Paul's Passing Thoughts

On John Piper’s “Desiring God” website, he wrote the following on March 28, 2010:

“….the elders graciously approved on March 22 a leave of absence that will take me away from Bethlehem from May 1 through December 31, 2010.”

And in the same correspondence:

“The difference between this leave and the sabbatical I took four years ago is that I wrote a book on that sabbatical”

I have not read the book he mentions, but I have read the manuscript from the sermon he preached upon his first return on August 6, 2006 which summarizes the major premise of the book written while on his first sabbatical. The first sabbatical was ten weeks, and he took that sabbatical to document his fresh insights into the subject of how biblical imperatives relate to justification, and primarily from the four gospels. Much of this same thesis was reiterated in his message at the 2010 T4G conference. More on that later, and how it relates to the subject at hand.

Piper also wrote the following in the aforementioned post:

“I hope the Lord gives me at least five more years as the pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem.”

And, “Personally, I view these months as a kind of relaunch of what I hope will be the most humble, happy, fruitful five years of our 35 years at Bethlehem….”

Piper: a History of New Visions

It is well said that Piper is the elder in charge of “vision” at his church, for he has had several. In fact, one can only stand in amazement to see the pass he gets from the rest of the Evangelical world concerning very questionable events. His first epiphany that gave birth to Christian Hedonism, the doctrine that he is most noted for, is recounted by Piper himself as follows:

“Before I saw these things in the Bible, C. S. Lewis snagged me when I wasn’t looking. I was standing in Vroman’s Bookstore on Colorado Avenue in Pasadena, California, in the fall of 1968. I picked up a thin blue copy of Lewis’s book The Weight of Glory. The first page changed my life….Never in my life had I heard anyone say that the problem with the world was not the intensity of our pursuit of happiness, but the weakness of it. Everything in me shouted, Yes! That’s it!”

In Dr. Peter Masters’ critique of John Piper and his doctrine, he gives credit where credit is due, but his assessment is none-the-less, scathing:

“At times in his books Dr Piper wants us to see this as an old idea, but his claims are not convincing. It does tend to look no older than C S Lewis, (1) whose famous book, Weight of Glory, had an explosive influence on Dr Piper in his younger years….Dr Piper often quotes Jonathan Edwards, who said much about delighting in God and Christian joy. By reference to Jonathan Edwards, Dr Piper effectively says, ‘Look, this is as old as the hills. This is the way our forebears thought.’ Certainly Jonathan Edwards provides choice passages about delighting in God, as did the English Puritan writers, but at no time does he [Edwards] frame a system in which this becomes the key principle of Christian living. Joy in God always sits alongside other equal duties….Dr Piper really knows that he is promoting something novel. He even uses the term, ‘my vision’, and that is what it is, for however well intended, it is Dr Piper’s personal vision. He also calls it ‘my theology’” (“Christian Hedonism: Is it Right?” Sword & Trowel 2002, No. 3 by Peter Masters).

Piper’s Second Vision

Piper’s second vision further defined Christian Hedonism in his book, “The Pleasures of God.” This time, his epiphany came from reading a book by Henry Scougal. In the book “The Life of God in the Soul of Man,” Scougal suggested (in the book) that the excellency of a man’s soul is determined by what he loves. Piper then thought something like this: Hmmm, then could it be that the same is true about God? “Is it not also the case that the worth and excellency of God’s soul is measured by the object of his love?” (p.15, “The Pleasures of God”). Two pages later, Piper had talked himself into swallowing the light-bulb moment hook, line, and sinker. He then decided to take a four-day study leave from his church with a Bible and concordance to confirm this new idea. The following is what Piper said about “The Pleasures of God” on page 17:

“I regard this book as a vision of God through the lens of his happiness.”

The First Sabbatical

In the sermon that marked his first return, Piper said the following:

“Many of you know that I spent a large portion—at least 10 weeks—of the sabbatical immersed in the commands of Jesus, writing a book that is now titled What Jesus Demands from the World. “

Biblical imperatives / commands are a problem for the doctrine Piper advocates, but never mentions by name; specifically, New Calvinism, or Gospel Sanctification, or New Covenant Theology. Whatever you want to call it, it’s an antinomian doctrine. More on that later, but the primary goal of the first sabbatical was to form a treatise on the whole pesky idea that obedience serves a purpose in the sanctification process. Upon his first return, he emphasized the urgency of this new bent to his congregation:

“Bethlehem, this is serious. We are not justified by the righteousness that Christ works in us, but by the righteousness that Christ is for us. Would you receive this, and glory in this, and pray toward this, and stand for this? I summon everyone in the hearing of my voice: Give Jesus Christ his full glory—not half of it. Give him the glory, both as the one who is perfect righteousness for us—which we have by faith alone and the one who, on the basis of justification, works progressive righteousness in us. Don’t rob him of the glory of his role as your righteousness. He is your righteousness. And because he is your righteousness, he can, and will in time, make you righteous. Look to Christ alone, trust in Christ alone—not your righteousness—for your right standing in God’s court and your acceptance with him.”

I must admit, I have a morbid respect for Piper because of his ability as a slick word-crafter. You have to study long and hard to realize that the preceding statement is talking about the GS (Gospel Sanctification) tenet / element of “progressive sanctification” which is really justification extrapolated forward through the (normally understood as orthodox) sanctification process. The GS doctrine sees justification and sanctification as one and the same. Though the topic of his message was justification, if you note carefully, he was also talking about sanctification as if it is the same thing. As I said before, Piper reiterated this position at the 2010 T4G conference, and an excerpt from another post on this particular element (regarding what he said about it at the 2010 T4G) may be helpful:

“While his message was supposedly focused on justification, he makes the following statement in the same message:

‘All the good that God requires of the justified is the fruit of justification by faith alone, never the ground of justification. Let the battle of your life be there. The battle to believe. Not the battle to perform.’

Is that true? Should Christians focus solely on belief only? Isn’t there ever a ‘battle to perform’? According to Piper, and what can be clearly gleaned from this statement, no. Notice how sanctification is not mentioned in regard to what we should be doing now, or a ‘battle’ to please God with our lives. Regardless of the fact that he is speaking in the present tense, he only qualifies the ‘battle to perform’ in regard to justification. He says that everything God requires flows from the fruits of justification, and then we should only ‘battle to believe,’ not battle to perform. Read the statement very carefully as you must with this master word-crafter; if you make a battle to perform [effort in the sanctification process] one of your battles as a Christian, you are also making that the grounds of your justification!”

In other words: monergistic sanctification, and in the same way that salvation is monergistic. And, works in sanctification equals salvation by works; and therefore, the Law has the same role / significance in sanctification as it does in justification (Antinomianism. James Durham: “The antinomains make all sanctification to be justification”). That’s why Piper implored the congregation regarding the gravity of the message, because synergistic sanctification (normally understood as orthodox) is supposedly a false gospel, or works salvation.

Also note, per the GS doctrine, that justification is not seen as a one-time act by God, but ongoing: “And because he is your righteousness, he can, and will in time, make you righteous” Furthermore, it is clearly sanctification by faith alone, which orthodox Christians have never endorsed. Here is what JC Ryle said accordingly:

“It is thoroughly Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone justifies.’ But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone sanctifies.’”

In order to make this case, Piper emphasized, in the same message, that all of the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John) need to be seen “in the shadow of the cross,” and therefore, the imperatives therein also. Paul David Tripp, an associate of John Piper, often states it this way: “Biblical commands must be seen in their gospel context.” The GS “gospel” that Tripp is referring to includes the “imputed active obedience of Christ.” This is the belief that Christ’s perfect obedience performed while He was on Earth was not only relevant regarding Him being a perfect sacrifice for sin, but that He obeyed perfectly to fulfill the Law (and therefore disposing of its usefulness), and to impute that obedience to us which also negates the relevance of the Law for New Covenant believers. In short, Christ obeys for us. Therefore, proponents of GS often say, “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” They also believe that commands in the Bible are only useful to be pondered as a way to “go deeper into the gospel” because they (commands) are indicative of what Christ has done for us – biblical commands are not instruction from God to be understood and executed by us. Supposedly. Here is how Piper verbalized it in the message we are discussing:

“Another way to say it is that the cross of Jesus, where he took our place and became a curse for us and bore our sins and completed his obedience, casts a long shadow back over every verse in the Gospels. Every verse is meant to be read under the shadow of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Or to put it still another way, the four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are meant to be read backward. Children, remember I said that and at lunch today say to your mommy and daddy, ‘Why did Pastor John say that we are supposed to read the Gospels backward?’ And don’t panic, mom and dad. Here’s the answer. Tell them, he meant that when you start reading one of the Gospels you already know how it ends—the death and resurrection of Jesus for our sins—and you should have that ending in mind with every verse that you read.”

Only problem is, not only is his hermeneutic ridiculous (the end always determines the meaning of every sentence in a text), that’s NOT how the Gospels end! Matthew and Mark end with Christ proclaiming His authority, and a mandate to the church to observe all that He commanded. In other words, the exact opposite of what Piper is saying. Luke ends with the ascension, and John ends with Christ giving Peter final instructions. It’s almost as if Piper thinks people are generally brain-dead. We also see the following in Piper’s nuanced statements: the GS tenet of Redemptive- Historical hermeneutics (every verse in the Bible is about Christ, the gospel, redemption, and justification).

Did Piper Put Himself Under “Redemptive Church Discipline”?

In his most recent sabbatical, Piper disclosed that he hadn’t committed any serious sin that would disqualify him from ministry (how would he know if every verse in the Bible is about the gospel?), but had observed many “species of pride” in his soul. Apparently, the purpose of the sabbatical is to eliminate these creatures, and undoubtedly through what GS proponents call “deep repentance” (another GS tenet). The elders also appointed an accountability team to assist him.

Many are not aware of what New Calvinist believe about church discipline. They don’t believe that church discipline is a four-step process to determine the need for exclusion because of serious sin. GS proponents believe that church discipline, or what they call “redemptive church discipline,” is a tool to fine-tune the saints. Think about it, the traditional view of church discipline requires the subject to respond to objective instruction in order to avoid consequences. This turns New Calvinism completely upside down. Therefore, redemptive church discipline brings salvation / justification principles to bear on the situation which includes meditation on the gospel and “deep repentance.” It’s a complex issue, and there is no room to address it here, but a detailed explanation of this unorthodox procedure can be found in my book, “Another Gospel.”

Piper’s Second Coming

Today is the last day of his sabbatical. If he comes back from this one without a new vision, that will be a first. This is what he wrote regarding this sabbatical:

“ In this leave, I intend to let go of all of it. No book-writing. No sermon preparation or preaching. No blogging. No Twitter. No articles. No reports. No papers. And no speaking engagements.”

Only problem is, reading books written by others, the source of his past epiphanies, is not on the list. God help us (that’s a real request). So, what will it be this time? Who knows other than God Himself, but just for the fun of it, I’m going to make a guess. I believe Piper will come out with a detailed promotion and defense of redemptive church discipline. There is very little doubt in my mind that this sabbatical has been some kind of spiritual expedition for the purpose of articulating something, and that is my best guess. Second to that, before he embarked on this sabbatical, he referenced Paul David Tripp’s view of the GS tenet of deep repentance (which Tripp articulates in the book, “How People Change”) in an interview with a Christian magazine. I surmise that his sabbatical was an expedition to define, by experience, one, or both of these GS tenets. I assume tomorrow, the first Sunday of his return, will also be his appearing before the fawning faithful to reveal what he experienced during his sabbatical.

Piper is a strong proponent of the GS doctrine though he avoids interpretive labels like the Bubonic Plague. Perhaps he will come out of the closet on Sunday. But I can’t help to take notice of when he is returning – the first Sunday of the new year, when Christians really ought to be focused on their own walk with God. And regarding this sabbatical preparing him for the final stretch of his ministry, which he hopes might be five years – I’m surprised he didn’t suggest three.

paul