Thursday, October 6, 2016

John Piper and his companions of fools

Who we choose to hang around with, learn from, and be yoked in fellowship with is important. You know that. But lest we attempt to diminish our personal and professional associations into mere "the verses are just a warming about possible temptation but I'm strong enough to handle it" territory, in fact, we have a biblical duty to separate from false teachers and from repeatedly disobedient brethren. (Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 7-11, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; 1 Corinthians 5:11- source). Here is a good verse and then a commentary on the subject.

Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm. (Proverbs 13:20)

Matthew Henry says of this Proverbs verse,



Multitudes are brought to ruin by bad company: A companion of fools shall be broken (so some), shall be known to be a fool; noscitur ex socio—he is known by his company. He will be like them, will be made wicked; it comes all to one, for all those, and those only, that make themselves wicked, will be destroyed, and those that associate with evil-doers are debauched, and so undone, and at last ascribe their death to it.
And one more from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
One way to become wise is to associate with wise people, including companions and teachers. Conversely to associate with fools brings problems. The influence of good and bad associations is a common theme in Proverbs (1:10–11; 2:12; 4:14–17; 16:29; 22:24–25; 23:20–21; 28:7).
Though no doubt Dr Piper has shown decades of sound exegetical practices, hasn't seemed to disqualify himself morally, and has preached truth, the issue is not a one-time blowout of the Perry Noble or Tullian Tchividjian variety, it's an accumulation of things that once listed, seem more weighty together than they do separately. A teacher can fall by a thousand paper cuts, too. I'll finish this essay by expounding on these matters, but let's review some of the other issues that have been piling up.

Watchmen, well, watch, And when you watch, you see things. Here's what I see.

Piper's continuationism is a problem. Not that someone who holds to continuationism is necessarily false but at some point the adherent to continuationism departs from orthodoxy as he progresses down that road. This is because the Bible does not teach both continuationism AND cessationism. At some point, the truth emerges and the other doctrine falls away. As the Spirit grows us in sanctification, He corrects errors. To continue with error unchecked is a problem and it means you're on the wrong path.

For example, this from a Piper sermon in 1990, who was teaching that there are fresh prophecies today (continuationism) and the authority of scripture:
Nothing I say about today's prophecies means that they have authority over our lives like Scripture does. Whatever prophecies are given today do not add to Scripture.
So, one can prophesy from God but what God had said has less authority than when He spoke before? We can hear from God and prophesy what He said but it does not add to scripture? These are contradictory statements. And we know since God is perfect, that if there is confusion or error it is not on the part of God.

Another problem is Piper's Admitted fascination with manifestations such as tongues, prophesying, and miracles. He sent 50 people along with himself to personally check out a Vineyard Conference so that they could 'test what was prophesied and manifested there against scripture'. He met with Paul Cain (who Piper said later was a charlatan...who really prophesied...but who was mistaken in his prophesy over Piper...but is a real prophet...I'm getting whiplash), and he met with charismatic heretical preacher John Wimber for the same reasons. We know that cessationism is the orthodox stance, but if Piper was unsure, then it's the scriptures one turns to in order to clarify one's thinking. One does not send one's own congregants to a place that might be false simply to have the experience to test against scripture later. One does not meet with a modern-day prophet who might be false simply to hear what they have to say. This is akin to standing in a bonfire just to feel the heat, or rubbing one's self with acid because it might only be vinegar. Dabbling is dangerous. Dabbling with your own sheep is unconscionable.

"Dr. Piper has shown a pattern of hesitation and uncertainty on issues like this for decades, said Phil Johnson in 2013 and gave some examples going as far back as 1990. The issue to which he was referring was Piper's charismatic fascination. Piper never really denounced the excess of the charismatic movement, in fact, Piper admitted he prayed for manifestations of them in his own life.

Piper has of late been waffling on women teaching men in the church. Part of the art of discerning is not solely listening to what teachers say. What teachers say has to match with what teachers do. Piper has been softly strong on women not teaching men in the church. I say "softly strong" because this seems to be a pattern with Piper. Regarding the women teaching in authority, Piper makes exceptions for the occasional woman in Sunday School, because he feels like that is OK and he's "not going to be picky". He makes exceptions also for men to listen to female Bible teachers, "unless she starts to become like a shepherd" to the man, (another exception).

However what Piper most often says when asked directly is that he is a complementarian who submits to 1 Timothy 2:12. (except for the aforementioned exceptions, of course.). However, in practice, Piper has and continues to teach biblical material to mixed audiences on stage alongside women who are either ordained, or are recognized Bible teachers. At Passion Conference in the past he has stood alongside Beth Moore, and recently, has taught on stage alongside Christine Caine, who does call herself a pastor and overtly operates in that function. Both Moore and Caine have preached on Sunday at the pulpit in churches when substituting for the regular preacher. Moore notably does so at Osteen's arena at Lakewood. So Piper is a complementarian in name only because he says one thing and does another.

John Piper participates in and promotes Catholic mystical practices such as Lectio Divina and Contemplative Prayer. (CP). The practice of CP came in full force the more conservative quarters of the faith about 6 years ago. Suddenly many Bible teachers who claimed a conservative stance or belonged to a conservative denomination were doing CP. This kind of prayer is not a generalized prayer where the believer contemplates God or a verse after reading it, then prays about it. CP stands for a specific practice that is embedded in several false believing traditions, such as Hindu and Catholicism. We might know what contemplation is and we might know what prayer is, but combined and in certain contexts, they mean something very different.

However when asked about the legitimacy of CP, Piper defined it in the simple way, saying,
This is where, when you read your Bible, you pause and you see in and through the words to the reality with your heart, and you apprehend spiritual reality.
To claim that contemplative prayer is simply meditating on a verse and praying about it at the height of the problems that were coming to the fore with CP is either ignorant or disingenuous. Neither is a good place to be for a matured and seasoned pastor of the word of God. Piper should know that CP is and why it's important to refute it. That he didn't and participated in a session of it along with Lectio Divina, another Catholic mystical practice, gives foundation to Tom Chantry's important question, What's Inside John Piper's Geodes? and the assertion (one among many good assertions, stated more concisely than I could do)
I tweeted (not for the first time) that the man has no discernment at all. This brought about the usual reaction, mainly from people who didn’t bother to look up “discernment.” I was not, in fact, saying that John Piper has no talent, no grace, no ability, and has never done anything worthwhile in his life. In point of fact, I’ll admit that he’s pretty good at swinging the homiletical hammer, but I stand by the claim that he has no discernment.
And Mr Chantry goes on in clear focus as to why Piper has zero discernment, laying out two reasons:
--First, Piper lacks discernment because he is a charismatic. Let’s face it, charismatic pastors aren’t discerning – not any of them. I realize that Piper doesn’t fit many people’s definition of charismatic, but he fits mine: he’s unable to discern what is and what is not the Word of God.
--Second, Piper lacks discernment because he is unmoored from historical Christianity
Which brings us back to the concept I'd opened with: Piper's associations. Once again this winter Piper will appear at Passion Conference 2017, along with Beth Moore, Christine Caine, Hillsong United, and others.... As I'd mentioned, we have a biblical duty to separate from false teachers. (2 John 1:10-11, Romans 16:17-18, Ephesians 5:11). This is one of the ways that the less mature can observe faith in action. It's one of the ways we explicitly show false teachers where the dividing line of orthodoxy dwells. It's one of the ways we protect orthodoxy and keep a fortress around it, pure and strong. John Piper destroys each of these arguments every time he lends his own credibility to the false teachers. His is a credibility that is rapidly diminishing, though. When you drop a glove in the mud, the mud doesn't get glovey, does it. The Bible is clear about the devastating impacts of continued association with wolves. I bring your attention once again to the verse at the top and the two short commentary warnings about it.

A wise commenter at Tom Chantry's Geode essay explained that none of us who point out issues with Piper are saying Piper never did anything good. To th contrary. I personally don't click with him but I know many respectable theologians who do. And that's the reason we're so perplexed. There was good there, so why so much bad? The commenter said,
 In order to make any sense, there’s assumed good – there’s a reason we’re bewildered by it. There’s enough good plainly visible that these incidents strike us as inconsistent. How can someone who is so good on X be so clueless on Y. Or more, how can someone so good on X turn around and be so awful on X a week later?
Indeed. With so many great, solid pastors and teachers out there, I'd say skip Piper and move on to someone who isn't either spending his week clarifying and re-clarifying things, or who possesses a God-given dose of discernment, or who isn't a Charismatic, who doesn't yoke himself in spiritual endeavors with false teachers, or who says what he means and does what he says. The fact that Piper is "all of the above" should give any discerning person a long pause.

Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm. (Proverbs 13:20)

----------------------------------------------------
Further Reading

Jeff Maples: Is John Piper Disqualifying Himself as a Teacher?

Sunny Shell: Why I No Longer Follow John Piper of Desiring God ministry

Christine Pack/Sola Sisters- Has John Piper Lost His Mind?

Tom Chantry: What's inside John Piper's Geodes?

Lighthouse Trails: John Piper Says No to Catholic Contemplatives But Yes to Protestant Contemplatives

John MacArthur wrote an entire blog series addressing the doubt and error Piper brought into the conversation regarding Piper's admitted "confused, heart-wrenching uncertainty" and confusion-causing stance on modern day prophecies, miracles, and tongues.

Series- A Response to John Piper:




9 comments :

  1. oh my u bring up so much- so detailed-
    so discerning!God bless...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can you tell me why Catholicism is a "false believing tradition"? Or direct me to a post where you deal with that specifically?
    thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Catholicism is a false religion. People who adhere to Catholic doctrines are not saved. Catholics who the Holy Spirit prompts to trust the Lord alone by faith alone end up quickly rejecting Catholic doctrines and come out of the Roman Catholic Church.

      The problems with Catholicism are many.

      Justification by Faith AND works
      Purgatory
      Indulgences/Treasury of Merit
      Mortal and Venial sins (i.e. quantifying sin)
      The Pope claiming headship of the church on earth
      Pope claiming infalibility
      Priests being Alter Christus
      Transubstantiation
      Worshiping ("venerating") saints and praying to them

      And so on. Thank you for your question. Here are many articles you can pore over to learn more

      https://carm.org/is-catholicism-a-true-or-false-religion

      https://gotquestions.org/catholicism.html

      Delete
  3. I would also add that they don't depend solely on scripture, but on scripture AND their traditions...which are both equal in their sight. They also make confession to a priest, who supposedly is an intercessor to God for them. You know more than I, but I believe I've stated it correctly...I've never been Catholic...THANK GOD!

    Also, I abandoned listening to John Piper for all the reasons you stated. Just too much evidence to the contrary that he is doctrinally sound and trustworthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "that they don't depend solely on scripture, but on scripture AND their traditions."

      Which is ironically why a large portion of the charismatic movement is Roman Catholic -- the continuationism of each tradition naturally agrees with the other. And coincidentally, why much of mainstream pop Christianity (e.g. the passion conferences and all the others where catholics are invited to sing, or even to teach) happens to be ecumenical. It would be weird to distance themselves from the catholics when they agree so much on their attitude toward personal revelation and incorporation of pagan motifs into their worship music.

      Sadly.

      Delete
  4. The part about women teaching men has me a bit conflicted, because I'm a man but I've been blessed by the soundness of your commentary and the fact that you address things others don't, or more thoroughly, or more explicitly (ex. JMac mentioned Billy Graham's ecumenism in a sermon one time, but I can't find anything else from him on the subject--in contrast to your research). Also, anyone can read quotes and follow links and so not depend only on your word for something. I definitely don't approach you as 'my teacher,' but as someone who plays an important role in the Body as a theologically sound discernment-watchdog -- not to mention that your awareness of false 'women's ministry' movements is very helpful to any man who would ever anticipate having spiritual authority over women -- wife, daughter, or sister in Christ.

    You don't set yourself up as a teacher and you don't speak from your own authority, and I think you are certainly a benefit to men, just as women are called to witness to the Gospel even though that doesn't violate male headship.

    Idk, this is a stream of consciousness, not a complete statement pushing a single conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Elizabeth, I'm glad you addressed these issues on John Piper. I had noted for some time that he was on a slippery slope and holding hands with bad company...but then I would see you mention him/his teaching/or quotes (sorry I can't remember exactly) in a good light in the past. I always meant to ask you if you were aware of his slide downward. Yay, you have! :)
    Thank you for all your research and writing and teaching!
    Heather

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Elizabeth. Many people really idolize this man. I, like you, never cared for his style. Another reason to avoid Piper: He does not believe in a literal 6-day creation. Wasn't sure if you were aware of this. Saw him say it on a video clip.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi LesliaA,

    Thanks for the information, I was not aware...I looked it up and it appears that Piper believes humans are young (6000 years old or so) but the earth could be old. He said in both articles I read that Piper takes Dr Sailhamer's view, which is (From WIkipedia)

    Sailhamer argues for a view of creationism that he labels as "Historical Creationism", which contends that the creation week in Genesis 1 is a record of the preparation of the Garden of Eden for Adam and Eve, not a record of the preparation of the whole planet Earth itself or the universe. This view, along with the book Genesis Unbound, has been endorsed by major evangelical pastors and theologians (particularly in the New Calvinist movement), such as Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, and John Piper.

    I reject this position. It is another disagreement I have with Piper, I guess. Thanks for the info.

    ReplyDelete