Maybe the difference is Elliot et. al. knowingly ventured into a hostile mission environment, but the Iraqi Christians find themselves in a situation they didn’t ask for, aren’t prepared for. I’m not going to Monday morning quarterback them.

While I’m with Moonshadow on not being inclined to second-guess the Iraqi Christians’s decisions, having been raised Mennonite, I am biased toward pacifism, but I don’t believe my spiritual life is the government’s responsibility.
Should the government interfere with the rights of Christians to defend themselves (ours, anyway)? No. Is anything settled by shooting someone who has bloodthirst to shoot you? No. Is there an answer?
Yes. I really do believe Christ can enter the lives of even a Muslim vigilante and change them completely. It’s rare, but it happens–and in Iraq they’d quickly face their own death penalty after conversion. The Christians in Iraq could make this a moment of profound witness. They just can’t guarantee the outcomes, and they’d better be very ready to go to heaven.

Should Christians be able to protect themselves?
Absolutely! By all accounts, the Iraqui Christians did not ask to be harassed. They have been driven by desperation to take these measures. Taking up arms has been an “option of last resort” for them.
An ethic of life includes the right to defend life, including the innocent lives of Christians.
These terrorists are opportunists who are more likely to go after the defenseless than the well-armed. Just by arming themselves, these Christians are saving their own lives without even firing a shot.

I am biased toward pacifism,
Me too … but this news reminds me how untested I am in that:
“… nothing can move me to violence! Nothing!”
http://www.cswap.com/1956/Friendly_Persuasion/cap/en/2_Parts/a/00_23

The contexts of the two situations are not comparable. The missionaries came “in the name of Christ” to further the gospel. Their opposition and deaths were a direct result of their missionary activities.
These Assyrians, the Iraqi Christians, are facing an ethnic threat. The opposition to the Iraqi Christians isn’t based in their “coming in the name of Christ” nor simply because of their identity with Christian doctrine but their ethnicity.
A far more satisfying comparison would be the Jews. Jews are dually identified; genetically and/or as a people who hold to a certain body of religious doctrine. Religiously speaking and relevant to the issues in the middle east and hostility toward them, Jews specifically reject the tenets held by Islam. Hence, even non-believing Jews have come to be viewed as a vile people by those hating them. While it is associated originally and in part to their doctrines and history, it has become an ETHNIC issue in the middle east regarding the hatred persecution of the Jews.
This is the case with an Assyrian. Most of what are called Iraqi Christians, by the way, have little identification with the Protestant Reformation theological persuasion (but that is not actually relevant to the argument just a sidebar). Their history is connected primarily with the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.
Ultimately these people became identified ETHNICALLY and much like the Jews, their persecution is primarily an ETHNIC one. Yes, the theological rejection of Islam is a present awareness in the minds of those persecuting the Assyrians or Iraqi Christians, but that isn’t the cause or primary purpose of their persecution, it is ETHNICALLY based.
Hence, this is truly a civil issue and not a spiritual context as was the case of the missionaries. There is not just precedent but clear doctrine in Scriptures regarding the right of anyone (believer or not) to defend themselves, even to the point of having to kill another person. The issue of self-defense, for the believer in Jesus, IN THE CONTEXT of suffering for the sake of the gospel is not one that should so casually be assigned to the Iraqi Christian context.
The missionaries clearly were there in an Evangelical endeavor as missionaries to further the gospel. The religious identify of a person, such as the Assyrians or Iraqi Christians, does not necessitate or even justify the conclusion or comparison that they are in a context of furthering the gospel and therefore should be compared to, as one considers principles of self-defense, that of the missionaries.
Piper’s personal viewpoint on owning a gun is his. Piper, unfortunately, is a theologian of modern design that has insulated himself from voices other than those that echo his Reformed/Calvinistic error. He writes well enough to present arguments that convince himself and others of lesser consideration all to eager to simply receive him as a hero of Reformed/Calvinism theology with an uncritical disposition as if all debates on all matters have been settled and there is nothing left but to hear the choir. So I think I’ll delay subscription to Piper’s magazine for now. He reminds me of a surgeon who has a knife that can plunge in and cut but with no capacity to draw it back out when the time comes.

Should “Christians” be able to protect themselves?
Should Muslims too?
Should Jews?
Should atheists?
Should homosexuals?
Should schoolchildren in grade 2?
Etcetera.
Maybe if there were fewer guns in the world, people in general (not just the people you happen to like or agree with) would have less to “defend themselves” against.
Swords into ploughshares and all that.

I don’t have a lot to add here. Moonshadow nailed it.

One of the things that’s long amazed me about us Christians is how little belief we have in our salvation.
It’s a horror, a tragedy, a travesty, a sin, and many other evils for Iraqi Christians to be hounded from their homes or killed for nothing other than their Catholic faith in Christ. But “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.” A calm faith in Christ in the face of martyrdom is a high point in Christian witness. I just don’t believe it’s my place to make their decision to be martyred, if they choose it. In fact, I feel I have a role in hospitality to Iraqi refugees.
A few years ago a pastor friend of mine, then age 83, suggested we all should go to Iraq and physically stand with our Iraqi brothers and sisters in Christ, and, to be honest, I looked at him like the poor brother was suffering the onset of dementia. (Ironically, he was a member of the crew that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.) I’m not of a mind to invite martyrdom. I like life, thank God. But I think for both them and us a calm assurance in Christ in the moments of testing is a great witness. I wonder how many there have been in Iraq that have not made the MSM. I wonder what testaments to Christian faith we would know if we could simply make contact.

Should Christians be able to protect themselves and others? This is an ethical question and on a real level is quite easily answered. Sin is any transgression of or any lack of conformity unto a law of God. So, I would assert (not argue since this is a blog) that Biblically justifiable reasons exist for using force, even deadly force, to deal with a threat on one’s life, health, or well-being. It would be an exegetical and theological stretch to assert that a definite duty exists to refrain from ever using such force. Furthermore, under some circumstances, it would be immoral to not use such force if we are able to. Little pertinent parallels exist between any missionary situation and the Iraqi Christians now forming militias to deal with the terrorism they have endured.

Moonshadow nailed it.
{wince}
killed for nothing other than their … faith in Christ.
Ah-ha, but to hear Guy tell it, their ethnicity dooms them, not their faith – if Guy even thinks they’re Christian?

these people defended themselves against a shotgun-wielding nut without guns of their own.

his stated hatred for the liberal movement,”
Good grief. Hmm, yeah. I know someone who just moved to TN but she’s conservative and not UU, so she’s safe, thank God.

i know a couple families that go to a uu church, but not in tennessee, but they’re shaken up over this.
the irony is that his personal situation was worsening because his “liberal” provided programs were running out. what a kook. i wonder if (after cooling off) he will support the more conservative capital punishment?
then, i wonder if we’ll notice anyone missing from this blog?

– Here is what God has to say through his servant Nehemiah:
Nehemiah Chapter 4 (New International Reader’s Version)
12. Then the Jews who lived near our enemies came to us. They told us ten times, “No matter where you are, they’ll attack us.”
13. So I stationed some people behind the lowest parts of the wall. That’s where our enemies could easily attack us. I stationed the people family by family. They had their swords, spears and bows with them.
14. I looked things over. Then I stood up and spoke to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people. I said, “Don’t be afraid of your enemies. Remember the Lord. He is great and powerful. So fight for your brothers and sisters. Fight for your sons and daughters. Fight for your wives and homes.”
15. Our enemies heard that we knew what they were trying to do. They heard that God had blocked their evil plans. So all of us returned to the wall. Each of us did our own work.
16. From that day on, half of my men did the work. The other half were given spears, shields, bows and armor. The officers stationed themselves behind all of the people of Judah. 17. The people continued to build the wall. Those who carried supplies did their work with one hand. They held a weapon in the other hand. 18. Each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked. But the man who blew the trumpet stayed with me.
19. Then I spoke to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people. I said, “This is a big job. It covers a lot of territory. We’re separated too far from one another along the wall. 20. When you hear the sound of the trumpet, join us at that location. Our God will fight for us!”
21. So we continued the work. Half of the men held spears. We worked from the first light of sunrise until the stars came out at night. 22. At that time I also spoke to the people. I told them, “Have every man and his helper stay inside Jerusalem at night. Then they can guard us at night. And they can work during the day.”
23. My relatives and I didn’t take our clothes off. My men and the guards didn’t take theirs off either. Each man kept his weapon with him, even when he went to get water.

he will support the more conservative capital punishment?
Oh, how awful … but he might, he just might. Some people can be curiously consistent.
they’re shaken up over this.
When I’m at a weekday service, the prospect flits through my mind but never on a Sunday.

I heard about this crazy man shooting up a liberal church in Knoxville, TN on the Today Show this morning. He was stopped by brave people at the church who got in front of those he was aiming at and who tackled him.
Interestingly enough, I just saw a one man play on Friday evening by a guy named Mike Daisey.
It was about the Department of Homeland Security, the Atom bomb and Los Alamos, and it was called “If You See Something Say Something.” He said he thought the best response to terrorism was Flight 93 on 9-11.
For him the response of the people on Flight 93, all ordinary people, who decided on the spur of the moment to fight back against the terrorists who took over the plane, was much preferable to the creation of a massive new government institution such as Homeland Security that would not have any ability to be “nimble” in response to terrorist threats.
It’s very important to uphold the rule of law, but when the law breaks down or bogs down in bureaucracy, sometimes the only choice is direct action. That’s why a movie like “Die Hard” has so much mass appeal.

“Oh, how awful … but he might, he just might. Some people can be curiously consistent.”
i think that you’re right. i read later that he fully expected to be shot by police while blasting away at unarmed churchgoers.