Somehow, my entire day today was filled with conversations about about gay marriage. To start it off, John Piper wrote a fairly controversial post on a tornado which struck an ELCA convention that was discussing human sexuality (I encourage everyone to read the post and try to consider the many reasons people think why it was both good and bad).
Some posts on the topic
From what seems to be a theologically liberal view
From what seems to be a theologically moderate view
From a theologically conservative view
From Greg Boyd
Personally, I'm a lot more sympathetic towards the second and third posts. You can say a lot about the wisdom of Piper's post without having to get into the theological debate over gay marriage. In general, I tend to think that Piper's post was unwise and a little shaky logically.
Logically
The first three points are fine - given Piper's assumptions on Biblical authority, these are very sound conclusions for him to make, even if you don't agree with them. However, points 4, 5, and 6 seem kind of like a train wreck to me. There is a major non-sequitur in between points 3 and 4. Point 5, to me, seems to be both a misinterpretation and a point that can be easily misinterpreted by readers. Point 6, the conclusion, just seems to come absolutely out of nowhere.
Point 4 - "Jesus Christ controls the wind, including all tornadoes". Perhaps, but what does that have to do with this (many commenters also noted that in the verse from Mark that Piper cites, Jesus calms the wind and storm. Except for the destruction of the fig tree, Jesus doesn't seem to perform miracles in violent, destructive ways)? Piper believes every action is ordained for a reason, but that still doesn't answer why this particular tornado should have so clear the purpose he interprets (several posts offer examples of why applying his interpretation to other natural disasters and tornadoes is problematic).
Point 5 - "When asked about a seemingly random calamity near Jerusalem where 18 people were killed, Jesus answered in general terms—an answer that would cover calamities in Minneapolis, Taiwan, or Baghdad. God’s message is repent, because none of us will otherwise escape God’s judgment." Piper quotes from Luke 12
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”I don't see much wrong with the conclusion Piper draws. Applying it to this situation, however, is something I can't follow. The verse seems to be given as a response to why suffering occurs, why people are hurting, and it specifically talks about a group NOT being more sinful for receiving punishment.
Point 6 - There is a lot hidden between the lines to arrive at this point, and I'm not very happy with what Piper did. Even if points 4 and 5 are shaky, they are points I might agree with in general. Concluding point 6 from 4 and 5 is not.
Piper assumes first of all that Jesus would use nature's destruction to warn (which seems akin to threatening), which doesn't seem to be the Biblical precedent with either God (Noah was warned of the flood before the flood, Lot was given time to warn Sodom and Gomorrah before their destruction), the prophets (even Moses' curses were never meant to be warnings; they warned Pharaoh while speaking directly to him, and the curses were given as confirmation that God kept his word), or Jesus. In the cases where nature is actually used by God to destroy, the warnings are usually given before nature arrives to decimate everything. God may have used nature to cast judgment; but God using nature as a big threatening stick seems very petty, and not at all in line with what is Biblically recorded. This is not precluding the fact that there's plenty of Bible references that claim that good and evil happen to both righteous and sinners, and that Piper assumes automatically that this is a case of evil happening to sinners.
Piper then seems to conclude the complete opposite of point 5. Point 5 and the Scripture from which it quotes claims that the ones whom disaster struck were not worse sinners. His point for 5 was that we all are sinners, and have need to repent. Piper then seems to conclude in 6 that, since a disaster struck the ELCA, they are therefore being singled out for a warning. This doesn't make any sense.
A friend asked me for a Biblical response to Piper's interpretation, but I didn't see much of a Biblical basis for his conclusion. It seems as if the specific interpretation that the ELCA tornado was a warning from God came from pretty much nowhere.
Wisely?
Logically, I can excuse Piper - perhaps I'm missing something in his arguments, or perhaps this seemed extremely clear to him at the time (which might have felt like a leading of the Spirit to him). However, I think the post itself was unwise due to its impact on Christians and the publicity of the post itself.
On the impact of Piper on Christians, there is no doubt that he is near idolized among many Christians today. His influence among evangelical pastors is huge. Perhaps he did intend to spur Christians to think like he did in the post. If he did, however, I find that strange, because he has typically not been one to speculate in this faux-prophetic sort of manner, and I don't think his church is one to do so either (and his blog does represent his church, after all). It just strikes me as out of character for him.
On the publicity of the post, let me just say that a post like this gets extremely bad press. Perhaps Piper didn't intend to sound like Pat Robertson. However, he certainly came across similarly. From one of the linked blogs:
Piper should have been more aware, in my opinion, that to the watching world his comments will sound identical (though they are surely not) to Pat Robertson’s unbelievably self-righteous and irresponsible remarks after 9/11. It’s not Piper’s fault that his remarks will be received that way. But it’s where we live, and I believe Piper’s remarks will make it even more difficult to win homosexuals to Christ because he has planted unnecessary stumbling blocks that have nothing to do with the gospel of Christ crucified for sinners.
By now, I'm getting sleepy (it's 3AM), so I'll wrap this up, and hopefully continue this conversation in the comment section.
------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, a great friend at school talked with me about the Episcopal Church's General Convention meeting, where the issue of human sexuality was brought up in two resolutions, each of which pushed to acknowledge openly partnered homosexuals in the church.
The Episcopal Church is an interesting entity - it's officially tied to the global Anglican Communion, but it gets press for being much more liberal theologically and (church) politically than the rest of the Communion. I was drawn to the Anglican culture through figures like C.S. Lewis, NT Wright, Rowan Williams - all great scholars and thinkers who were, at the same time, very much Orthodox Christians. Rowan Williams, for example, is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the chief bishop of the Anglican Communion (i.e. he's probably the largest figure in Anglicanism globally).
A few things to note - in his earlier years, he held fairly liberal views concerning same-sex marriages. In taking up the title of Archbishop of Canterbury, however, he expressed his public views as being much more Orthodox for the sake of keeping the church united. The Episcopalean church has typically been very American in it's actions - independent, a little bit arrogant - and it has already caused some hints of schism between them and the larger Anglican church (Episcopaleanism in America has already sort of split - many American bishops cut ties to the Episcopalean church in response to their increasingly liberal policies, aligning themselves instead with the more conservative African arm of the Anglican Communion). At their General Convention, the pattern seems to have continued - Rowan Williams himself showed up and essentially pleaded for the Convention to not make decisions that would increase the divide between them and the rest of the Anglican Communion. The Convention didn't seem to listen.
What seems so odd about this is that Williams is publicly known to be sympathetic towards openly partnered homosexuals, but that he was pleading on behalf of church unity for the General Convention to, at the very least, take smaller and slower steps. It seems very disrespectful, to me, that he might merit such a response from the Episcopalean Church. Even if the General Convention believes strongly in the open practice of homosexuality, moving too quickly towards that goal seems rash, irresponsible, arrogant, and inconsiderate of the rest of the Anglican communion, especially for a group that claims individualism is the "great Western heresy" of evangelical Christianity.
Here's a news report detailing the General Convention, with quotes from Rowan Williams and NT Wright.
------------------------------------------------------------
A few thoughts about the issue on a more holistic level
1) It seems as if most people defending the conservative view have moved past the question of whether homosexuality itself is a sin (which I think is a very good thing) and onto questions concerning open practice of homosexuality.
2) While some may claim that the issue isn't central to Christianity, a lot of other issues are tacked on to the gay marriage controversy that would probably be considered much more important; for example, changes in theological views on gay marriage also carry with them questions about the interpretation/view of of Scripture, and possibly questions on the interaction of church and culture. Like it or not, this is an issue we should all probably wrestle with somewhat.
3) This should not be an issue to rush towards a conclusion on (either towards the conservative or liberal conclusion).
Thoughts?
10 comments:
a couple quick thoughts...
on point 4, if you believe in the trinity....then yes, Jesus does many destructive things =p.
on point 5, think nadab and abihu. to say that God always specifically warns is not true...
and point 6, here are Piper's words: "a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin."
1) he doesn't apply it just to that group
2) he doesn't apply it solely to homosexuality
i would say that although easy to miss, if you read his words carefully, he actually is applying it generally...not specifically as it seems.
as for wisdom...well, yea. although he probably anticipated a fair amount of public reaction, i'm not sure he anticipated that his words would be as misinterpreted as they were =/.
logically the whole thing is a fallacy. he makes a clear post hoc error inorder to justify a pre-fabricated ideological supposition about god's use of weather. it's like the farmer's almanac for voudou practitioners who would assert the same thing.
you have to re-interpret all of the things he said in light of the cross and the resurrection. that alone puts his speculative nonsense into doubt. the logical fallacy he makes then looks all the more absurd.
---- to henry ----
trinity - hey, that's cheating =P! haha, but seriously, even with the trinity, you could observe that God in the NT really doesn't do as many destructive things with nature (for reasons I am not completely sure on).
nadab and abihu - good call. I forgot about that story, though I think the general thought about God not using nature as a big threatening stick may still hold.
Point 6 - that is true, but the post as a whole is still speaking about the ELCA. The "and all of us" seems like an afterthought, as does the "approval of sin" part. He's talking about homosexuality for the majority of the post - simply changing the last few lines of the conclusion to be more general doesn't change the direction that the rest of the post takes.
On wisdom, I'd have to disagree. I don't think his words were really misinterpreted - I think they were intended to be read that way. Granted, he's only "venturing" an interpretation and conditioning his conclusion with "all of us" (not ELCA) and "the approval of sin" (not just homosexuality), but the rest of his post doesn't follow this line, and this is his VERY public blog. I'm sure he understands that this would cause a huge stir given his position, but it just doesn't seem wise to put something as speculative as this up.
Henry, I can't believe you read this at 8AM...thanks =)
-- to drew --
wow, I'm honored to have gotten a personal response from one of the blogs I linked. thanks for stopping by
I think I agree with you comment, but at the same time, that becomes a question of his vs. my interpretation, and that's harder to write a "short" post on. I had hoped to consider his points from his view and explore what I thought were things that (even given his interpretation) I think he did wrong and unwisely.
I'm neither a logician nor a theologian; I cannot speak with any degree of authoritativeness whatsoever, but to me the issue comes down to this: to what extent was God speaking through Piper when he wrote his entry?
Piper prefaced his remarks with a certain measure of tentativeness, I thought, suggesting that his words were not to be read as direct prophecy.
So Piper is not claiming prophetic powers, and yet those appear to be grounds on which many seem to be challenging him.
What Piper should not have done is advance his thoughts in numbered point-by-point fashion -- it makes for clear and easy reading, but it also gives his post an air of pat definitiveness that Piper may not have intended.
If we can get beyond that and perhaps the fallacious reasoning, perhaps we can return to the question I asked earlier: to what extent is God speaking through Piper -- a flawed, broken, but, by all accounts, faithful vessel?
"Let me venture" that the Holy Spirit moved Piper to write this entry because it is important to God that people obey him (God).
God saw that members of ELCA were considering starting to head down a path that might place people in a state of systemic unrepentant disobedience to him.
Whether or not the link between the weather and the proceedings are as crude as Piper has hazarded, God placed this incident upon Piper's heart that he might be encouraged to wield his influence to try to persuade people not to disobey and not to make it easier for others to disobey him (God).
Piper's argument may have been imperfect, but God knew that its imperfections would help provoke discussion and reflection. God knew that it would rouse an often sleepy and complacent body of Christ to think more clearly about what his will for us is and to hopefully help us and others live it out more faithfully.
alan -
thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. It made me pause to think a bit. Thinking a bit more about the subject he definitely has encouraged.
I agree - I can accept that Piper might not have intended to speak direct prophecy, but that it did come out as such. I'm still unsure to what extent he expected his interpretation to be taken as truth as opposed to speculation.
I do think the connection to the weather is a crude, not-entirely-justified connection, but at the same time, perhaps good (like the thought and discussion his post has encouraged) will come of evil (the crude connection).
Thanks for the more calm and thought-out commentary on the subject. I'm not sure I agree with all you've said, but I *could* agree with it =P.
I'm not sure I agree with all you've said, but I *could* agree with it =P.
To be candid, I'm not sure how much I agree with all I wrote, either. Like you, I'm striving to consider Piper from his point of view, to make at least the effort to trudge about in his intellectual moccasins for a few moons, even if they chafe.
It would be tidier for me to dismiss Piper as a raving caricature of all that I find disreputable about Christianity. Easier, but not necessarily more edifying. As Piper suggests in his latest blog post, God makes use of all sorts of things to get our attention in life, and we can consider them our tornadoes.
Well, maybe Piper's wacked out speculations about the tornado -- maybe even Piper himself -- is a tornado of sorts for me. A call to humility and a reminder that God's truth is too far-ranging and elusive to be reducible to my instincts and predilections.
I think that would be a wise conclusion to draw from this, regardless of Piper's post itself - that we should consider carefully the thoughts and opinions of others concerning God, especially when we disagree. After all, as Anne Lamott says, "you can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do," and I'm sure the same quote applies to ideas as well.
An applicable link: http://www.christiansincontext.org/2009/08/woe-to-you-when-all-men-speak-well-of.html
I really resonate with Alan's posts. To generalize we may further ask: Why has God made gay marriage such a hot topic?
It's important to not only understand Piper's words, but why he writes them. In my personal readings of Piper, I feel God uses Piper more to inspire passion, not deliver theology (although Piper uses both very well).
I would not be surprised if Piper was very intentional in the wording of his post. On one hand, he is no prophet and doesn't claim to be. But on the other, Piper sounds as if he writes universal truth. Honestly in terms of *content*, Piper's blog post contains very little, and is erroneous in that. But look how God uses it!
Gay marriage is one of the few ways I see an intellectual conversation heading naturally towards a gospel presentation. But, like so many (including Jesse) point out, Christians do a pretty good job of messing things up. Yet the church must continue spreading the gospel, something quite difficult in the American landscape. Consider the dominant forces of American conversation: celebrities, stock markets, clothing, food, video games, vacation spots, jobs... I have a harder time seeing where such talk can lead to presentations of God's grace.
I think you know where the rest of this thought process goes. While we analyze the words, we must stand upon the broader purpose of fellowship and missions, and I think that while meditating upon gay marriage (and Piper's relevant blog posts) may bring understanding and fellowship with God, we should not forget that such things might help spread God's grace in this world. These are goals at which I think Piper aims, and in this context his wording makes more sense to me.
If not, then I'm wrong. Poo.
As a final note: it is the duty of the entire church, not just John Piper (or even Jesse Chan!) to spread the gospel. But a church full of fumbling sinners are bound to piss many people off (something would be more horribly wrong if it didn't).
Post a Comment