Why I love Piper (and Calvinism)

John Piper is (probably) my favourite living preacher; I love the way exegetical accuracy and exemplary passion are merged in his every message.  And I love his doctrine; for me, too, Calvinism is something that makes me want to sing and (even!) dance.  For me, too - like for Spurgeon before us - 'Calvinism' is but a nickname for pure Biblical Christianity.

One of Piper's big influences though is the Roman Catholic GK Chesterton.  (It's OK, it's OK - even Lloyd-Jones quotes Chesterton).  And Chesterton, it seems, hated Calvinism.  Below is an extract from one of Piper's blog posts - I'd copy the whole thing, but Desiring God doesn't really like that.  You can find the whole thing, though, here.  Why does Piper love Calvinism, and Chesterton hate it?  It's because it's...

Not the Same Calvinism

But how then can Calvinism awaken such joy in me, and such hate in Chesterton? Because they aren’t the same Calvinism. He thinks Calvinism is the opposite of all this happy wonder that we have in common. The Calvinism he hates is part of the rationalism that drives people mad. Exhibit A:

• "Only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination. Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health. . . . He was damned by John Calvin; he was almost saved by John Gilpin."

No, Mr. Chesterton, William Cowper was not driven mad by Calvinism. He was driven mad by a mental disease that ran in his family for generations, and he was saved by John Newton, perhaps the humblest, happiest Calvinist who ever lived. And both of them saw the wonders of “Amazing Grace” through the eyes of poetry. Yes, that was a healing balm. But the disease was not Calvinism — else John Newton would not have been the happy, healthy, holy friend that he was.

Convergence

I’m troubled by this book.  I’ve had it on my shelves for a blog review for months now, but it troubles me and I’ve kept putting it off.  The problem is this: though Sam Storms is  a friend of, and much respected by, John Piper and Wayne Grudem and others of similar pedigree – I just don’t believe the book.

The book is a plea for the uniting of charismatic phenomena (tongues, prophecy and the like) and Reformed doctrine.  In that its focus is on phenomena, not ‘merely’ a deeper experience of God’s love, it is several stages beyond the arguments of Lloyd-Jones, and should not be confused with them.

A large part of the book is anecdotal, in the sense that it says ‘this is what happened to me’.  And I don’t believe it…

Let me highlight three things that to me are major problems.

First, he tells us that he has lied in print.  He went into print several years earlier arguing for a cessationist position when he not only did not believe that the gifts had ceased but actually was, himself, a tongue-speaker (at the time, suppressing the gift).  If by his own admission he’s lied in such a way, why should we believe him now?

Then – second - there’s the type of prophecy he describes.  A dream that a window in their yard would be broken by a foul ball in a baseball game.  And – wow! – baseball had never been played in that yard.  But sure enough, some visitors to the home, knowing nothing about the dream, played base-ball in the yard and broke a window.  Sure proof that God is at work?  Not really; the Bible gives four clear marks that God is at work and this isn't one of them.  (Jonathan Edwards unpacks them helpfully and at length in ‘Distinguishing Marks.’  Storm professes to be an Edwards fan - he must have read it.)  But this kind of thing – if it happened – is on a level with psychic claims in all religions and none.  Why would Almighty God give a dream about a window?  Is there anything like this in the Bible?

And then – third -  there’s his demonology – more ‘Buffy’ than Scripture.  A demon sat in their lounge wrapped in a scarf and beckoning their daughter to come to him; a ‘force’ which Storms himself compares to ‘Star Wars’: ‘a “wall” of energy or power or, as I said, what felt like “liquid air”, engulfed me.  It actually pushed me backward a step or two.’ A demon-possessed man smelling so badly that Storms asks ‘Do demons have an odor?’ and answers ‘Yes, they do!  And it is far from pleasant!’  Is there any of this in Scripture?

Some of it is pure spiritism: ‘Does the name “Derek” mean anything special to you?'  Oh, wow – again!  A God who can make a name pop into your head, but not tell you what it means!  Pop down to Waterstones in your lunch-break: you can read any number of mediums making the same claims – and they’re frauds.  It’s called cold reading, and easy to learn.  Waterstones will also sell you the 'How to' books!

And if you want a fourth,  there’s his naiveté; he apparently still believes that Paul Cain was an anointed man of God even at the time of his greatest sin and hypocrisy.  Really?  And the respect for the ‘Kansas City Prophets’?  Really?

So what do I think of Sam Storms?  Is he lying?  Exaggerating? Deluded, delusional, spin-doctoring, faulty in his memory, soft in his head, naive beyond belief?  Possibly. Some of these things.   I don’t know.  Just consider: if these things really happen, it’s very kind of the Devil, isn’t it, to make sure they only happen to charismatics?  And reason enough, in itself, never to become charismatic!

This is one of the most frightening books I’ve ever read.  Not because of the spiritual, evil, forces it describes.  But because story after story is designed to undermine serious Biblical thought and reflection, and infect the Reformed community with the worst of charismatic claptrap.   It is a most frightening trajectory, if the Reformed get on to it.

Is this the best way?

Update: I've altered the title of this blog.  I don't want to add to the accusations against CJ and distress him any more (in the, admittedly remote, possibility of him seeing this.)

Have you seen this?  And the further comment, here?  

Last year John Piper took a well-publicised 8-month break.  The major reason seemed to be family issues - needing time to give to his wife and his children, to repair relationships and build for the future.

Now, CJ is doing something similar.  This time, it's not family issues, but leadership issues.  'Over the last few years some former pastors and leaders in Sovereign Grace have made charges against me and informed me about offenses they have with (sic) me as well as other leaders in Sovereign Grace.  These charges are serious and they have been very grieving to read.  These charges are not related to any immorality or financial impropriety, but... include various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgement and hypocrisy.'

So, a leave of indeterminate length, during which he hopes to pursue reconciliation with those he's offended.  A third-party ministry is being asked to oversee and evaluate, and David Powlison and Mark Dever (both friends of CJ) have been asked to review the charges, and to counsel and correct CJ.

Now, I don't want to minimise sin.  Especially the sin of leaders.  And there's something great about CJ's willingness to listen, to be rebuked, to seek reconciliation.  I'm a fan of his; and of Piper's.  (Be warned: the commentator who always uses the comments section to attack CJ and SGM will have his comment removed. Again.)

But I think this is over-kill.  If anybody's offended, and right to have been offended, apologise.  And move on.  And get on with the work.  If they can't accept it at that point, it becomes their problem.  

Not only is it over-kill; I fear it minimises grace - the very last thing CJ would want.  Christian grace says sins are forgiven by God the moment we confess them, and should be forgiven by others too at the moment of apology.  To turn it into a long process has more in common, I fear, with psycho-babble than grace. An extended leave to sort out our mistakes is an indulgence most Christians, and most pastors, cannot afford.  Don't let Satan cripple your work, guys; time is short.  Get on with it.  You're good at what you do - by God's grace.

What next?  Dever taking extended leave while he repents of finding only 9 marks of a healthy church?  Macarthur taking extended leave while he personally scrubs all his recorded sermons clean of dispensationalism and prepares an extensive series on the Old Testament?  Driscoll taking extended leave as a penance for his appalling sense of humour?

One thing you can be sure of: Begg won't join the bandwagon.  He's a Brit; he'll be getting on with it.

Criticising Friends

This is a very old (1992) article from John Piper - you can either follow the link or read it below.

John Stott has served the church well as pastor, writer, evangelical statesman, missions mobilizer, apologist. He made a profound impact on me in 1967 at Urbana and fanned the flames of my growing zeal for the word of God. He crafted the Lausanne Covenant which I admire. I recall Laurel Bissett’s testimony of how she was converted reading Stott’s Basic Christianity. That story could perhaps be duplicated a thousand times over. I love John Stott and thank God for his ministry.

All the more then do I grieve at his abandonment of the historic biblical truth expressed in our Affirmation of Faith: “We believe in . . . the eternal felicity of the righteous, and theendless suffering of the wicked.” He wrote in 1988, “Emotionally I find the concept [of endless suffering] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it . . . Scripture points in the direction of annihilation.” This is a tragic defection from historic orthodoxy by one who has championed “Basic Christianity” so faithfully.

Consider what he must do with the Scriptures. For example, on Mark 9:47-48:

If your eye causes you to sin pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

If annihilation is in view, why would Jesus lay stress on the fire never being quenched and the worm never dying? Stott says that the worm will not die nor the fire be quenched “until presumably their work of destruction is done.” That qualification is not in the text. But the focus on eternal duration is confirmed in Matthew 18:8, where the term “eternal hell” is used.

In Revelation 20:10 John writes,

The devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Stott again struggles in vain to escape the clear intent of the eternal torments of the lake of fire. He says that Revelation 20:10 refers to the beast and false prophet who “are not individual people but symbols of the world in its varied hostility to God. In the nature of the case they cannot experience pain.”

But Stott fails to mention Revelation 20:15 where it says that “if anyone’s name (not just the beast and false prophet) was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Similarly Revelation 21:8 says that it is individual sinners whose “lot shall be the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” And the torment that lasts “for ever and ever” in Revelation 14:10 is precisely the torment of people “with fire and sulfur”—that is, the torment of “the lake that burns with fire and sulfur” (21:8). In other words the “lake of fire” is in view not only, as Stott suggests, when the beast and false prophet and death and hades (20:13) are cast out, but also when individual unbelievers are finally condemned (14:10-11; 20:15; 21:8).

Conclusion: “Watch at all times, praying that you may be able to escape all these things” (Luke 21:36). Pray for evangelical leaders, that they would “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Soberly,

Pastor John

Note what Piper does, here.  The balance is instructive.  The first paragraph lays out the blessing Stott has been to the church, and ends 'I love John Stott and thank God for his ministry.'  In fact, even earlier, the piece is entitled 'When a FRIEND takes a wrong turn' (emphasis mine).


Then, immediately, in the second paragraph he pulls no punches: Stott's unorthodox line on hell is called an 'abandonment of the historic biblical truth' and 'a tragic defection from historic orthodoxy by one who has championed 'Basic Christianity' so faithfully'.


Subsequent paragraphs attempt (I think successfully) to show what violence Stott must do to clear Biblical statements in order to maintain an annihilationist position.  And after a call to pray that other evangelical leaders won't go the same way, Piper signs off with 'soberly' - it's a big issue, it's an issue that's made him grieve.


I do believe this is one of the areas (others include, for example, ecumenism) where John Stott has done the church a great disservice, making respectable - in some quarters at least - what has hitherto always been regarded as a dangerous departure.  If the final fate of the lost is unconscious non-existence, then Jesus died in vain and the Father is a monster - giving his only Son to such agony to save the world from something they would never know about, never feel, never experience.


But I recoil (now - I did not always) from that attitude which says that therefore Stott is some kind of theological leper.  He's a good man, a gift to the church - and a flawed man whose statements need to be weighed and sifted.  And that, of course, is true of everyone.


May God give us Piper's grace, and Piper's discernment.  And may the same God bless and draw near to John Stott in these days when age and ill-health are taking their toll.

John Piper - on what you really need if you're to learn to preach

John Piper's one of my favourite preachers - I know, he's one of yours too.  But it nearly wasn't so.  How'd you learn to preach, John?

I don't know. Watching my dad when I was six, eight, ten, twelve. Watching how not to do it in lots of places. Being unable to speak in front of a group from grade five to my sophomore year in college. I think I was learning to preach during that time because I was so hurt, so wounded, so discouraged, and so desperate that I had to go way down into God, and way into Scripture, and way into pain, and God was making a preacher by shutting my mouth.

You don't become an effective preacher by becoming a loquacious and effective communicator at age sixteen. You become a clever communicator, but you don't become a preacher of the holy things of God. So that was a piece.

I don't know. The courses that I took on preaching were marginally helpful. I got the lowest grade in seminary in my preaching class. I think I got a C minus in James Daane's preaching class at Fuller Seminary. We never agreed on anything except the principle that every sermon should have one point, he said that over and over again. So I made a terrible grade there. But there were other teachers that...

I think the way that I became a preacher was by being passionately thrilled by what I was seeing in the Bible in seminary. Passionately thrilled! When Philippians began to open to me, Galatians open to me, Romans open to me, the Sermon on the Mount open to me in classes on exegesis (not homiletics, but exegesis), everything in me was feeling, "I want to say this to somebody. I want to find a way to say this because this is awesome, this is incredible!"

So for preachers today that go everywhere but the Bible to find something interesting or something scintillating and passionate, I say, "I don't get it. I don't get that at all!" Because I have to work hard to leave the Bible to go somewhere to find an illustration, because everything in the Bible is just blowing me away. And it is that sense of being blown away by what's here—by the God that's here, and the Christ that's here, and the gospel that's here, and the Spirit that's here, and the life that is here—being blown away by this, I just say, "That's got to get out."

And then I suppose how it gets out. What is that? I don't know what that is. That's just the way I'm wired that I would say it a certain a way. It's owing in part to me being a lit major, you know, I studied language a little bit. Goodness, a thousand things go into your life and nobody can copy anybody else. I don't know. God makes us who we are. I don't think there is much you can do to become a preacher except know your Bible and be unbelievably excited about what's there. And love people a lot, that is, you want to make the connection with people and what's in the Bible.

You can watch the 4-minute video of this here

John Piper sounds a caution...

My caution concerns making theology God instead of God God. Loving doing theology rather than loving God.

Sam Crabtree said to me once, "The danger of the contemporary worship awakening is that we love loving God more than we love God." That was very profound. And you might love thinking about God more than you love God. Or arguing for God more than you love God. Or defending God more than you love God. Or writing about God more than you love God. Or preaching more than you love God. Or evangelizing more than you love God.

(HT Adrian Warnock)*

Nothing else now until Friday. Bye!

* HT seems to mean 'I pinched this from him'

The World Cup is coming...

So here's a timely reminder from Piper.

Pastoral Blunders... who makes 'em?

I've been thinking for a little while about a little series on my own pastoral blunders. Then I got this from Desiring God. When I make blunders, I don't do it in front of thousands. I don't get the video posted online. I don't have to apologise publicly on the WWW. There are advantages to being a little man!

Two things to note. First, Piper's written response is very good indeed. I'm sure Driscoll's wrong on this - he's ignoring the accumulated wisdom of the saints which says 'Be very careful.' Second - I'm not convinced Piper's video response is ungracious - are you?