tyranny. And people say, oh, well, that's, that doesn't mean anything today. You're not really afraid of tyrants. Yes, the Second Amendment protects the First Amendment. It protects the other amendments. There is a practical and even a big picture reason for Americans being able, being free to own a gun. And you don't have to own a gun to see that the Second Amendment protects the first. So if you were a Christian who cares about the First Amendment, you care about free speech, you care about freedom of religion, you care about freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government, freedom to assemble, you care about all of these very precious liberties that matter so much, that don't, of course, God is not limited or freed by our Constitution, but who have created so much human flourishing. If you're a Christian who cares about the First Amendment, then you necessarily have to care about the Second Amendment.

Yes. And of course, there's just the argument for personal liberty in general. And again, I'm going to make the least of these argument. It's hard for me to justify, I can't make an argument for having compassion. For example, for the single mom who lives in the inner city, who is protecting their child, who is up against the threat of violence every night. I cannot justify a policy that would make it illegal for her to own. own a fire arm. I just can't see how that is the compassionate and the godly take. Again, I think we should be against violence in general, violence that the Bible rules as bad violence. There is, sometimes there is effective violence. There is, I don't want to say good violence, but I guess necessary violence. We should be as peaceful as we possibly can. We should be as submissive as we possibly can, while always looking out for the needs of other people, for the safety and the protection of other people. And I do think for the safety and protection of yourself to a degree, yes, we know that every human being, every Christian who wields the gospel or who shares the gospel, every Christian is going to suffer for the name of Christ.

And I'm not saying we should constantly be seeking comfort. But I also don't see a good biblical case for purposely, for purposely making ourselves vulnerable when we do have this incredible freedom and this incredible right to defend ourselves and our families and our communities and our neighborhoods from evil. So again, I'm open to being wrong on this. I am open to conversation about this, but it's very, it's very hard for me to see that the compassionate take is to rob people of their right to own a gun and to not save other people from an attacker who has a gun with our own guns. I just, I don't see it. I don't see the logic behind it. Okay, I'm going to answer some of the questions that you guys have. Okay, I want to talk

about a trend that people have asked me about in the past, and I keep meaning to do a podcast episode on it, and I just have it. So you guys have probably seen the phrase, okay, boomer. And it's gotten to the point to where it's not really funny anymore. It kind of had its heyday to where people were saying okay boomer. And if you don't know what it means, I'll tell you what it means because many of you have escaped the terrible clutches of Twitter in your life. You've decided not to be on Twitter. So you might, maybe you've never heard of OK Boomer. And for that, you should be grateful. But it's basically in response to something someone says that is baby boomer like. So something that is outdated or even something that is kind of like more conservative like pull yourself up by your

bootstraps or anything that is like traditional people will say okay boomer too or if you complain about something or you complain to someone someone might call you like a karen it's kind of all in the same boat okay boomer it's making fun of the baby boomer generation there's a lot of young people that have a huge problem with the baby boomer generation that blame baby boomers for all of our economic problems, for all of our social problems, for all of our political divisiveness, which is just hilarious. I mean, younger generations have been doing this forever. And older generations have been looking at younger generations for a long time and have been saying that, you know, y'all are going to ruin everything, which I don't happen to disagree. It might,

I'm wondering if Generation Z like has its name for a purpose because it's just going to be the end. where not America is not going to carry on anymore because Generation Z, that's another thing I wanted to talk about. I read an article that Generation Z is the most biblically illiterate generation that has ever existed in the United States. I have absolutely no problem believing that whatsoever. Not only have they been indoctrinated by public schooling for the most part, but they have also just their mind have been so infected by social media and media in general. They just don't know. And they have so many lies that filled their mind and they just don't. know. And I just don't think that they are taught the same critical thinking skills and tools of analysis that a lot of older people believe, not all generations-e, of course, but a good chunk of them. Anyway, so it might be true. Baby boomers and the silent generation might be correct

and saying that the younger generations really are going to ruin the country. But, yes, a lot of younger generations have complained about older generations for a long time. And maybe some of the complaints are true. Maybe some of the economic problems or because of the baby boomers, maybe they have some outdated ideas, whatever. It's really what I've noticed is that it's mostly, like, it's mostly the people on the left that are saying that, for example, young people, if they take out a debt to pay for college, they should pay that debt back and not rely on someone else to pay that debt for them. Any kind of argument for taking responsibility, someone will say, okay boomer too. And the point that I want to make is with all of this is that there is this

I don't like it. I'll just say that. I don't like the whole okay boomer thing. First of all, I never thought it was funny. It's used by people who don't really have an argument for something that someone is saying. And maybe someone is making an argument that's a bit out of touch or outdated, but I don't like the generational warfare. I just don't like it. I feel like I can criticize millennials because I am a millennial and there are many things that I do and think and say that are very millennial like I'm very much a typical millennial in a lot of ways and a lot of ways I'm not I got married young I have a kid I am conservative I am a Christian who goes to church so in that way I'm not a typical millennial but in a lot of ways I totally am with social media and

Amazon and Uber Eats and all of the quick and easy stuff that millennials are addicted to. So am I. Netflix, all of that. So I feel like I can criticize people in my own generation, but this generational warfare stuff of young people saying that baby boomers are the source of all of their problems. It's just, in my opinion, it is just another consequence of Marxism. It's just another consequence of the divisiveness that leftism has really stoked over the past few years. There's class warfare, and so you see a lot of people on Twitter saying eat the rich, not just on Twitter, just in general, as socialism becomes more mainstream in America. You see a lot of people obviously talking about how white, obviously we agree that white supremacy is a problem, but labeling things that aren't white supremacy. is white supremacy, making the stupid claim that only white people can be racist. And so you see a lot

of racial warfare. You see the left propagating religious warfare, demonizing not just Christians, but also Jewish people. You see, so you see class warfare, you see religious warfare, you see racial warfare, you see cultural warfare. The left is constantly pitting one group against the other. And the reason why I say it's a Marxist mentality is because Marxist taught to view the world between or through the lens of the oppressor versus the oppressed. And so they constantly have to give people oppression points and decide who gets the most social or cultural or political capital. And so if you've got, you know, a white man versus a white woman, then the white woman has more oppression points. And so you have to believe her like in the case

of Dr. Ford and so on. So I've talked about intersectionality many times. That's the tool that they used to decide who is on the side of the oppressed, who is on the side of the oppressor. And that's why it's so hard for them to talk about, for example, a situation in which like the black Hebrew nationalist, the cult group that has been attacking Jews in parts of the country, they won't talk about that because that messes with their whole intersectional idea that white supremacy is the only problem of racism that we have. The truth is white supremacy isn't the only problem of racism that we have. We have lots of different forms of racism in this country. Some of it has to do with white people. Some of it doesn't have to do with white people. But the Marxist

mentality will not allow them to take notice of that because they are so entrenched in this idea of the oppressed versus the oppressor. They have to see people only as associated to their groups and they don't see people as individuals. And so they have to assign oppression points according to your group associations, not to who you are as an individual, and that makes their world view totally messed up. So all that to say, that is what causes them to constantly wage warfare one group against another. So male versus female, gay versus straight, black versus white, immigrant versus non-immigrant. And of course, you could say the conservatives have waged that same kind of war. It's just in a different way and coming from a different place. And we've talked

about that before, but it's also a generation versus generation. So to me, the OK boomer, as innocuous as it might seem, is actually a pretty gross product of the division that we have in our country that is much thanks, not entirely thanks, but is much thanks to the Marxism that has become so popular over the past, I mean, it's been around for a long time, but especially over the past decade. And as I always say, certainly Christians, or not Christians, but conservatives have their own fault in this. President Trump hasn't been the most unifying president that we have ever had. He hasn't been the most divisive either, but he hasn't been the most unifying conservatives or not a unifying across the board. But Marxism is certainly what has drawn us apart. The left and the right started coming far, far apart, becoming more and more polarized. Not during President Trump's presidency, as we always talk about, but during President Obama's presidency. that is when we moved so far apart ideologically. And Marxism, far leftism had a huge part of that. I mean, you can look at the studies that I always cite on Pew Research that show

there are a lot more people on the far left than there are on the far right. And they have moved that way over the past 10 years, whereas the right has stayed pretty much in the same place. So I'm just saying I don't like, I think the OK boomer thing is immature. And I also just think it's a product. of the oppressed versus the oppressor, stupid dynamic, Marxist dynamic that's been going on. And I don't think that it's productive because there might be mistakes. Sure, I'm sure there are mistakes that baby boomers made.

There are mistakes that every generation made. But we would be very, we would be totally remiss if we did not learn from, that's our parent's generation. If you're a millennial, your parent is a baby boomer. if they were born, I think it's between 1946 and 1966. I think that's what it is. My parents were born in 1960, and so they're baby boomers. I mean, you would be so stupid not to learn from them because every generation makes mistakes,

but they still have decades of wisdom on us, decades of experience. And a lot of our families, a lot of our parents were the first parents in their entire family line to actually make something of themselves, to actually be financially successful, to actually be able to provide something for us that they weren't provided for. That was definitely true of my family. I think that's true of a lot of your parents too. So we would be absolute idiots, not to learn from them when it comes to leadership, when it comes to business, when it comes to life, when it comes to spirituality. They don't have it all together. No generation dies. But we are missing out on a lot if we think that we are the sources of our own wisdom. And that explains why a lot of young

people on the left are as naive as they are. Why they are so enchanted by socialism and even communism. I saw a poll the other day that said 36% of young people think that communism isn't bad. Newsflash communism and Nazism is same amount of evil. Same amount of evil. Okay. I know that's a controversial statement, but it's true. Communism is just as evil as Naziism. But that would probably be way a lot of people on the lefts are the way that they are. They are unwilling to learn from people, certainly Generation Z. And I think we're probably all like this when we're teenagers in young 20s, but unwilling to learn from people that are older than us.

That doesn't mean that we have to agree with all of their ideas, but it does mean that we should draw wisdom from them. And every time someone says something that we don't like or we feel it's outdated, every time if we just respond with OK Boomer, I mean, first of all, it's just not funny anymore. And secondly, I think that it is, I think that it's indicative of immaturity and in unwillingness to learn the things that we need to learn. And another thing is my dad and I talk about this a lot. So there is a consequence with this whole generational warfare and the liberal.

and the liberalization of younger generations. One consequence of that is that people are getting married later. Now I know a lot of you out there, you want to be married, but you just haven't found anyone, so I'm certainly not speaking to you, but to the people who have purposely put off marriage until they're 35 and then they have kids when they're 40. Again, I'm not talking to those of you who maybe that wasn't part of your plan, but that just happened. I'm talking to the people who decided, you know, I'm just going to commit to my career until I'm 35 and I'm not going to get married on purpose and I'm just going to have one kid when I'm 38.

One of the natural consequences of that is that kids, like this next generation of kids, they're not going to have grandparents. Like their grandparents are going to be 80 years old when they're born, whereas I so benefited from having a close relationship with my grandmother, my husband, had a close relationship with his grandparents. I so benefited from her wisdom, from her presence in my life, from her companionship, from her spiritual shepherding. I mean, grandparents are so valuable in the lives of children and in the lives of parents. Like I can't imagine not being able to have my parents to go to for parenting advice and just life advice in general. So one consequence of this hyper individualization that our society has latched on to that has resulted in people getting married later and having kids later and later. One consequence of that is going to be a lack of grandparents.

At least the grandparents are going to be too old by the time their child or their grandchild is old enough to appreciate them, that they're not going to have any kind of influence or relationship. And that's a problem. That's a problem. That's a huge problem that we're not going to be able to have that wisdom on hand from older generation. So just something, just something to think about. I think that's a very negative consequence, by the way, and I'm very thankful for my parents who also happen to be baby boomers. Okay. There was one other question about, there was one other question that I wanted to answer that really had nothing to do with any of this stuff. But I asked you guys to send me questions

that I want to try to get to as many as I can, but I'm just going to leave on this one. So someone asked me what I think about. So this is for moms. If you're not a mom, you might not understand what I'm about to say. But if you are a mom, you might understand. So someone asks me what I think about, Fed is Best. And it kind of maybe has to go with what you're just talking about. So Fed is best is a phrase that's used in the mom community, especially online, to say whether you nurse your baby or whether you get formula to your baby. All that matters is that your baby is fed.

And I don't know where this person who is asking me the question is coming from. So I'm not going to assume that. I just, to be candid, I in general, I in general agree with that. Yes, Fed is best, whether you feed your child formula or you nurse your child, Fed is obviously best. If you are committed to nursing your baby and it's just not working, like baby isn't latching, you're not producing enough, whatever, then that's not best. And, you know, obviously it would be time to move on according to whatever your pediatrician says, whatever you can do to sustain. and to nourish your child is obviously the best roots. I think the question is coming from a place of do I feel that people use that phrase simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced by nursing or they just don't like nursing and so they've just decided not to do it. It's really, I'm very slow.

I am very slow to give any kind of judgment or condemnation on that because there's so many different variables that come with feeding your child and I do not claim to know all of it, but I have gotten this question a couple of times. Of course, I believe that any choice that we make for our child, whether it comes to nursing them or whether it comes to school or whatever it is, any choice that we make for our child that is based on our own, strictly on our own convenience and not for what is best for them is probably not the best choice. Now, I do think that our lives and our mental health, if you will, obviously factors into the choices that we make for our children 100%. But are we also called to do things that are hard,

that are uncomfortable, that are painful, that benefit our children, yes. And so it's a balance. That's really all I can say. I know that's kind of general because I, we exclusively nurse, there are a lot of people that I know that don't and wanted to, and there are a lot of people that have chosen not to. It's very hard for me to say what is best for everyone in that situation, but any choice that we make, no matter what it is as a mom that is strictly based on our selfishness, that is strictly based on our comfort and convenience, is probably not the right choice to make. But when it comes to this particular issue, it's so hard to say what is best for a particular mother and child. And in general, I mean, I do trust that.

women make the best decision. I don't think that there are very many moms who are only saying, I only want to do what's best for me and I don't care what's best for my baby. I mean, I hope that's not true. I know we talk a lot about the toxic mom culture online who is constantly talking about how terrible mother is and how mothering is and how terrible their kids are. And that's awful. And I hope that this is not a consequence of that of people just not caring what's good for their kids. But I think most moms want to do what is best for their children while also considering as much as they have to their own health. So that's all I have to say on that. Okay, those are all the questions that I'm going to answer today. I always take way longer and so I'm not

able to answer them. But I am doing Instagram live. So tune in there. I don't know what I'm going to do it this week. But I'll let you know. And thank you so much for listening as always. and we will be back soon.