Today, John Piper came out of the closet as a pacifist:
I don't really have anything new to say about pacifism that I haven't already said. I would mention in passing that it's muddleheaded for him to equate protecting the weak and innocent with "love of this world" (#5).
But I'd rather focus on a different point: There's an ironic tension between Piper's pacifism and his complementarianism. I believe Piper is a founding member of the CBMW.
As he himself admits, men have a natural protective instinct. An instinct to protect women and children–especially (but not exclusively) their own.
Yet his pacifism requires Christian men to suppress that male instinct. To suppress that male virtue. His pacifism saps masculinity. It generates intense friction between an effeminate pacifist ethic and manly complementarianism.
Look at the impotent handwringing that his position leads to:
A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”
I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances.
I do not know what I would do before this situation presents itself with all its innumerable variations of factors.
That moral paralysis in the face of the obvious course of action is effete and decadent. There's nothing to agonize over in that situation. A man's duty is clear.