Olson on Piper on God
Apparently, there is controversy swirling around Roger Olson again, for his remarks in response to John Piper's explanation of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis. For instance, Rick Phillips wants to play the Unpardonable Sin card against Olson, and Justin Taylor approvingly cites Steve Hays's fisking of Olson, but knocks iMonk Michael Spencer's reaction to Phillips as "over-the-top and bordering on dishonest."
Sigh.
Seems that everyone wants to dissect what Olson had to say--which, admittedly, reads as a hastily-written gut-level reaction. But what about what Piper wrote? He takes Jesus' words in Luke 13 as applicable to the bridge collapse and writes, "He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don’t repent, we too will perish. [...] That any human is breathing at this minute on this planet is sheer mercy from God. [...] The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever."
Let me be the first to say that, on a level of formal, literal meaning, I can agree with everything Piper wrote. And lest someone think I'm trying to smuggle in a smarmy remark regarding Dr. Piper, I could replace "John Piper" with "Keith Schooley" in his statement, and still agree with it. Even more so.
But the problem I have with Calvinism as expressed in this manner is its stark insistence that this is the only way we are to view God: He is so high and holy, and we are such miserable human vermin, that we should be always and forever astonished and grateful that He does not strike us dead--and worse--at every single moment of our lives, and it shouldn't surprise us much whenever He occasionally pops off and does exactly that. In an interesting exchange with his daughter, Piper writes, "Talitha said, ‘Maybe he let it fall because he wanted all the people of Minneapolis to fear him.’ ‘Yes, Talitha,’ I said, ‘I am sure that is one of the reasons God let the bridge fall.’"
Fear. Once again, I'll gladly acknowledge: it's the beginning of wisdom. But surely only the beginning? Is that really the sum total of what our response to God should be? And is that the only way God views us--loathsome beings whom He merely tolerates to demonstrate how merciful He is? Granted that God hates sin, and granted that we are all sinners deserving of hell--whatever became of the imago dei? Is there not something within us, a reflection of Himself, that even the holy God finds worth redeeming?
In another post dealing with Rabbi Harold Kushner being interviewed on the subject, Piper writes, "The most astonishing thing is that God’s grace is so great neither the Rabbi nor I was struck dead by God during the interview—he, because of his blasphemous belittlings of God, and I, because of my contaminated anger at what he said." Here we have it again: the theme that if God didn't act with unimaginable self-restraint, He would just strike us all dead (elect and non-elect alike, apparently).
Piper also faults Kushner for stating that "People need consolation, not explanation." Piper insists that people do need explanation, and so offers it to them in the words of Joseph: "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Genesis 50:20). He cites the comfort it gives people to believe that God in fact is in control and has a purpose for even the worst things (citing Romans 8:28, which nonetheless does not say that each individual thing has a good purpose, but that everything taken together will be for the good of those who love God). But in the Genesis passage it had become clear what the good was that was accomplished by Joseph being sold into slavery: the rescue of his family (and all of Egypt, and the surrounding nations) from starvation--"the saving of many lives," as Joseph himself states. How this applies to the apparently capricious destruction of several lives is anyone's guess. Joseph's singular recognition of the good that his brothers' evil act accomplished simply does not translate into a universal principle that every evil event was directly or indirectly designed by God to carry out some higher purpose. Joseph's brothers' wanton destruction of the men of Shechem, comes to mind as an event with no similar redeeming value.
And just so we don't forget the point, Piper reiterates his statement to Rabbi Kushner: "if you would trust him, you would be saved from the wrath of God that your blasphemy and my contaminated anger deserve." Not, "If you would trust him you would find the consolation and meaning you are trying to offer to others," or "If you would trust him you would have the eternal life that transcends even the power of death." No. Just being saved from our deserved wrath. That's all it's all about.
Once again, just to be blindingly clear to the inevitable critics: it is not a matter of actually disagreeing with Piper's direct statements. It's just a matter of emphasis, of tone, of harping on certain things and leaving other things out entirely. Are we just objects of wrath, whom God unaccountably restrains Himself from destroying at every moment? Is that really the best way of looking at how God regards us?
Technorati Tags: John Piper, Roger Olson, Calvinism, Reformed
Sigh.
Seems that everyone wants to dissect what Olson had to say--which, admittedly, reads as a hastily-written gut-level reaction. But what about what Piper wrote? He takes Jesus' words in Luke 13 as applicable to the bridge collapse and writes, "He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don’t repent, we too will perish. [...] That any human is breathing at this minute on this planet is sheer mercy from God. [...] The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever."
Let me be the first to say that, on a level of formal, literal meaning, I can agree with everything Piper wrote. And lest someone think I'm trying to smuggle in a smarmy remark regarding Dr. Piper, I could replace "John Piper" with "Keith Schooley" in his statement, and still agree with it. Even more so.
But the problem I have with Calvinism as expressed in this manner is its stark insistence that this is the only way we are to view God: He is so high and holy, and we are such miserable human vermin, that we should be always and forever astonished and grateful that He does not strike us dead--and worse--at every single moment of our lives, and it shouldn't surprise us much whenever He occasionally pops off and does exactly that. In an interesting exchange with his daughter, Piper writes, "Talitha said, ‘Maybe he let it fall because he wanted all the people of Minneapolis to fear him.’ ‘Yes, Talitha,’ I said, ‘I am sure that is one of the reasons God let the bridge fall.’"
Fear. Once again, I'll gladly acknowledge: it's the beginning of wisdom. But surely only the beginning? Is that really the sum total of what our response to God should be? And is that the only way God views us--loathsome beings whom He merely tolerates to demonstrate how merciful He is? Granted that God hates sin, and granted that we are all sinners deserving of hell--whatever became of the imago dei? Is there not something within us, a reflection of Himself, that even the holy God finds worth redeeming?
In another post dealing with Rabbi Harold Kushner being interviewed on the subject, Piper writes, "The most astonishing thing is that God’s grace is so great neither the Rabbi nor I was struck dead by God during the interview—he, because of his blasphemous belittlings of God, and I, because of my contaminated anger at what he said." Here we have it again: the theme that if God didn't act with unimaginable self-restraint, He would just strike us all dead (elect and non-elect alike, apparently).
Piper also faults Kushner for stating that "People need consolation, not explanation." Piper insists that people do need explanation, and so offers it to them in the words of Joseph: "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Genesis 50:20). He cites the comfort it gives people to believe that God in fact is in control and has a purpose for even the worst things (citing Romans 8:28, which nonetheless does not say that each individual thing has a good purpose, but that everything taken together will be for the good of those who love God). But in the Genesis passage it had become clear what the good was that was accomplished by Joseph being sold into slavery: the rescue of his family (and all of Egypt, and the surrounding nations) from starvation--"the saving of many lives," as Joseph himself states. How this applies to the apparently capricious destruction of several lives is anyone's guess. Joseph's singular recognition of the good that his brothers' evil act accomplished simply does not translate into a universal principle that every evil event was directly or indirectly designed by God to carry out some higher purpose. Joseph's brothers' wanton destruction of the men of Shechem, comes to mind as an event with no similar redeeming value.
And just so we don't forget the point, Piper reiterates his statement to Rabbi Kushner: "if you would trust him, you would be saved from the wrath of God that your blasphemy and my contaminated anger deserve." Not, "If you would trust him you would find the consolation and meaning you are trying to offer to others," or "If you would trust him you would have the eternal life that transcends even the power of death." No. Just being saved from our deserved wrath. That's all it's all about.
Once again, just to be blindingly clear to the inevitable critics: it is not a matter of actually disagreeing with Piper's direct statements. It's just a matter of emphasis, of tone, of harping on certain things and leaving other things out entirely. Are we just objects of wrath, whom God unaccountably restrains Himself from destroying at every moment? Is that really the best way of looking at how God regards us?
Technorati Tags: John Piper, Roger Olson, Calvinism, Reformed
8 comments:
Keith,
I take it you do not agree with Piper's tone? :^) I think the backdrop of this tone must surely be a halo of Edwards' creepy little spider hanging over hell-fire.
And what's really scary to me is, I agree with the Rabbi! Help!
I really do believe that most people in times of tragedy--not counting the crusty media hounds--are looking for consolation, not apology or theodicy. "How can I hurt better?" is the query of the moment.
Good post, Keith. With that, I am...
Peter
Keith,
I'm not sure if you have read or listened to enough of John Piper.
He has clearly stated his pastoral approach to counseling those with tragedy.
1. Preach and teach the biblical truths of God's sovereignty so that people have a solid foundation to stand upon when tragedy strikes.
2. When tragedy does strike, “Hug and cry first, give God-centered explanations later.” (See Response to Rabbi Kushner on the Collapse of the 35W Bridge)
Not reading or seeing the original interview, I can only comment on your take on it here. However, such an approach appears common in many of the Reformed Churches I have attended. There often appears to be a edge of elitist heartlessness in what they say. It is often judgment first and then mercy.
Also, per the context of Luke 13, I interpret that specific verse to apply to the Jews who lived at that time in Jerusalem. They would be subject to the Judgment that would befall them in 70AD. It was a punishment that would befall them as a punishment for their sins; specific sins of rejection of God's message in Jesus; their rebellion against Rome (God's ordained 'authority' over them); and their use of God's law against itself (to rob their parents, for example). It was not a proclamation of judgment on all Jews at all times and it is certainly not a proposition that condemns everyone at every time. I think God is much more "slow to anger" than that.
It is just a change in emphasis, but I think it is an important one.
Hi, Peter. We're on the same page, as usual.
Hi, Greglong. Welcome.
You're probably right; I'm sure I haven't read enough of Piper. On the other hand, I don't see anyone restraining themselves regarding Olson's now-infamous one-liner on the grounds that they haven't read enough Olson.
I did see Piper's response to Kushner and quoted from it in my original post. It's Piper's "God-centered explanations" that I have a problem with--not that they're God-centered; just that they're IMO the wrong explanation.
Hi Caine, welcome. I did link to Piper's explanation above, if you do want to read it. (Click on the phrase in the first paragraph that includes the words "John Piper's explanation.")
I didn't want to sidetrack myself by getting into a critique over Piper's exegesis of Luke 13, but I think you're right: Jesus quite simply didn't say, "Everyone deserves to die." It was a veiled prophecy of the judgment of AD 70.
At any rate, it doesn't appear that Jesus was talking to people who were themselves bereaved or traumatized by the event; it wasn't a pastoral situation. Even though I might formally agree with Piper that "Everyone deserves to die," it's clear that Jesus did not go through his ministry telling people who asked for his help, "You deserve what you're getting, and worse. Repent!" No, he "had compassion on the multitudes" and met their needs.
Thanks for the comments.
I agree with you, Keith, about the exegesis of Luke 13. I've argued that point before - in many cases, Jesus' words, while they have application now (the parable of the prodigal son, for example), have their original audience meaning with reference to a particular time in redemptive history.
I doubt I would agree with all Kushner says. But I believe that Jesus' weeping at Lazarus' tomb or over Jerusalem - not to mention His agony in the Garden - should form our perception of God just as much as the doctrine of total depravity should.nx
Here is an interesting page from Miroslav Volf's book "Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a World Stripped of Grace".
There is a balance that is needed concerning God's love and plan for people, and God's show of his own greatness. Unfortunately, I think most Calvinists have a all too zealous "either/or" mentality. Here's Volf's quote:
"Consider, first, what Luther calls human love, but which is better described as distorted love. It’s elicited by the object of love; it’s basically passive in the sense that it depends on the object of love, Its only activity, says Luther, consists in “receiving something”. A person sees beauty – or goodness or truth – and wants to have it. As a consequence, people who love in this way seek their “own good” in those they love: they don’t bestow any good on them. A man may shower a woman with gifts, but he may be doing it so that he can ingratiate himself to her, enjoy her, keep her, or even worse, so that he can display her as a trophy. When we love in this way, we are receivers, not givers.
Contrast this kind of possessive love with divine love. First, divine love never had to come into being at all; it wasn’t elicited by its object. It simply is. It doesn’t depend on the truth, beauty, or goodness of the beloved. Second, as Luther stated, because God’s love isn’t caused by its object, it can love those who are not lovable…Luther concluded, “Rather than seeking its own good, the love of God flows forth and bestows good”.
Such divine love is supremely manifested on the cross on which Jesus Christ took the sin of the world upon himself. “This is the love of the cross, born of the cross, which turns in the direction where it does not find good which it may enjoy, but where it may confer good upon the bad and needy person”. Unlike merely human love, divine love gives and doesn’t receive.
Some theologians claim that all God’s desires culminate in a single desire: to assert and to maintain God’s own glory. On its own, the idea of a glory-seeking God seems to say that God, far from being only a giver, is the ultimate receiver. As the great twentieth-century theologian Karl Barth disapprovingly put it, such a God would be “in holy self-seeking…preoccupied with Himself”. In creating and redeeming, such a God would give, but only in order to get glory; the whole creation would be a means to this end. In Luther’s terms, here we would have a God demonstrating human rather than divine love.
But we don’t have to give up on the idea that God seeks God’s own glory. We just need to say that God’s glory, which is God’s very being, is God’s love, the creative love that wants to confer good upon the beloved. Now the problem of a self-seeking God has disappeared, and the divinity of God’s love is vindicated. In seeking God’s own glory, God merely insists on being toward human beings the God who gives. This is exactly how Luther thought about God. So should we.
Yet have I now come full circle, inadvertently embracing God the Santa Claus, who gives without demanding anything? No, and the difference is this: Unlike gifts received from Santa Claus, whose gifts are the end of the story, God’s gifts oblige us to something further. To what do God’s gifts oblige us? What is the nature of the obligation? Let’s examine the second question first.” pages 38-39
Welcome, S.B. Thanks for the quote.
I guess my own view is rather simpler. I think God in fact does find something worth loving in us: the imago dei, His own image. (The references in Genesis 5:1 and James demonstrate that the image was not lost at the Fall. Theologians who argue that the image was distorted or corrupted do so with a complete lack of biblical evidence. We have obviously misused the image, which is sacrilege, but that's not the same thing.) God's love for us is not disinterested at all--it's very interested.
Moreover, while I think that everything that happens, taken together, does end up glorifying God, and that everything He does glorifies himself, I don't think that He necessarily does everything for the purpose of glorifying Himself. Glorifying Himself is simply a byproduct of His perfection.
Post a Comment