Peter Enns, "John Piper & Canaanite Genocide"

Enns:

Pro and con, to my post on John Piper and his view on Canaanite genocide and his view that, “It’s right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases.” 

I will say, however, that, although some pushback comments were very insightful and brought to the table issues of importance, a number of them were implicitly working from a false, though common, dichotomy: pitting against each other (1) engagement of Scripture informed by what we know of ancient context, and (2) any notion of biblical authority, inspiration, etc.

Such a posture is a lamentable innovation of recent generations of Fundamentalist influence on how Christians think about the Bible, prompted by some uncomfortable developments in biblical studies over the last two centuries. But in truth, the church has a long track record, going back to the 2nd century, of grappling with, let’s call it, the problem of history in the Bible, i.e., what it means for a transcendent God to speak within the humble and limiting circumstances of the human drama.
Of particular interest at the outset was how God’s actions in the Old Testament, especially his violence, can be squared with the not only the ethics of the gospel but common reason and decency. One early solution that stuck was to read these passages of violence allegorically. At the end of the day, I don’t think that solution works, but let’s not lose sight of the motivating factor:

God does things in the Old Testament that cause theological problems for Christians, and so we have to think about what to do about them.

We today are latecomers to this conversation, although some, apparently, do not seem to be aware that it is even an issue.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

"Christian Leaders and Their Cartoon Counterparts"

I was checking my email updates, and Sojourners just nailed this. I couldn't stop laughing. Quite good. Enjoy.

Sojo:

To see Joel Osteen, Brian McLaren and others, click HERE.

--Nick

Olson, "Inerrnacy & Definition/s"

Olson:

Kenton (“Kent”) Sparks is professor of biblical studies at Eastern University (American Baptist) in Pennsylvania. He has authored books such as Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible and God’s Word in Human Words. He identifies as an evangelical. Some critics will question that identification, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and view “evangelical” as a fuzzy category.

In my opinion, a person can be evangelical without adhering all the way to every part of the so-called “received evangelical tradition” (stamped as that tends to be by Old Princeton theology).
Without question Sparks’ argument is bold—at least among evangelical and relatively conservative Protestants. It will be interesting to see how it plays out among moderate to progressive (postconservative) evangelicals.

What’s especially interesting about the book is Sparks’ response to the Old Testament “texts of terror”—something we have discussed here quite a lot. If I understand his thesis correctly, it is very similar to what I have argued here—that the Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New and that, at least occasionally, reports in the Old Testament (about what God commanded people to do) must be relativized in light of the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ who is the Word of God in person.

Here is one especially clear statement of the book’s overall thesis:

Scripture, as a book written by fallible human beings, is itself a book of theological discourse that that advances the truth but also stands in need of redemption. Scripture is beautiful and broken, and it is being read and studied in the church, and sometimes outside of the church, by beautiful and broken human beings. Nevertheless, Christians have theological and philosophical reasons to suppose that, when we read Scripture well, we are able to understand it. And as we understand it, we shall find that God’s truth and beauty run deeper, and are more potent, than the brokenness that God is healing. (88)

In other words, according to Sparks, there are records in Scripture that simply cannot be trusted as true because of the Bible’s humanity. He begins with blatant contradictions such as the accounts of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and death in Matthew and Acts; they cannot be reconciled. Most people are not particularly bothered by that. Only neo-fundamentalists find it necessary to try to harmonize them. The differences are not important theologically. One can easily respond to them by saying that, in spite of such contradictions, the Bible is “perfect with respect to purpose” (John Piper). We can chalk such flaws to human fallibility so long as we hold to a dynamic rather than verbal view of inspiration. (By “verbal inspiration” here I mean the idea that God led the writers to the exact words he wanted them to use. By “dynamic inspiration” here I mean the idea that God led the writers to the ideas he wanted them to record but allowed their personalities and cultures and fallible memories, etc., to affect what they wrote.)

What will trouble many evangelicals more is Sparks’ handling of the Old Testament texts of terror:

Where we judge that Scripture presents God as saying or doing something he would not say or do, we should confess that “these texts tell us more about the purposes of their human authors than about the purposes of God.” We will simply admit that the author of Deuteronomy wrongly believed (as Luther did) that God told his people to slaughter their enemies. To express in theological jargon, Scripture includes both “God-talk” (first-order words from God to humanity) and “god-talk-talk” (mistaken, second-order accounts of what God has supposedly said. This is an important distinction…. (105-106)

Telling the difference between these two types of texts is a matter of Christological discernment, not cultural accommodation. Sparks adamantly rejects any idea that his proposal is based on modern sentiments. To those who disagree he rightly points back to church fathers such as Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom and others who freely admitted that the texts of terror in question could not be taken at face value. The way premodern Christians handled them was to allegorize them. That method isn’t open to us. So where does that leave us?

 For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

John Piper and the Gay Marriage Amendment

Star Tribune:

Two key conservative evangelical leaders in Minnesota are not endorsing the marriage amendment or directing followers to vote for it, marking the first time during debate over the measure that major faith leaders have not encouraged members to take a stand on the issue.

Influential preacher and theologian the Rev. John Piper came out against gay marriage during a sermon Sunday but did not explicitly urge members of his Minneapolis church to vote for the amendment.

The Rev. Leith Anderson, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's longtime pastor, also said this week he does not plan to take a public side on the amendment, which would change the state Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Religious observers say the lack of formal backing from the two influential figures could signal that evangelical leaders in Minnesota are taking a less active role in supporting the amendment -- a marked departure from evangelicals in dozens of other states where similar amendments have passed.

"Don't press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism," Piper said during his sermon, posted on Bethlehem Baptist Church's website. "Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative mandates, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word."

Piper had been under pressure from conservative groups to weigh in on the amendment, according to his spokesman David Mathis, adding that Piper did not hold back over concerns the church could lose its tax-exempt status.

"Basically our position is, we're not taking one as a church," Mathis said. "And by addressing this in June rather than October or early November, there's no effort here for political expediency, trying to get certain votes out of people."

"He [Piper] wants to avoid the political realm as much as possible. The Christian Gospel is not left, it's not right. It is what it is."

President of the National Association of Evangelicals, Anderson stepped down in December as senior pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie and said it's inappropriate to take a stand on the amendment because he's no longer an active pastor. Anderson noted he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage in a 2004 pastoral letter to Wooddale congregants.

"When churches start getting really politically engaged, they often lose focus over what is their primary mission," Anderson said in an interview.

"There are appropriate times to do it [be politically engaged]. I think churches should, but they need to be careful about what they do. I especially think churches should seek to be nonpartisan in their approach to teaching moral truths."

The Rev. Mark Poorman, senior pastor at Woodcrest Baptist Church in Fridley, said he has encouraged his congregants to vote for the amendment and is disappointed Anderson and Piper won't join him.

"It would have been nice to hear him [Piper] be a little more dogmatic."

I confess, I'm surprised to hear another pastor ask Piper to be more dogmatic. Good for Piper. It sounds like he has been taking cues from Greg Boyd. ;)

Question:

How involved should Pastors be in regards to politics?

For the rest of the article, click HERE.

--Nick

Austin Fischer, "The New Calvinism and Preaching"

Austin Fischer:

My Conversion…to Calvinism

I was converted to Calvinism because of the preaching of John Piper. I was in high school and somebody gave me a book he had written. I read it, understood some of it, and then began listening to his sermons and through the process of listening to sermon after sermon, eventually discovered I was a Calvinist.

My story isn’t unique. Indeed, I think most people’s conversion to Calvinism goes something along the lines of, “Well I started listening to Piper/Chandler/Driscoll/Chan’s preaching and woke up one day a Calvinist.” There’s no mystery here: it’s a rare occurrence when one consistently sits under someone’s preaching and doesn’t pick up on his/her theological presuppositions. The mystery is why so many people are currently listening to Neo-Calvinist preaching. And by this I mean, what are the causes for the proliferation of prominent Calvinist preachers with so much influence and appeal, especially among younger generations?

Better Preaching Material?

C. Michael Patton recently examined this issue on his blog and his hypothesis is that in the current cultural climate, Calvinism just preaches better (than its alternatives, Arminianism in particular). By this he means that in a world of ambiguity, skepticism, and uncertainty, Calvinism’s emphasis on the absolute sovereignty of God is better preaching material than any sort of free will theism. As Patton says, “Evangelicals love to hear about the sovereignty of God, the glory of God in suffering, the security of God’s grace, the providence of God over missions, and yes, even the utter depravity of man. This stuff preaches. This stuff sells tickets.”[1]

In the opening chapter of Against Calvinism, Roger Olson makes a similar connection by suggesting that Calvinism’s emphasis on certainty and sovereignty has been an anchor for those seeking refuge from the difficulties of finding faith in a postmodern context.[2]

I think Patton and Olson are clearly on to something. Although I’m no specialist on the matter, it’s always seemed to me that Calvinism is far more at home in modernity than postmodernity. 

Calvinism, once accepted, provides an inner logic with virtually no loose ends that offers its adherents a strong sense of certainty. Calvinists believe God is in absolute control, that no event happens unless God ordains it, and so in any and all circumstances they can be absolutely certain that God’s exact plan is unfolding. So for those going through certainty withdrawals, Calvinistic preaching can be a welcome remedy, especially when it is articulated with the passion of people like Piper and Driscoll. In other words, they are preaching that we can have certainty and they are preaching it with certainty. And this stuff does indeed sell!

As such, I think the current appeal of Calvinist preaching has less to do with passion and more to do with certainty. Thus, I would contend that it is not so much that Calvinism preaches better as it is that certainty preaches better. It always has and always will, but it is especially appealing in a postmodern context (or post-postmodern, or whatever we are in now), which seems inundated with ambiguity. I might go even further and argue that at the heart of most passionate movements, you will find a message of certainty preached with certainty.

Of course the larger issue is whether or not certainty, while obviously desirable, is responsible. This is a nuanced and contentious issue, but one I think needs some serious attention. I have argued elsewhere that certainty in our beliefs about God is not merely bad manners but bad theology.[3] In other words, of course preaching certainty with certainty is going to sell and create a movement. But does it create good disciples?

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

C. Michael Patton, "Why Arminianism Doesn't Sell"

I thought this was quite interesting. 

I made an observation recently that may be completely off base, or it may just betray the reality of the tight Evangelical circles in which I travel most of the time. Either way, here it is:

Calvinists have a corner on theologically-themed conferences. Arminians have apologetically-themed conferences. Leadership conferences don’t do theology.

Is this true? It seems true from my standpoint. Think about the major conferences out therethat are theological in nature: Desiring God, Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and Ligonier Ministries. All of them fill churches and arenas with thousands of people. Passion fills the air as speakers talk about theological issues in the church. John Piper, Don Carson, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, Tim Keller, and the like are invited to speak. Diversity runs deep in these theology conferences. Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians, paedobaptists and credo baptists, charismatics and non-charismatics, and premillenialists and amillenialists are all represented. However, it is hard to find an Arminian invited to (much less putting together) such engagements. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect that it is because Arminianism, as a theological distinctive, just does not preach. Don’t get me wrong. I did not say that Arminians can’t preach. They most certainly can. And I did not say that Arminianism is not true (This is not the question on the table). It is simply that the distinctives of Arminianism do not sell in such settings. Evangelicals love to hear about the sovereignty of God, the glory of God in suffering, the security of God’s grace, the providence of God over missions, and yes, even the utter depravity of man. This stuff preaches. This stuff sells tickets.

For the Arminian to put together a distinctive conference, things would be a bit less provocative. Things like “The Responsibility of Man in Suffering,” “Man’s Role in Salvation,” or “The Insecurity of Salvation” won’t preach too well. Think about how hard it is for a Calvinist to try to plug in a token Arminian at a general theology conference. On what subject do you let them speak? “Roger Olson, I would like you to come to our conference and speak on . . . (papers ruffling) . . . ummm . . . (papers ruffling more) . . . Do you do anything in apologetics (except suffering)?”

Of course, there was the John 3:16 conference, which was Arminian. But that was not a general theology conference. It was a specific conference which amounted to a polemic against Calvinism. During the conference, the speakers simply countered all five points of Calvinism. This is symptomatic of so much of the Arminian distinctives with regard to their message. Much of the time Arminianism is simply seen as “Against Calvinism,” whereas Calvinism is more affirmatively focused on the sovereignty of God. Even the latest books published on the subject betray such a reality: For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger Olson. I think one can find this same general approach in the theological blogosphere. Calvinists have something they are for, while Arminians are always on the defensive, fighting what they are against. Finally, as far as I know, the John 3:16 conference only happened once (in 2008). That it, or anything like it, has not been renewed or rebooted may serve to prove my observation.

Now, apologetics seems to be a different story. Not only to do you have Arminians filling the pulpit when it comes to defending the faith, they seem to dominate. William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Norman Geisler, and Gary Habermas are all on the roster. It is “Team Biola.” This is not to say that Calvinists don’t do apologetics. However, they normally do so in a less “evidentialist” style that just won’t teach. Have you ever tried to teach people to defend the faith using presuppositional and transcendental arguments? Enough said. The simple observation I am making is that apologetics is heavily dominated by Arminians today. However, I don’t think there is anything distinctive about Arminianism which would make them more equipped to hold apologetics conferences. Perhaps, the focus on the free will of man makes the whole apologetics enterprise more necessary and effective in Arminianism. Theoretically, Calvinists, because of their compatibleness (holding the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in tension), could teach evidentiary apologetics just as truly as an Arminian. ”Did Christ Rise from the Grave?”, “Who is Jesus?”, “Is God a Moral Monster?”, or “Responding to the New Atheists” are all topics on which Calvinists and Arminians could teach together without sacrificing their theological integrity. There may be some distinction with a topic such as “If God is Real, Why is There Evil?” But that is the only apologetic issue which I think could be an exception in this group of topics.

Leadership conferences, on the other hand, are normally very diverse. Why? In all probability, they are not very theological in nature. Stirring passion about finishing strong, leading by serving, and preparing a sermon does not require any theological commitment one way or another. However, if the leadership conference turns on men’s issues or women’s issues, the complementarian/egalitarian elephant enters the room. And, generally speaking, most complementarians are Calvinist and most egalitarians are Arminian.

That said, these observations are not timeless. They are what I see today. I think they represent the chicken or the egg question (I don’t know which comes first) to the resurgence of Calvinism in the pews today. My hypothesis is that Calvinism preaches better than Arminianism. In a confused world of suffering and pain, we want to know that God has it under control, not man. Calvinism instigates more of a dramatic change in theology than does Arminianism. We are more naturally inclined toward the Arminian idea of free will and God’s sovereignty. People normally don’t “become” Arminians. But nearly all Calvinists can tell of a passionate “conversion” experience as to how Calvinism dramatically changed their way of thinking about God. This creates incredible passion. Therefore, we invite Calvinists only to these theology conferences (even when the organization, itself, claims to be more broadly Evangelical). And people leave with a full heart. On the other hand, when we want to fight against the New Atheists, we do not need to discriminate against the finer points of theology too much. Therefore, we invite either Arminian or Calvinist apologists.

C. Michael Patton

--Nick

Roger Olson, "John Piper and Pietism?"

I'm just beginning to study this issue, and found this to be interesting. 

Recently John Piper declared himself a pietistic Reformed person.

See: Desiring God Q&A

As someone who likes to think of myself as a Pietist and even (others will have to judge to what extent this is true) an expert on Pietism, I have been asked by several people what I think of that claim.

First, it’s essential to make a distinction between Pietism as a movement and pietism as an ethos. The ethos can exist where the movement no longer does or never did.

As a movement, Pietism was launched by the ministries of Philip Jakob Spener, August Hermann Francke and their (mostly) Lutheran colleagues in Germany in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. It spread to most of Protestant Europe and North America and through Moravian missions to India, Central America and eventually most of the world.

Only remnants of the original Pietist movement still exist–in denominations and organizations that identify themselves with the Pietist movement historically and theologically. For example, The Moravian Church and the Evangelical Covenant Church of America. I would say the Renovare organization is a contemporary revival of Pietism.

The pietist ethos, however, is found in virtually every Protestant denomination and has even filtered into the Catholic Church in many places–especially the U.S.

The ethos is harder to describe than the movement. But, if the ethos is not going to be compatible with anything and everything, it must have some historical roots in and connection with the movement. So I return to the original movement to define the ethos and identify its contemporary presence.

In order to keep this relatively brief, I will tell what I think pietism as an ethos MUST include:

1) Belief that authentic Christianity always involves a decision for Christ and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (“conversional piety”).

2) Belief that conversional piety, within a supernatural frame of reference, is the enduring, permanent essence of Christian life.

3) Personal practice of conversional piety in a life of devotion to Jesus Christ through prayer and Bible reading.

4) An irenic spirit that seeks to follow the motto “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” where “essentials” refers to basic Protestant orthodoxy (Trinity, deity of Christ, atonement, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, etc.)

5) An emphasis on personal holiness that, without legalism, promotes pursuit of Christian perfection (even if that is believed to be impossible before death) through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

Now, does Piper fit that profile? The one historical feature of Pietism and pietist ethos that I’m not sure he embodies is the irenic spirit. I’m sure he thinks he does and I’m sure his followers think he does. I’m not sure he does in the sense I take it to mean.

There is nothing about Reformed theology per se that puts it in conflict with Pietism or the pietist ethos. (Although virtually all the original Pietists were synergists, not monergists.) Certainly a Calvinist can be pietistic.

I define the pietist ethos as necessarily including a broad vision of who can be Christian that emphasizes the center rather than the boundaries. And the center includes basic Protestant Christian doctrines agreed on by virtually all Protestant Christians (excluding those who, like Schleiermacher, succumbed to cultural accommodation to the extent of no longer believing in a supernatural world view).

I am only offering my personal opinion. Certainly Piper and anyone else has a right to claim the pietist ethos as their own. My own study of Pietism, however, leads me to think it’s ethos is not compatible with anything and everything and one thing it is not compatible with is a hyper-orthodoxy that elevates, for example, one theory of the atonement to the status of an essential of Christian belief. (If Piper is not doing that, then I will stand corrected, but that is my impression from his explanation of what he meant by “Farewell Rob Bell” in the CT interview.)

Just to be clear, I am not disagreeing with anything Piper said about himself and piety in that interview. I’m sure he is a very pious person. As an expert on Pietism, however, I have my doubts about whether he embodies that ethos as I understand it.

Olson/Piper & Pietism

--Nick

An Arminian Egalitarian 'Heretic' Defends John Piper?

Let me be clear -- I am not a complementarian. I am not a calvinist. I am -- in general -- not a fan of John Piper as a person or as a theologian. I think someone needs to step up and say something about much of what he says. But, here, I think Piper is not only taken quite strongly out of context but is done so with spite and not love. So, today, I side with John Piper.

Tony Jones, a theologically progressive Christian and titan within the Emergent Church movement, today blogged about John Piper's recent interview with The Christian Post. In it, Piper made several comments and Tony has taken exception with several of them.

But first, here is the entire question and answer:

Should a pastor continue in ministry if one of his sons, arriving at a mature age, proves to be an unbeliever? 

Well, as you know, that hits close to home. So maybe the best thing I can do is tell you the way the elders at Bethlehem managed this, because that's me. 

When that happened, I went to the elders and I said to them, "Here's the situation. I think my son needs to be pursued by the elders as far as you can, and then he needs to be excommunicated if he doesn't respond." He was 19 years old. 

And so for I forget how many months they did this. Maybe six months or so. And I said, "I am willing to step back and go on a leave of absence, or resign, or whatever you think appropriate in this situation." They never faced this before with any theological thoroughness. 

So for those months they were pursuing him, talking with him. He was working for one of the elders at the time, and they had some conversations. And we were studying the issue, because it says in Titus 1:5-6 that the children of elders should be pista (faithful). Tekna is the neuter word for "children" in Greek, and pista agrees with it. So it is "faithful children."

Now if you just absolutize that as "they must be believers" then not only would I have had to resign, but every pastor would have to resign until his children become believers. (I'm giving you one of the arguments against it. Children become believers, they're not born believers-unless you have a very unusual view of baptism as an infant baptizer.) 

So the idea would be that you can't be a pastor until they become believers-say, nobody with children under six should be a pastor. Or another take would be that if they profess faith and then walk away from it you have to leave the pastorate. 

Well the elders studied that through and they wrote a paper. It was just a two page thing that said that a pastor shouldn't resign on account of an unbelieving adult child. [Editor's note: This paper isn't available, but you can read another similar one by Justin Taylor.] 

And so they let me press on, but we did follow through with the discipline. And God was merciful to, I believe, use that letting go to awaken and restore. And I'm thankful for it.
So I don't think the point of those stipulations in 1 Timothy and Titus is to lead to the quick resignations of pastors, but to discern whether a man has a maturity and a giftedness to lead a well-ordered family. That's what it's for. 

How can you manage the flock if you can't manage your household? And good management doesn't mean perfect outcome. It didn't for God, and it doesn't for us.

Certainly, there are sections of this that ought to have been said in a more careful tone. These days, it is very easy to provide critics with one decent soundbite to incite global nuclear war. But, that is beside the point.

Tony quotes Piper and responds to several sections of the interview. 

Piper: Well, as you know, that hits close to home. So maybe the best thing I can do is tell you the way the elders at Bethlehem managed this, because that’s me.

When that happened, I went to the elders and I said to them, “Here’s the situation. I think my son needs to be pursued by the elders as far as you can, and then he needs to be excommunicated if he doesn’t respond.” He was 19 years old.

Tony: I don’t know what’s more shocking, that Piper was ready to excommunicate his 19-year-old son, or that his son’s sin was that he was (is?) an “unbeliever.”

I think a closer examination will show quite the opposite. I do not, for an instant, think Piper would excommunicate his son if he thought there was ANY chance of his son repenting. I could hardly imagine a father casting his son aside in such a way. To do so not only seems unjust, but anti-salvation.

I do not think Piper is saying what Tony thinks he is saying. Piper, to me, seems to view this as something to be viewed as a last resort. If anything, the notion begins with attempted reconciliation. I'm not entirely convinced that it is the job of the elders to chastise Piper's son, but regardless, the aim of Piper was first and foremost to help his son, not cast him out.

I think Tony is focusing on the latter part, and not on Piper the father. Though Piper has said some things in the past that makes an Arminian/Egalitarian like myself cringe and jump up and down on my sofa, he has said nothing here to merit the "shock" from Tony. 

The second part that Tony address is thus. His words are in blue. Piper's are in italics:

What’s happened to Piper is that he got caught up in his own biblical hermeneutic. The Bible says this:


Piper: I left you behind in Crete for this reason, that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious.

What’s an inerrantist pastor to do when one of his children turns out not to be a believer? Well, step down immediately, of course. Right? I’m sure that’s exactly what Piper said and did. Let’s go to the tape:

Now if you just absolutize that as “they must be believers” then not only would I have had to resign, but every pastor would have to resign until his children become believers…


Well the elders studied that through and they wrote a paper. It was just a two page thing that said that a pastor shouldn’t resign on account of an unbelieving adult child.

Well, well, well. Isn’t that interesting? It seems that the Bible doesn’t mean exactly what it says. It seems that the Bible has to be interpreted.


I think Tony is -- again -- missing the point. I do think, if one takes that passage to be rigidly literal, then yes. Piper would have to resign and so would many people. But Piper is instead referring to restoring his son. Tony is quite to jump the gun and fixate upon certain select instances of text instead of the bigger picture. John's purpose in this is to help. We could argue about whether him using excommunication it a good way (and I'm not certain it is) but we should have a decent dialogue about this.

Everyone takes the Bible literally when they think it supports their view. Everyone. This is not the best way to do exegesis, but to chide Piper on this is not only uncharitable, it is an example of a tendency many Christians, regardless of affiliation, are quick to do. I do it all the time. I'm making a stand right now. No more. So, frankly, the time has come to stop. Stop behaving like this is elementary school. This is not a call for tolerance or forced agreement. This is a call to act like adults.

Tony's crack at the end about Piper's 'interpretation' of the passages addressing homosexuality smacks of self-righteousness and polemics, not a scholarly attitude.

And, yes, the Bible has to be interpreted. What an absurd comment. Everything Scripture says requires some form of interpretation. And, to take it at face value is a form of interpretation. Disagree and say it is a *bad* form but it is still a form. I do not agree with Piper's interpretation of much of Scripture, but enough is enough.

If the Emergent Church wants to be taken seriously, then it should take others seriously.

According to the original link, it is an edited transcript. I'm not certain we're getting the entire picture here. Anytime a pastor says something that been noted and edited and comes across as naive, we ought to step back and think a bit more.

Piper answered in a way consistent with his theology, for better or worse. I expect Tony to do better than "Farewell John Piper."

Tony Jones

I end this on a quote from a wise friend named James:

"Disagree with someone if you want, but unsubstantiated disagreement is problematic in academia, regardless of who you disagree with."

God bless. And if I am incorrect in anything, let me know. I plan on debating with John and Tony in the afterlife, so getting things right now is pretty important.

;-)

--Nick

Roger Olson, "Piper & Judgment round 2"

Roger Olson and John Piper, round two. Qualifications from Olson follow. 

"True, in this particular blog entry Piper does not explicitly say the tornadoes were God’s judgment on those towns. He does say, however, that the tornadoes were “God’s fingers.” In light of everything else he has written and said about calamaties and catastrophes, it is clear to me that he believes not only this tornado outbreak but every natural and man-made disaster (including the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.) are from God and not only in some attenuated sense in which most Christians would say they are from God by concurrence. (That is, by God’s permission and granted ability as the creator and governor of nature.)"

Olson/Piper II

Olson very often engages with folks who comment. If you have something to contribute, I'm fairly certain he'll answer. I might even post something myself. ;-)

--Nick

Roger Olson, "John Piper & Judgment"

This got me thinking. I remember Greg Boyd preaching a sermon back in the day addressing John Piper (though not by name, he made a point of critiquing the view not the man) and denouncing what I'm (cheekily) dubbing "Calvinistic Divine Command Theory." I'm certain there is a technical term, but I like my idea better.

Anyway. Olson is -- I think -- sharp but fair. He gets a little overly pointed at the end (something I'm not certain I endorse), but I'm curious to see if John Piper will indeed respond. This is not the first time John Piper has made comments of this nature. After this, I'm not certain I see much of a difference between Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in regards to disasters/terrorist acts and calling upon the name of God as a salve to tragic wounds.

Hopefully, we'll become privy to the direct link Piper has to the Almighty, or Piper will admit he was wrong and apologize, or there is some third option I can't foresee. Either way, read the article.

To continue, Roger Olson.

--Nick

Scot McKnight, "Femsculine Christianity"

Well, the responses to John Piper haven't quite stopped. But this one is interesting, especially the example given from the point of view of the early church.

McKnight & "Femsculine Christianity"

--Nick

He-Man Theology, and The Pied Piper

I'm not a fan of John Piper. Just getting that out of the way. Here is a quote I found on McKnight's blog:

God revealed himself in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen; Father, not Mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son not daughter. The Father and the Son create man and woman in his image, and give them the name “man,” the name of the male.  God appoints all the priests in the Old Testament to be men. The Son of God came into the world to be a man.  He chose twelve men to be his apostles. The apostles appointed that the overseers of the church be men.  And when it came to marriage they taught that the husband should be the head. [emphasis mine]

For continuation click here.


--Nick 

Making God Look Good "Cover Letter"

Nicholas Ahern

555 Red Herring Ave

Orange County, CA

555.555.1555

February 28, 2012

Re/ Personal Public Relations Director

To: St. Paul

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present myself to Irvine Center for IMAGO DEI Enterprise. 

I believe that endurance and self-motivation are both vital for success.  

I possess the endurance and self-motivation required for a goal-oriented and result-driven marketplace. My drive to succeed coupled with my sense of loyalty has made me an asset to employers and furthered my education. For instance, while I was earning my B.A., I realized I did not have enough money to finish my last semester, but was determined to get my degree. I rode my bike eight miles traveling to and from the train station between a less expensive community college and Biola University. I made it to class on time and graduated. Not with honors, but I did graduate anyway. 

I have a minor in theology, and though I am not classically trained as a theologian, I do have a wealth of experience in storytelling and filmmaking. I am certain that there must be a great many theologians and lawyers willing to work for you, but I believe I am more qualified then them and this is why:

I don't have anything to lose. But your boss does. In fact, if your boss turn out to have a negative reputation, many of the people he created will end up pushing paper in a very hot basement for all eternity.

I have experience in defending many people like Rob Bell, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and John Piper. I can be impartial if paid enough to overlook my conscience. 

I work hard consistently and am always eager to direct people to great products or services. This is why I would love to set up a convenient time to discuss the possibility of working for IMAGO DEI Enterprises. Having worked within the fast-paced environment of academia and Hollywood, I believe I would be a valuable asset to your organization. Please contact me at your earliest convenience. 

Sincerely,

Nicholas Ahern

C.S. Lewis, Free Will & Hell

This is a really interesting article written by Kevin Miller over at Hellbound -- 

"One Lewis book that almost failed to pass the evangelical smell test, however, is The Great Divorce. It’s about a group of people in hell who board a bus to heaven, where they get to decide whether or not they want to stay. One-by-one, most of the people find a reason to get back on the bus, finding they prefer to wallow in their petty jealousy, self-pity and bitterness rather than submit to the healing on offer in heaven. 

This is a difficult book for many evangelicals, because it seems to suggest that Lewis believe there might be an opportunity for postmortem salvation–a second chance to get things right after death. It also smacks of an Orthodox understanding of the afterlife, which sees heaven and hell not as separate places but as distinct psychological conditions.

Most evangelicals turn this grit of sand into a pearl by saying, “It’s just a story.” Lewis didn’t actually mean to suggest there might be a second chance after death; he was merely seeking to demonstrate that wherever we wind up after we die, our destination will ultimately be a result of the choices we make here on earth. In fact, the road to heaven or hell doesn’t begin at death; it begins right now. 

While many people find this to be an airtight defense of hell, others aren’t so sure. Philosopher Thomas Talbott is one such dissenter. In his view, the C. S. Lewis defense falls under the category of “hard-hearted theism” a.k.a. “tough love. Many people content themselves with the idea that if people freely choose to reject God, too bad for them. They had their chance just like the rest of us. They just made the wrong choice. And far be it from God to intervene in the face of such poor decision-making. After all, we’re not a bunch of automatons. However, Talbott raises two objections to this line of thinking:"

I'm a fan of Talbott, and he always manages to make me think. To continue, click below!

Article

Hope you enjoy!

--Nick

P.S. for those of you interested in reading more of Thomas Talbott,

Thomas Talbott's personal site and his academic one.

It includes various chapters of his books, as well as his articles. He has interacted in the past with John Piper and William Lane Craig on the philosophical nature of Universalism and free will.