c l a s s i c a l
While few of us think about pastors receiving death threats, such does occur from time to time. From pastor John Hagee to John Piper, these high-profile pastors witness their fair share of threats and verbal attacks.
John Hagee would remind us that the devil, the adversary, like a roaring lion "prowls around, looking for someone to devour" (1 Pet. 5:8 NRSV). Peter exhorts us to respond: "Resist [lit. stand against] him, steadfast in your faith, for you know that your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering" (1 Pet. 5:9 NRSV).
John Piper, however, takes a different course. He received a death threat within the first three years of his ministry. From his perspective, if on his way to church he were gunned down, he would view such an act as not an attack from the devil or his minions but as God's doing -- His good pleasure. (See the follow up post "God of All My Days.")
Piper rightly reminds us of Jesus' words, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28 NRSV). Piper has the context correct: Jesus was speaking to His disciples regarding their life being threatened by opposition.
However, I do not believe Jesus' words were meant to, in an unhealthy manner, make us fear God killing us at any moment. "Do not fear those who kill the body," said Jesus. Christ did not confess that God would kill the body. If we are to have fear, it should be a proper fear, that of the awesome nature of God Himself. He has power not merely over the body but over one's very existence. This fear is a proper respect.
The Easter morning that Piper was threatened, he informed his wife and then called the police. After being interviewed by the police, he walked over to his church to minister, confident that if the one who threatened his life should appear and take his life then God wanted him killed. (link)
This conclusion is completely consistent with his views expressed a few years ago, when questioned by Cathy Grossman from USA Today, with regard to how he would comfort loved ones whose lives were taken by the 9/11 catastrophe. He concluded:
Part of me sympathizes with Piper's worldview, since I, too, think that God governs every minutiae of life. But I chose that word -- governs -- carefully. What I mean by God governing the world is not at all equivalent to Piper's deterministic (Calvinistic) views, whereby God has, from eternity past, meticulously predetermined what each person should think, say, and do, and brings such to pass by various causes, whether primary or secondary. As I've noted before: sovereignty is not determinism (link).
According to Piper, the fact that God is "absolutely sovereign" is supposed to bring a grieving person stability, strength, and hope. Yet, if God brings to pass by decree all of the evil and suffering in the world, how on earth is someone supposed to be stable, strengthened, and brimming with hope? That would cause people to live in a dome of fear, wondering what God was going to bring upon them at any given moment. Such a worldview is the mental anguish that Calvinism offers its adherents.
Piper is right, in my opinion, to insist that God is all-powerful. He has the ability to stop all evil. Evil, contrary to the assumptions and ideas of some, is not a problem for God. He could stop all evil and sin by not allowing anyone to have any freedom to do any act conceivable. "So," one could ask, "exactly how much evil or free will does one want God to stop? All evil? Most evil? Some evil? Your evil? My evil?"
If an individual ever took the life of John Piper, we would be forced, according to his own worldview, to admit that his death was "the best thing that could happen" to him. His funeral should be nothing less than a celebratory amusement, honoring God's actions. His tombstone should read: "This is the LORD's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23 NRSV).
Moreover, we would have to view death not as an enemy (1 Cor. 15:26) but as a precious instrument of God Almighty. Grief and pain are to be banished since "the best thing that could happen" to anyone is actually death.
I can only assume that Piper conducts funerals in the same fashion. The death of an infant, a mother with cancer, a father with tuberculosis, an aborted baby -- such are "the best thing that could happen" to them. Now this is consistent Calvinism!
John Hagee would remind us that the devil, the adversary, like a roaring lion "prowls around, looking for someone to devour" (1 Pet. 5:8 NRSV). Peter exhorts us to respond: "Resist [lit. stand against] him, steadfast in your faith, for you know that your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering" (1 Pet. 5:9 NRSV).
John Piper, however, takes a different course. He received a death threat within the first three years of his ministry. From his perspective, if on his way to church he were gunned down, he would view such an act as not an attack from the devil or his minions but as God's doing -- His good pleasure. (See the follow up post "God of All My Days.")
Piper rightly reminds us of Jesus' words, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28 NRSV). Piper has the context correct: Jesus was speaking to His disciples regarding their life being threatened by opposition.
However, I do not believe Jesus' words were meant to, in an unhealthy manner, make us fear God killing us at any moment. "Do not fear those who kill the body," said Jesus. Christ did not confess that God would kill the body. If we are to have fear, it should be a proper fear, that of the awesome nature of God Himself. He has power not merely over the body but over one's very existence. This fear is a proper respect.
The Easter morning that Piper was threatened, he informed his wife and then called the police. After being interviewed by the police, he walked over to his church to minister, confident that if the one who threatened his life should appear and take his life then God wanted him killed. (link)
This conclusion is completely consistent with his views expressed a few years ago, when questioned by Cathy Grossman from USA Today, with regard to how he would comfort loved ones whose lives were taken by the 9/11 catastrophe. He concluded:
Because, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. In other words, if I get shot tomorrow, if I walk out of here, and somebody didn't like what I said and would shoot me dead, God was totally in charge of that, and that will be the best thing that could happen to me. (emphasis added)While we may wonder why Piper called the police that Easter morning, given that God is "totally in charge of that," and if he should die, then "that would be the best thing that could happen" to him, we at least understand his views on the nature and character of God. Though a devil, like a roaring lion, may be prowling around, seeking someone to devour, Piper's view is that such a prowling devil is a pawn in the hands of God -- the One who predetermined all such devouring.
Part of me sympathizes with Piper's worldview, since I, too, think that God governs every minutiae of life. But I chose that word -- governs -- carefully. What I mean by God governing the world is not at all equivalent to Piper's deterministic (Calvinistic) views, whereby God has, from eternity past, meticulously predetermined what each person should think, say, and do, and brings such to pass by various causes, whether primary or secondary. As I've noted before: sovereignty is not determinism (link).
According to Piper, the fact that God is "absolutely sovereign" is supposed to bring a grieving person stability, strength, and hope. Yet, if God brings to pass by decree all of the evil and suffering in the world, how on earth is someone supposed to be stable, strengthened, and brimming with hope? That would cause people to live in a dome of fear, wondering what God was going to bring upon them at any given moment. Such a worldview is the mental anguish that Calvinism offers its adherents.
Piper is right, in my opinion, to insist that God is all-powerful. He has the ability to stop all evil. Evil, contrary to the assumptions and ideas of some, is not a problem for God. He could stop all evil and sin by not allowing anyone to have any freedom to do any act conceivable. "So," one could ask, "exactly how much evil or free will does one want God to stop? All evil? Most evil? Some evil? Your evil? My evil?"
If an individual ever took the life of John Piper, we would be forced, according to his own worldview, to admit that his death was "the best thing that could happen" to him. His funeral should be nothing less than a celebratory amusement, honoring God's actions. His tombstone should read: "This is the LORD's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23 NRSV).
Moreover, we would have to view death not as an enemy (1 Cor. 15:26) but as a precious instrument of God Almighty. Grief and pain are to be banished since "the best thing that could happen" to anyone is actually death.
I can only assume that Piper conducts funerals in the same fashion. The death of an infant, a mother with cancer, a father with tuberculosis, an aborted baby -- such are "the best thing that could happen" to them. Now this is consistent Calvinism!
WWB - Interesting find on Piper. I would have to say that he is one of the few, consistent Calvinists out there. However, when I discuss Piper with some Calvinists, most seem to affirm what he teaches but every once in a while I get the statement, "Oh, he's a populist. He just says some of those things to make headlines." So, I guess that some Calvinists don't appreciate consistent Calvinists.
ReplyDeleteIf I read you correctly, you were implying that if Piper were really uber consistent, he would have had no need to call the police on the man who threatened him. Yes, I can see that. It also makes me wonder why Calvinists use antibiotics when they get sick.
The answer I get is that God not only ordains the ends but also the means otherwise, He wouldn't meet their qualification of sovereignty.
Nevertheless, governance seems to meet the best qualification of the definition of sovereignty as such does not smear God's impeccable character.
Dale,
DeleteI, too, think Piper is consistent -- perhaps too consistent for mainline Calvinists.
Populist? That's a very telling comment. That is like a couple of comments I read recently, on a blog that is not to be named, that Mark Driscoll is on the fringe of Calvinism (no, he's not), and that his popularity is waning (no, it's not). When high-profile Calvinists make (consistent) statements that embarrass Calvinists, they are quick to discredit the individual -- anything to protect Calvinism.
Yes, I think Piper was inconsistent in calling the police that day. After all, that phone call and threat was of God.
The "means as well as the ends" niche is convenient, but I think fails to help the Calvinist when answering the basic question of origins. Such only proves the Arminian correct when he or she insists that God, in Calvinist theology, is the Author of sin and evil, and is guilty of inciting sin and evil.
I was thinking about writing a post on my sin last March in the context of Calvinistic theology, but I thought it might be too irreverent.
WWB - Calvinists that I talk to say, "you're making it sound like Calvinism is fatalism!" They then proceed, "Calvinism is not fatalism because fatalism implies impersonal forces at work. The God of Calvinism is very personal."
DeleteFurther, Calvinism appears, to me, to take us back to the Garden of Eden. When sin occurred in the Garden, there was a denial of responsibility. Adam blamed God for providing him with a helpmate who was so weak as well as blaming Eve. Eve then did not take responsibility but rather blamed the Serpent. God, however, justly assigns culpability to all three parties. He would not accept blame for their sin nor would He he let them wriggle out of their responsibility.
I like your idea of writing up your sin according to Calvinism. Maybe a compare/contrast article?
Piper's view of sovereignty would imply that God embodies both good and evil in his will. And if his will reflects his character, then God is both good and evil. This, of course, is in complete contradiction to scripture, but it is where that thinking leads. I know that Piper and his hero, Jonathan Edwards, want to say that the evil that God wills is not truly evil because it is instead used by God to bring Him glory and thus is subsumed under the greater good of God's desire to glorify Himself in all things.
ReplyDeleteHowever, scripture is very clear that evil and God are not compatible, God is holy and good, and He glorifies himself in the good he does that overcomes the evil in the world.
In short God being "absolutely sovereign" is what brought me peace in the death of my 22yr old son, Salem in 2000. Praying for his healing and all the other things that a Christian does thinking I was acting in faith, maybe I was, but the ultimate is God doing whatever He wants done. I rest in my uderstanding of that and I have peace.
DeleteJohn Sellers,
DeleteI "amen" your reply wholeheartedly.
"Anonymous,"
DeleteI'm glad that you found solace in God's sovereignty over the death of your son. I truly am.
But your version of "God doing whatever He wants done," if that includes decreeing when I sin either against Him or another person, then that is a fatal flaw in the Calvinist system, in my opinion.
On a complete tangent, I read where Piper is moving from MN to TN. Presumably God is effectually moving him there. ;) http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jan/04/pastor-john-piper-plans-to-move-to-knoxville/
ReplyDeleteOn a complete tangent, I read where Piper is moving from MN to TN. Presumably God is effectually moving him there. ;) http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jan/04/pastor-john-piper-plans-to-move-to-knoxville/
ReplyDeleteLike chess pieces on a chessboard, ha!
Delete