We’re taking a look at some of John Piper’s most recent tweets. What do they mean?
***
We’re going to have a Piper Twitter fest today. I had originally planned to post only one tweet, but he’s been active on both of his Twitter accounts lately: @desiring God and @JohnPiper.
***
***
Ok, let’s first start off with one tweet in which I actually agree. Actually, I think this is one we can use as a barometer to compare with the others:
******************************************************
I think sometimes Piper must not think before tweeting. The following is what he tweeted on the same day the world was shocked to hear and see clips of a video in which a 26-yr Jordanian pilot was burned alive, set on fire by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It was very poor timing to tweet this:
******************************************************
This is confusing to me because Piper believes that God is Sovereign and controls every molecule, so why would he suggest to pastors to use good vocabulary? Doesn’t that put the onus on pastors and contradict Piper’s beliefs that it is God who does this work? Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m open to hearing your thoughts and criticisms.
******************************************************
I’m sure the following would be comforting to parents whose child has a terminal illness (sarcasm):
******************************************************
Oh yes, and this phrase would be perfect to include in a card to a woman who is currently married to an abuser, doncha think (more sarcasm)?
******************************************************
Ok, and now we’re at the original tweet that was going to be a post of its own:
***
So when David was thinking about killing Goliath, that was a sin? When Adam and Eve saw each other naked in the garden, was that a sin? When Jairus was weeping because of his daughter’s death, was he sinning? When I’m taking a shower or doing the dishes and my mind is not on God, does that mean I am sinning? When I’m with my study groups at college discussing relational databases or frequency probabilities, am I sinning? When you are eating a meal with your family and enjoying their company, are you sinning. Seriously, what does this tweet mean?
******************************************************
***
John Piper has 702 THOUSAND followers and the Desiring God Twitter account that features John Piper quotes has 294 THOUSAND followers.
I imagine that most of these followers are people who believe his words, ponder them, and try to apply them to their lives.
Do you see how damaging some of these tweets could be if they were internalized, especially victims of abuse?
***
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Ahh, I see. It’s okay for you to insult others as long as you get to have a platform to push your beliefs. When confronted about your inappropriate behavior, you take no responsibility.
Shall we be expecting you to be back in another couple of years for more of the same?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps you believe God did not know that sin and sickness would enter the world when he purposed to create. That is “the openness of God” theology. If he did know, but decreed to create anyway, he is either evil ( if we perceive the permitting of the sin and sickness to be evil), he couldn’t prevent sin and sickness from happening, or he decreed to permit it to accomplish a greater purpose through it.
LikeLike
“I am soon to be outta here like the fat kid in dodgeball.”
And what’s with calling out fat kids. I was a fat kid back in school. You know there’s a difference between being honest and being a clod.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Randy wrote – “Perhaps you believe God did not know that sin and sickness would enter the world when he purposed to create. That is ‘the openness of God’ theology.”
I recognize open theology as bad doctrine too. My criticism of Mr. Piper’s tweet is that he used the word “meant”. That is what makes his own doctrinal tweeting unsound in this instance, because there’s a huge difference between knowing something (as you just put it) and meaning (aka intending) something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim,
Thank you, I went out for coffee and came back to find my intelligence insulted. In my world this would also be called abusive, if it were to happen on a continual basis.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Julie Anne
Just an observation… 😉
Once again…
When, WE, His Sheep, His Ekklesia, His Church…
See, in a name, for a 501 c 3, IRS Corporation…
Or, in a Cyber name for a person…
The word “Grace.”
There is often, “Little Grace” – Very Little Grace…
In that IRS Corporation…
In that person…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was Joseph’s theology unsound when he told his brothers that God “meant” (intended) their sinful intentions and their sin to bring about his good purpose?
LikeLike
Randy,
By the way, I do not use Twitter, so if it makes you feel better to correct my lingo for that particular media, it doesn’t hurt my feelings at all.
LikeLike
Tim,
I bet you didn’t last long in dodge ball either. Lighten up
LikeLike
Tim,
If you can’t clearly tweet sound doctrine, don’t tweet doctrine at all.
Words to live by and hysterical, too. lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Randy, the Joseph history shows that God had a special intent behind the events, and when Joseph told his brothers “You intended it for evil but God intended it for good”, he was saying that God – in his sovereignty – uses bad things to achieve good results and that he intended that result all along. It is not the same as saying that God manipulated or forced Joseph’s brothers into treating him horribly. They acted according to their sinful nature (a way of looking at this I learned from R.C. Sproul, Sr.).
LikeLike
“I bet you didn’t last long in dodge ball either. Lighten up”
I have lightened up, Randy, I’m a lot thinner now. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I had said “You are probably too stupid to understand that,” that would have been a personal attack. I was giving her credit for having a modicum of intelligence. You have to admit, saying that Piper has “followers” means they are his disciples, not Jesus’ disciples does call that into question just a tad.
Well, I’m going to leave you all to your church bashing. I’m outta here like, well, you know.
LikeLike
Tim,
One last comment. Don’t confuse “intended” with “forced.”
LikeLike
Randy wrote – “Tim, One last comment. Don’t confuse ;intended’ with ‘forced’.”
I never have, Randy, thanks. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Randy, in case you are still around.
You said: “saying that Piper has “followers” means they are his disciples, not Jesus’ disciples does call that into question just a tad.”
That is exactly what I meant to say. There are many, many people who believe everything these celebrity preachers have to say. They don’t discern the Bible for themselves and trust what they are being told or whatever the newest theology is for this week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim,
You just did in your reply to me. You assumed I was talking about “force” when I was talking about “intention.”
LikeLike
Brenda,
My son-in-law seems to embrace John Piper’s methodology and doctrine, which means my daughter also goes along.
What I’m seeing is any “shortcomings” that Piper or Driscoll has involves a quick I’m sorry and they have repented.
Strange how it only works for those who embrace Neo-Hyper-Doctrine Theologies.
My former Stealth Neo-Reformed Calvinist firmly planted the Calvinist footprint among the younger generation in our church.
LikeLike
Randy wrote – Tim, You just did in your reply to me. You assumed I was talking about “force” when I was talking about “intention.”
//
No, I wasn’t assuming anything about your use of the word “intention”. I was pointing out how Piper’s tweet can be wrongly (yet reasonably) taken in its brevity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not still around but since your comment showed up on my blog I will answer it.
As people so often do, you took a word from my comment out of context and tried to build an argument on it. The context was “followers” on Twitter, not disciples. Every pastor has “followers” of his ministry, but that was not the sense in which I was using the term, and I think you know that. It is not his fault that some who follow him lack discernment. What should he do? Should he say to each one of them, listen to everything I say but don’t believe any of it?
Neither he nor I nor any other mere mortal will be right all the time. I have always told people not to believe anything I say or write unless they can find it in the pages of God’s Word in its proper context.
What the Church does not need are foot soldiers taking pot shots at the Generals. Perhaps you have heard Piper tell people to follow him blindly no matter what he says. I have not heard him say that. If you think he is wrong, pray for him. Write to him or to someone who understands his teachings and pose your objections.
Anyone can be a critic. Craftsmanship is always more difficult than criticism.
The problem with most “discernment blogs” is that their owners couldn’t actually accomplish anything for the glory of God if their lives depended. Most of them speak out of profound bitterness for some raw deal life has dealt them. When they run out of church and pastor bashing material, they have to start misrepresenting so they will have a reason to continue.
They all seem to be given to prodigious generalities. Do I under stand that some parents, pastors, husbands, (dare I say even wives? John Wesley’s wife used to beat him), Doctors, and churches have abused their authorites? Of course, I understand that. So that means we can now paint all pastors, husbands etc. with a broad brush. “The ‘institutional church’ is evil and abusive.” Which one of you has personally visited every institutional church in the world to verify that?
JA can talk trash about people in every post, but when someone calls her hand on it, they are not showing grace and love. It is time for her to show a bit of grace and love.
She has “followers.” Do you think they are her disciples and not Jesus’ disciples? Her following isn’t as large as Pipers. Perhaps that is the problem.
LikeLike
Tim,
Honestly, I think something could be said for care in tweeting. Besides God’s people should never “retweet.” (A little humor there).
God’s truth is not limited to 140 characters. I have often been frustrated by that limitation, though it has taught me to write more precisely. I think often our assumption is that we are writing to an audience that has a modicum of theological understanding. Perhaps that is an unwarranted assumption.
As much as I would like to continue this discussion, “I have promises to keep, andmiles to go before I sleep.” Blessings
LikeLike
Randy arote – “What the Church does not need are foot soldiers taking pot shots at the Generals.”
Well, the church has no generals. But that aside, your own latest post criticizes (rightly) those who teach that Christians must go beyond the gospel in our lives in Christ. As you write there, this is nonsense since the Bible teaches that the gospel is for all eternity.
And as for writing to Mr. Piper directly, many of us have tried. Silence, crickets, a blank wall. So the thing we do next is tell others of our concerns with his position on some issues, since he is famous and millions of people read his writings. We don’t want them led astray. If he would only correct himself when his problematic doctrinal statements are pointed out, there would be no need for this. But as Peter found out from Paul quite publicly, getting it wrong leads to correction.
We’re not taking pot shots, fin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Besides God’s people should never ‘retweet.’ (A little humor there).”
OK, Randy, now that’s funny. Thanks for the grin!
LikeLike
Using “generals” may have been a poor analogy. I stand corrected. I think we can both agree that the Church does have those who take the lead and to whom God has granted discernment. If you would like, I can send you an excerpt from a commentary I wrote on Hebrews that deals with this very issue from Heb. 13.
If those comments were aimed at me, I am not sure, but I might see them as pot shots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If those comments were aimed at me, I am not sure, but I might see them as pot shots.”
Randy, I’ve written some blog posts that have led commenters and even other bloggers to write entire treatises taking my position apart piece by piece. I like the engagement, and sometimes find correction and sometimes find at least understanding of their positions. The only time I consider it a pot shot is when someone calls me a poopy-head* who should be banned from electronic media in perpetuity.
Cheers,Tim
*Get it? Pot and poop? I crack myself up!
LikeLike
Two thirds of a pun–PU.
It is not the disagreements with my views that I mind, but the misrepresentations of those views. We will always have disagreements and at times we may both be wrong. What we must be careful to avoid are the straw man arguments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Two thirds of a pun–PU.”
Which itself is a pun, since we’re talking poop here!
LikeLike
Mark
It does seem that those that are teaching falsely are lacking in humility and true repentance. What is even worse is all of those that are lead astray by those same teachings and behaviors. JP left behind several pastors at Bethlehem Baptist that were taught in the way he trained them. I shutter each time a minister uses a quote of one of these guys. I personally have never heard Mark Driscoll quoted but have JP on several occasions. The church I attend claims neither Calvinism or Armenian, but the foot prints are left each time a quote is made. I am afraid for the future and speak up to the point of being I believe a thorn in the side. Those of us who attend a local church have to keep our leaders accountable as much or more as the opposite.
Blessings, Brenda
LikeLiked by 3 people
I wish I had time to continue this discussion. You and I could come up with a really good skit given the proper opportunity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Randy, I took Piper’s own tweets and posted them. I described what they meant to me at face value. I asked what they might mean to others. I asked my readers to use their critical thinking skills. That’s not talking trash. That’s taking a public person’s words and trying to make sense of them as it applies to them spiritually.
But you talked trash about me here personally, and with Brenda. Other called you on it and you have yet to own up to it. Interesting. Just keep in mind, you are a guest at my blog in which I do not allow personal attacks. I allowed you to remain talking even though you had crossed the line several times, so let’s have a little understanding here.
And . . . let’s also keep in mind that you are showing yourself to have an agenda when you post here just as you did in 2013. It seems that your intention is not to engage in a kind fashion, but to correct everybody who doesn’t align with you doctrinally. That’s not cool here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“That’s not cool here.”
And that’s what makes your blog a very cool place to hang out, JA.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I find it interesting that Randy has continued his conversation with Tim, but has completely ignored addressing me personally, but has talked about me. That’s weird, Randy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do have an agenda. It is to challenge people like you with the truth. You did post his tweets, but then you posted you thughts implying he was saying something different from what he said. If you would like, I will expain to you what his posts meant and show you how you completely misrepresented them. What does Adam and Eve seeing each other naked in the Garden or David killing Goliath have to do with sinning in prefering something ahead of God. On its face, Piper’s statement was precisely right. There was no cause for you to make light of it. You said, “Correct me if I am wrong,” and I did.
I am not trying to correct you doctrinally. I suspect that would be a futile effort. What I am trying to correct are your efforts to mislead your “followers” by implying that Piper intended to say something he CLEARLY (Here I am making what is perhaps an unwarranted assumption that people have actually listened to him and read his writings extensively, and have not taken sound bites and run with them) does not believe.
Example:
I don’t know a great deal about Piper’s “mission trip.” He may have preached John Calvin every step of the way. My assumption would be that you don’t have a video of every word he spoke on that entire trip
LikeLike
JA Can you honestly tell me you think Piper believes it is God’s work to preach the gospel?
I don’t think even you would be able to draw that conclusion from anything he has ever said or written. Yet, you stated that in your retort to his tweet about care in gospel preaching. That is a misrepresentation. That is not an objective assessment of his tweet that leaves your readers to their discernment. You stated that as his belief. That, my dear, is talkng trash. The Bible calls it “bearing false witness.”
LikeLike
“So when David was thinking about killing Goliath, that was a sin? When Adam and Eve saw each other naked in the garden, was that a sin? When Jairus was weeping because of his daughter’s death, was he sinning? When I’m taking a shower or doing the dishes and my mind is not on God, does that mean I am sinning? When I’m with my study groups at college discussing relational databases or frequency probabilities, am I sinning? When you are eating a meal with your family and enjoying their company, are you sinning? Seriously, what does this tweet mean?”
What does any of that have to do with “a heart that prefers anything above God.”
Dish washing is a wonderful and ennobling experience, but I don’t prefer it above God. in fact, I believe I can love and glorify God in performing such a mundane activity.
LikeLike
But if someone disagrees with you, then what? That’s my point. You come across as if you are the only one imparted with the knowledge behind Piper’s tweets and feel the obligation to correct me or others as if you have all the answers.
Well, that doesn’t really matter. He posted the video of the words he wanted portrayed in his video here: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/after-darkness-light-video-from-geneva
We can base our conclusions on what he intended for the public to see, just as we can base our conclusions on tweets he sends out for public consumption.
Just for the record, Randy. I wouldn’t waste your time here defending Piper on my blog. He has never fully retracted his statement on women enduring a smacking. He also still firmly believes in the Permanence of marriage (ie, women who are abused must remain married to their abusing spouse and suffer for righteousness sake and there is never any reason acceptable for divorce, even adultery). His views of women in the church are absurd. The God I serve defends the weak and oppressed. Piper would rather defend a husband at all costs so he can maintain his “headship” position.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow this thread got lit up!
Randy, I tend to agree with you – to the degree that I understand where Piper is coming from, and as I said earlier, I attended his pastors conference where all those quotes have context. Plus I’ve read much of what he wrote, and I had the chance at the end of the conference to personally thank him for introducing me to a theology that taught me I could find joy in loving and serving Jesus, something I’d missed in my growing up.
Where I disagree, and am rather ashamed, is how you have to take to insulting people’s intelligence and calling them bitter etc. That’s uncool. It doesn’t help them, and it doesn’t help those of us who love the sovereignty of God. I don’t know about you, but it took me years to be at peace with the Doctrines of Grace. They are weighty and the consequences huge. But I think they’re right.
That being said, I’m patient with those who don’t believe them… yet 🙂 It is a hard, even if biblical, pill to swallow. Put some sugar on it, instead of trying to jam it down with a toilet plunger 😉
I also understand hostility toward the doctrines of grace. Been there too. But I find that being patient and kind towards hose who are is far more effective ultimately, if not more satisfying immediately.
I know why Piper stirs up such animosity. There’s a lot at stake, and he’s the figurehead of the reformed movement. Sometimes I vehemently disagree with him. He’s not Jesus, and I “think” he knows that 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Piper: “Sinning is any feeling or thought or speech or action from a heart that prefers anything to God.”
How do you show preference? His words can make one think that it’s wrong to:
– think about your taxes or work deadlines because that thought is entering your mind before God.
– enjoy marital sex because while they are enjoying the act, their mind is not on God.
He doesn’t give enough info in the tweet to say what he means and so it can lead people down a wrong path spiritually. He, as a leader, is responsible to be clear and concise with his words. He fails time and again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Joe, thank you. Sadly, this is a common pattern among those who staunchly defend the likes of Piper or hyper-Calvinism. And .. . .if you notice, they typically refuse to humble themselves and apologize when someone tells them they were wrong or hurtful (as he has displayed here). I’ve seen the pattern all too often.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JA,
I’ve noticed the same pattern and it makes me really sad, because I’d like to think we’re on the same page. I think, and it’s just my opinion, that the reformed faith has two types in it: those who arrived there by study and time, and those who arrived there because it’s intellectually stimulating and appeals to the egotistical side we all have – “our doctrine is deeper, so the rest of you suck!”. The former I trust will be understanding of those who aren’t there yet, the latter are just better than the rest – and they know it! Of course, they don’t say it that way, they couch that in terms of caring about “doctrine.”
I care about doctrine too… But I recognize that nobody ever said, “he called me bitter and stupid. From now on, I embrace Gods sovereignty!” Or if it has, I haven’t seen it!
LikeLiked by 4 people
it is really pretty simple. Since he didn’t say a word about not having my mind on sex when i make love to my wife, we can probably rule that out as one of his possible meanings. same goes for taxes, quantum physics, washing dishes, or any other activity. I suspect if he had meant it is sin to ever think about anything other than God, that is what he would have said. I think ifyou will lay aside your bias against Piper, you will find he is quite lucid. Just read the words without reading your thoughts into them.
Did he say, “If any thought enters my mind adead of thoughts about God, I am sinning?” No. He is talking about preferring anything above God. You said, “His words can make you think . . . .” No, there is nothing in his
WORDS that should make anyone think that. You thought that because it was in your head, not because it is in his words.
LikeLike
Randy, I personally don’t have a “bias against Piper”. I do have a bias against many things he says, though, whether in tweets or videos or articles. He has fallen into the practice of sloppy communication too often, and it hurts the body of Christ when it devolves into bad doctrine or bad advice – or both as in this unfortunate instance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You invited your readers to correct you if you were wrong, so I did. It is not a matter of my opinion. It is a simple fact. You have borne false witness against John Piper.
It is an interesting tatic you use to avoid that fact by raising other issues that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. You call for others to repent. Now it is your turn.
I would be happy to discuss some of the other issues you have raised about Piper later. On some, he and I would agree; on others no so much. The issue you seem to be skirting now has to do with your sin, not his.
Disagree with him all you like, but at least try to get some understanding of what he believes before you go spouting off again.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, I think JA has done a good job of representing reasonable understandings of Mr. Pipers tweets, and facilitating a discussion on what would be a better way to speak of God’s grace, sovereignty, love, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And, just for the record, I have not written a single word in defense of John Piper or of what he believes. I have only agreed with him in that in some cases what he and I believe would agree. I am sure he could defend himself far better than I ever could.
I don’t think I have all the answers, but I do think I have a fairly good grasp on the questions. I have a pretty keen grasp of what words mean and how to interpret them. That means I can distinguish your BS from what Piper actually wrote.
LikeLike
And how have you behaved with your “fairly good grasp?” Like a bully. You refused to acknowledge you were wrong by personally attacking, you now blame shift and accuse me of bearing false witness and telling me to repent when I did no such thing. I guessed at what he was trying to say and invited discussion.
You are interpreting what Piper’s tweets means just as we are. Have you personally talked with him to verify what he means? Please back up your so-called facts.
I have read and heard enough about him that he sends shivers down my spine – especially for those who have been abused. FTR, this place is called Spiritual Sounding Board which was aptly named partly because of those who try to shut other people down. I sense you are trying to shut me down. It won’t work, Randy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
-I am not trying to shut you down; just trying to get you to tell the truth. A blithering idiot could understand what Piper is saying. I think you said it right when you said “. . . . sends shivers down my spine.” It doesn’t matter what he wrote. You just don’t like him.
No, I am not trying to blame shift. I would be happy to ask forgiveness from anyone I think I have wronged, but I am not going to ask forgiveness for telling someone they are writing stupid things when they are writing stupid things. If you and others don’t want to be thought of as stupid, don’t make stupid statements.
I will fight for your freedom of expression as long as you state the truth. You haven’t stated the truth and I think you know it.
LikeLike
Tim,
Thanks for your opinion. Do you think Piper believes that it is God’s job to preach the gospel and can you show a quotation in which he states that it is God’s job to preach the gospel and not ours? If Piper doesn’t believe that, then she has done a crappy job of representing his tweets. It is a prodigious misrepresentation of his position,
LikeLike
We’ve had at least two, maybe up to 5 witnesses who confronted you about your behavior that you refuse to see. My job is to make sure this place is safe from personal attacks. Since you can’t see your actions as such, into the doghouse you go for moderation. I will now determine if your posts are safe before releasing them publicly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Randy,
You are under the impression that Piper will defend himself or repent of anything. He doesn’t. He has been asked at other blogs to come on and have a Q & A. He refuses. He does not even respond to those requests. It appears that he doesn’t like to have his words questioned. Have you gone to any of the links that have been provided for you to see for yourself? I have read many of his books, listened to sermons, interviews and the like. There are many things that he says that are twisted scripture. It has been proven over and over again.
Julie Anne puts out information on celebrity pastors and immoral ones that get away with it year after year who have large followings. It is good to be prepared to address false teachings. I can’t think of a soul that comes here that does not have a good grasp of what words mean, but you continue to allow yourself to write as if you know exactly what JP’s tweets all mean and better than others here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, Randy,
You are going to be the judge of what is stupid and what is not. You are the only one who will judge whether or not you have wronged someone or not. I think you have put yourself in a lofty place of importance. You have been told today that you have crossed the line, but will not own it.
What exactly is it that you feel Julie Anne lied about? Are these not the tweets of John Piper? I see some twisted scripture in these and how is it that enlarged vocabularies will keep us from experiencing God. There have been people who have very small vocabularies that experience God just fine.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One blog comment not approved. I’m doing my homework now, Randy, give it a rest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me take a stab at this one, just for grins:
“Sinning is any… action…” Including doing the dishes. And eating. Hence the word “any.”
“From a heart that prefers anything to God.” This is the important part. And if you haven’t read a lot of Piper it’s not easy to get a grasp at what he’s saying. But what he’s doing is trying to understand these texts:
“…everything that does not come from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23 NIV)
“And without faith it is impossible to please God…” (Hebrews 11:6 NIV)
So “everything” in Romans 14 would include mundane things. And “impossible” in Hebrews 11 refers even to giving to the poor and curing cancer, if the biblical words are to be believed.
The challenge, of course, is to actually try to understand that curing cancer might not be pleasing to God, if it’s done without “faith.” And that doing dishes, apart from “faith,” is sin. But they are indeed part of “everything” and “impossible.”
So what is faith, apart from which “everything” we do is sin, and “impossible” to please God? Is it having prayed a prayer? Or walked an aisle? Or is it believing that God is who He says He is, that I am who He says I am, and having cast myself upon His grace and mercy, find Him to be my greatest treasure, and I prefer nothing before Him?
That’s how I understand and I *think* he meant that tweet.
LikeLike
JA note: I am allowing this comment by Randy. And will respond briefly.
Julie probably will not post this but I want to say to you that if I have wronged you in some way, I will ask your forgiveness. It was not my intention to offend you, but I have to confess that the level of ignorance that I see expressed on Julie’s page is overwhelming.
I don’t really have a dog in the fight between her and Piper. It is just that when I see statements that have nothing to do with reality, I can’t just sit by silently.
As I have stated before, I can only think of two choices since Piper’s statments are crystal clear. Either someone lacks the theological ability to understand them or they are deliberately twisting them. I was trying to be kind initally and say that Julie lacked either theological or linguistic ability. I didn’t want to accuse her of twisting the truth [read lying–I know the American people are too gutless to use that word any more].
If she is going to comment on what Piper believes, she needs first to understand what he believes.
LikeLike
Joe,
I have read a lot of Piper, more than I care to think about. Jesus is my greatest treasure. I would prefer to be living with him in glory than remain in this world.
How do you address the tweet that God condoned the “murder” of Jesus. Jesus was not murdered, he gave his life willingly. Piper gives a false doctrine here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Randy, first you make a decent attempt to apologize, but then you personally accuse me of lying. At least you are consistent in your behavior.
Actually, no, I don’t first need to understand what he believes. I can post anything I like. He is a public figure in the Christian community and he has a responsibility to be clear with his words. Just because YOU understand him clearly, does not mean that all do. I believe his words can be wrongly interpreted and harmful spiritually.
And, for the record, I do believe I have a basic understanding of his doctrinal foundation to know where he’s going with his tweets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brenda,
Here’s my take on the murder of Jesus:
Peter said, “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” (Acts 2:23 NIV)
Also he said, “The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.” (Acts 5:30 NIV)
So Peter squarely puts the blame on “wicked men.”
Here’s the wonder of the mystery: Jesus did give Himself. He could have called for 10,000 angels, but didn’t. He lay down His life. But He wasn’t suicidal; He was killed by other people.
In fact, Jesus said to Pilate, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” (John 19:11 NIV)
It was a sin to betray Jesus. It was a sin to condemn an innocent man to death. AND, mysteriously, it was in the plan of God. The mystery is deep and wonderful!
LikeLike
Julie,
I have begun this comment to you three times now but I keep getting interrupted and I lose it. Trying again.
Neither Piper nor any other Calvinist believes that it is unnecessary for us to preach the gospel and that gospel preaching is God’s work. That is why I concluded that either 1. You don’t understand what Piper believes and teaches, or 2. You have deliberately misrepresented his views. Since you say you understand what he believes, I am left with number 2. We believe we should preach the gospel as clearly, cogently, and forcefully as possible. There is nothing inconsistent with his statement and that belief. Though I might wonder about the tweet on other grounds, what you presented states a misrepresentation of his belief. Perhaps, you don’t understand what he believes as well as you think and we could retreat to number 1, but I don’t see a possibility for a number three. Perhaps you could suggest one.
I agree that not all understand what he has written, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have written it. Most don’t understand John 3:16 either but would you suggest it shouldn’t be in the Bible?
LikeLike
Randy,
I see that JA has put you in the dog house already, but I’d like to point out one reason why I agree with that decision.
In your comment at 11:11 a.m., you said:
I have no idea whether you intended to include Julie Anne in this insult. But if you did, you have no right to do so. Julie Anne Smith has endured physical and spiritual abuse, and come through it with her sanity and faith intact. She has homeschooled her children, and already raised some of them to adulthood. People have come to her suffering and questioning the goodness of God, and she has listened to them and guided them to those who can help.
You can correct her if you think she’s wrong, Randy, but you do not get to say that she has accomplished nothing for God, or His glory, or His people. She has already accomplished more than I could dream of.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Joe,
If it were a matter of disagreement over doctrine, Imwould agree that I should show patience. It is the lies that are the problem. You know as well as I do that Piper doesn’t believe it is God’s responsibility to preach the gospel, but Julie refuses to admit she misrepresented him
LikeLike
I just approved a few more from Randy. I’m removing myself from the conversation for the time being because I have family a birthday dinner to take care of and homework. You all can try to reason. I may not be quick to moderate Randy’s comments. And I am ok with that. 🙂
LikeLike
Sometimes I wonder about my sanity Serving, but you are too kind. 🙂
LikeLike
Randy you said,
“You know as well as I do that Piper doesn’t believe it is God’s responsibility to preach the gospel, but Julie refuses to admit she misrepresented him”
One of the things I like about Piper is his passion for reaching the lost through the proclamation of the gospel. His book “Let the Nations be Glad!” ought to prove that point. But I also understand the sometimes violent reaction to Gods sovereignty, and how disdain for a person can cause you to hate everything he says.
I won’t lie… I have my biases too. If, say Joel Osteen tweeted “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” I’d be suspect – not because the statement may or may not be true, but because what I know of his doctrine causes me to doubt just about everything he says. Shoot, if he tweeted that he had bacon and eggs for breakfast I’d probably switch to peanut butter toast and hashbrowns just as a matter of principle, ha!
And though I agree with you in principle on a doctrinal level, it doesn’t do you, me, Julie, or anyone else any good that I can tell by being unkind. I know what it’s like to be reformed and be called unloving, unevangelstic, fatalistic, and the whole bit. And yeah, it’s not true. It’s a caricature. But throwing back things that are also a caricature at best – like saying you’re mentally incapable of processing truth – isn’t helping, that’s my point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Randy said – “Piper’s statments are crystal clear.”
No, they’re not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dear Joe,
Thank you for your patience and courtesy in commenting here, and for offering your thoughts on Piper’s public musings.
I appreciate your attempt above to make sense of this tweet. I follow your reasoning and, to some extent, I agree with it. However, I’m not sure that everyone who has read from Piper would come to the same conclusions.
For my part, this tweet had me scratching my head because of Piper’s professed views of complementarianism, and especially spousal abuse and the permanence of marriage. By his own words, he seems to think it’s a sin for a battered wife to put her own safety and well-being above her marriage. To me, that’s simply cruel and unreasonable.
And that makes me wonder just how unreasonable Piper’s thinking is regarding this tweet. Are we allowed to concentrate on the tasks and pleasures that God gives us? Or do we have to be thinking and meditating on Him 24/7, no matter what we’re doing or feeling at the moment? His teaching on marriage is one reason why I suspected Piper meant the latter.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Joe Reed,
How do you define God’s Sovereignty? I do believe that God is sovereign, but not in the Only the elect will be saved kind of thinking. If that were true, that would destroy what is preached in the Gospels are all false. John 3:16 would be a complete farce. God would have it that no one would perish. That is why he sent Jesus as the perfect sacrifice. God knows all and sees all. He knows what choices we will make and grieves for those who won’t accept Him. But he is a just God. The unbelievers who do not want Him now, won’t have Him later. That is why the Gospel should be preached in love. I believe the word forcefully was mentioned by someone else. Force never won anyone to Christ. His love wins people to Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe Reed you wrote: “It was a sin to betray Jesus. It was a sin to condemn an innocent man to death. AND, mysteriously, it was in the plan of God. The mystery is deep and wonderful!”
I agree with this statement whole heartedly and it all is a wonderful mystery. I do not agree that Jesus death on the cross was murder as JP puts it. Jesus was not suicidal, He was sacrificial. He knew very well what he was doing and why. Those that sent Him to the cross were wicked. Did any of them repent? That is also mystery. We are not told. I tend to think just as one of the thieves that my Lord was hung between accepted Him, some of those that crucified Him could have just as well accepted Him later.
The use of the word “murder”, is a shock jock use meant to stir thinking and even controversy. Well it has stirred controversy as you can see and I don’t believe that can ever be good for Christianity as a whole. Love is what Jesus is all about. I think you would agree with that. I see a lot of methodology and theological problems with JP. As for Joel O. I turn a deaf ear. There are plenty more on the screen and drawing big numbers that would also be on that list.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really, Tim? What do find unclear?
LikeLike
Oh dear, I see Randy made his debut here. He does that. We “just don’t understand”. We “never get their/his position right”, and so on. Nothing new. I heard this every day at ground zero for 10 years. If Jesus really that complicated perhaps they have it wrong.
These guys make it very hard for the nice Calvinists out there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Has it occurred to any of you that JP may not have tweeted any of these things? To me they look like statements that could have been lifted from his writings and tweeted by a staff member.
LikeLike
As to that last tweet…it sums up Piper and his followers quite well. Just assume you are sinning by existing and thinking.
I wake up and think of coffee. I am in sin.
The tweet about God murdering Jesus is what should give us all pause. God never sins but He murders? Yet He tells us not to murder. And the fact that Jesus was murdered means He did not willingly make a sacrifice for us. It also means that Jesus would have to be a lesser Diety. That makes His death meaningless.
Piper’s god plots murder and disease. Sounds like allah to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serving Kids,
“he seems to think it’s a sin for a battered wife to put her own safety and well-being above her marriage. To me, that’s simply cruel and unreasonable.”
Without diving in too deep in a well I’ll drown in, what Piper said was concerning preferring anything to God, not marriage. I do think preferring safety to God is a sin. They are not mutually exclusive – I wear my seatbelt and do my best to drive on the right side of the road, and I don’t eat rotten food. That’s safety. And I also would tell my kids if someone is beating you up, get away. BUT… and here’s the tricky part, safety is a god in our culture. “Safety first,” we say. Safety is a hindrance to the spread of the gospel. The gospel is spread by the blood of martyrs, historically.
Now that has nothing to do with an abusive marriage. Not going there, and really to say Piper is going there in this instance is reading something into what he said, is that fair to say?
But I will affirm that if Jesus put safety before the will of God, He wouldn’t have been crucified. He would have called in the Angels.
But let’s not forget that sometimes Jesus DID avoid danger. He walked away from it sometimes. His life was often in danger, and he “escaped” it every time but the cross. That wasn’t sin. But it WOULD have been wrong to skip the cross. Hence He prayed, with sweat like great drops of blood, “Not My will, Yours be done!”
LikeLike
gracewriterrandy wrote about Julie Anne:
“I could have said she is stupid and theologically and biblically ignorant. That may have been an ungracious way to state the truth. Frankly, I can’t think of a more gracious way to state the truth than what I stated. She plainly misunderstood/misrepresented what Piper was saying. I must conclude that either she suffers from theological or linguistic ineptitude, or she is was deliberately attempting to mislead her readers by giving giving the impression that he was saying something other than what he stated.”
If you guys ever wonder what it has been like living at ground zero with rabid Calvinists, the above is a nutshell version of what one hears when they dare question the teaching of one of the exhalted Cavlinvist gurus or have any disagreement with Cavlinism. . You cannot swing a dead cat here without hitting one of these types in ANY evangelical circles. ANY. That includes NON Cal circles because they are there,too, trying to plant Calvinism in them. covertly.
Seriously, the above is a very typical example of their argumentation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe Reed,
Being a martyr for the cause of Christ and being killed body and soul in marriage are NOT the same thing.
As I have said before: go to YouTube and search “John Piper abuse” watch the video and tell me that he cares one iota about abuse in marriage and is very smug about it. If we women would just be a little more submissive and be quietly respectful of our husbands, everything is going to be ok.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brenda,
“He is a just God. The unbelievers who do not want Him now, won’t have Him later. That is why the Gospel should be preached in love. I believe the word forcefully was mentioned by someone else. Force never won anyone to Christ. His love wins people to Christ.”
Totally agree. As to defining Gods sovereignty, I define it as whatever God wants to do, He does. Either God is sovereign over all, or something else is in some way sovereign over God. And I want a God who’s sovereign, not in any way subject. I know that causes problems, but it solves some other ones.
As for the “murder” part, and it being a “shock” term, I say yes, it is a shock word. And it’s supposed to be. Jesus’ death was the greatest atrocity in the history of the world, because it was so unjust. And the Bible uses words like “killed” and “slain” (Greek word is “slaughtered,” in my mind more shocking) and “put to death” and “even the death of a cross.”
Did any of those who killed him repent? Surely!
“Now when the centurion saw what had happened [the crucifixion], he began praising God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent.” (Luke 23:47)
So he was guilty of carrying out an order to execute an innocent man, but forgiven by the sacrifice of the very man he executed. And in a very real sense, we all are, hallelujah!
LikeLike
Randy,
What difference does it make whether or not he sent the tweet or a staff member did it with his permission. HE STILL WROTE IT. Whether it was from a book, speech or sermon. The words are still his. Smoke and mirror tactics do not work.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brenda,
“Love is what Jesus is all about. I think you would agree with that.”
There was no one more loving than Jesus, ever. Yet, He stirred up such controversy that after three years of preaching, His own people called for His death, and not quietly! So being loving doesn’t mean everyone will see you that way.
And let’s face it, Jesus said shocking things:
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:34-38 NIV)
I often say that if that wasn’t in the Bible, I wouldn’t believe it!
LikeLike
Brenda,
My point is that 1. It may not have been his timing that was bad, and 2. Taken in context you folks may not have twisted his statements so badly.
LikeLike
I know what Piper believes about abuse in marriage. I don’t agree with him – but I do know how he gets there. In defense of it, (and here’s me dying in that well), Piper is so focused on eternity that he is willing to call an abisive situation, and even marriage itself, a temporary arrangement, because the 50 years we’re married is really short in eternity.
And I understand his desire to magnify the earthly permanence of marriage.
That being said, you’re right – suffering abuse is not necessarily martyrdom. If I want to be abused I could throw myself in front of a truck and claim sovereignty, but I don’t, that’s foolish. I have four daughters. I don’t want them to spend their lives suffering abuse unnecessarily. I hope they live for Jesus and if they suffer abuse for the sake of the gospel, that’s one thing. But needless suffering is another altogether.
Hope that helps
LikeLike
“Has it occurred to any of you that JP may not have tweeted any of these things? To me they look like statements that could have been lifted from his writings and tweeted by a staff member”
Hmm. His picture and name are on them so not sure why that woudl matter. Lots of xitan celebs use staff to do boilerplate stuff for them cos they know how they think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
:”Piper is so focused on eternity that he is willing to call an abisive situation, and even marriage itself, a temporary arrangement, because the 50 years we’re married is really short in eternity.”
This is a good point about Piper. But then that is only relevant to the elect who were chosen before Adam sinned. And it is not relevant to those God passed over. So that makes it a bit tricky in some respects.
On the other hand, I believe Jesus Christ was ushering in the Kingdom here and now, too. We are to live as Christ now. And what we do here and now counts in eternity on the redeemed earth. As believers we would love justice, mercy, compassion, truth (even if negative) etc. We would not be running out to prop up those who protected child molesters and maligned the victims. Piper did this with CJ Mahaney. Not a great “eternity” position. But one that works well if you are elect and can do what you want…nevermind the victims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe Reed,
I find that passage in Matthew as being quite beautiful. Jesus/God is to come before anyone else. I would not give up my relationship with God for anyone and I continue to tell those family members who have not accepted Him in a loving way, not a push Him down your throat way. An example would be a recent trip to FL for my daughter’s wedding. There were near misses going each way. I had one daughter with me going down, the other coming back. At each close call, I referenced that God was with us all the way and it was His will that we made it through that experience. The sword that Jesus speaks of is the Gospel. Not everyone is going to accept Him and some family are going to despise you for it. That is their choice. I can’t stop it. What is missing is: your spouse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia and Brenda,
Yay we found common ground!
And regarding Piper and Mahaney, one of the things that’s always irritated me about Piper is his “sloppiness” in his associations. Sloppy is a kind word, I know. But he ought to know better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There was no one more loving than Jesus, ever. Yet, He stirred up such controversy that after three years of preaching, His own people called for His death, and not quietly! So being loving doesn’t mean everyone will see you that way.
And let’s face it, Jesus said shocking things”
It was mainly with the RELIGIOUS leaders of His time and tribe. Their positions were threatened by His teaching because people were believing Him, following him around. He was drawing their crowds!. The Romans thought they were all “athiests” as in only having ONE GOD. They just wanted to keep peace because Palestine was a hot bed of zealotry because of the occupation.
It was the religious leaders who He called names and rebuked for their teaching, and heavy burdens. As to the Romans, Jesus was telling the oppressed average Jew to turn the other cheek and carry their bags an extra mile.
Piper is just another Pharisee hawking Calvin as god. Ironically, even Pilate was uncomfortable putting an innocent man to death. But keeping peace in Palestine was more important so he easily caved to the religous leaders demands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And Brenda, I can totally relate to the relief and joy in being protected. The hard part of sovereignty is wondering what happened when my 33 year old cousin didn’t make it through and hit the tree and died. But I can’t believe it was a lapse of sovereignty. And I know that God wasn’t gleeful and giddy about it.
LikeLike
Joe Reed,
I know how he gets there, but it is not biblical. It is Piperism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“And regarding Piper and Mahaney, one of the things that’s always irritated me about Piper is his “sloppiness” in his associations. Sloppy is a kind word, I know. But he ought to know better”
Piper long promoted Mark Driscoll. He was one of his mentors along with CJ. Did you knwo that because of that relationship, the Petrys (former elders at Mars Hill who were forced out for disagreeing) contacted Piper about the situation (which was horrible lies, etc) and heard nothing back from him?
Piper knows exactly what he is doing. After all the scandals and Driscoll stepping down after bilking money and leaving MH in financial disaster you know what Piper said? Driscoll has some “flaws”.
Sloppy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe,
I have lost loved ones, too. I buried my fiancée 30 years ago shortly before we were to be married. I buried a grandson at 9 months old and my daughter is unable to get pregnant again without divine intervention. Those things were hard and I had the “why” syndrome, but I know that I will see them both again. I hope you have that assurance of your cousin. God does make the bad into good, even though we can’t always see it.
I do not believe in the “elect” although do know that God knows what our decisions will be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Randy,
#1, 2 & 3 Piper has a way of twisting all by himself, he doesn’t have to have help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me.
No, he’s probably not thinking of marriage here, but Piper has gone there before. His stated beliefs are that a Christian woman has no right to divorce her husband, even to protect herself. He hasn’t recanted that as far as I know.
If he’s that unreasonable regarding abusive spouses, just how unreasonable is he capable of being in general? He might really think that unless I’m thinking of Jesus and nothing else, whether at work or play, then I’m sinning. If he doesn’t, then he needs to make that clear. Julie Anne was right to call him on that.
That’s all I can manage before I go to bed. I have an early start tomorrow. Thank you again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Randy,
If those tweets need context that badly, then Piper (or whoever’s posting them) can provide it. Including a hyperlink to a sermon or blog post or book listing is easy. Julie Anne does it regularly, and you seem to think that she’s lacking in intelligence.
What’s Piper’s excuse?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Force never won anyone to Christ. His love wins people to Christ.”
Amen to that. Brenda. We’re told that God’s kindness leads to repentance, after all. (Romans 2:4.) No brand of brow beating or chest thumping will exceed kindness’ ability show people the good news of Jesus Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My criticism of Piper’s tweets in JA’s pos, Randy, focused on the one about disease. If you read my earlier comment on that you’ll see find why I think he did not speak the gospel clearly in that tweet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s just it, exactly, Serving. If your tweet cannot stand alone without explanation or more context, then you add a link to it. I do it all the time.
For example, I just read Tim’s post. I don’t believe that the following tweet needs context, but because I want people to read more, I provide the link with the tweet:
We know that Piper DOES has responded to a negative responses and will remove tweets (ie, the one about the tornado in Okalahoma – http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/those-deleted-tweets). We know that he does know how to include links in his tweets as evidenced here:
So, I can only conclude that he is careless with some of his confusing tweets and refuses to remove them or engage people about what he means. Being careless with 704 THOUSAND followers is just not cool.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very kind to link my post, Julie, thanks.
LikeLike
Well, it was so handy, Tim 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it’s important to highlight Randy’s responses here. It has been shown on this thread that Piper’s tweets cause confusion. But he refuses to accept that because Piper’s tweets are “crystal” clear to him, Piper’s doctrine matches his and so Piper is automatically labeled as right and those who have questions, confusion, or disagree with Piper’s tweets are wrong and the bad guys:
We have deliberately misrepresented his views. We don’t understand what he means. He accuses me of lying, false witness, of sinning, of not repenting. He resorts to personal attacks.
But what is really interesting is his forcefulness in defending Piper and his accusations to anyone who disagrees. If Piper’s message is so right and so good, then wouldn’t he want to gently help those who are having trouble understanding it? Wouldn’t he want to help Piper’s message get out in a way that could be understood? If Piper’s message is so important, then wouldn’t it be worth that time spent in helping someone understand? If defending what you believe in resorts in attacking people, then I have to question if what you are believing is really so right.
When someone doesn’t understand something, we try to find ways to help them understand. We do not attack. Randy, your behavior gives you away.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Piper functions largely at a merely cognitive level. He does not relate to people as people. He relates to them as as objects—specifically, as objects of God’s wrath and undeserved favor, as though God neither relates to nor wishes to relate to his image bearers on an emotional level. Perhaps this is why he views people as nothing more than God’s automatons.
Even those who come to Piper’s defense typically do so on a purely intellectual level, to the extent that they seem to assume that to disagree with what Piper has taught them to think is to challenge their very worth. On one level, this is understandable. Those who cannot relate to others, and, therefore, to God, on the basis of what is True–which cannot be divorced from right relationship–may well tend to take refuge in mere propositional small “t” truth.
But here’s the deal. Were it not that Piper is so influential, we cold pity him. We still can pity him, but not without reserve. While I am not qualified to diagnose, I dare say that any informed layman could legitimately suspect that Piper does to some lesser or greater degree suffer from some psychological disorder. His seeming lack of empathetic capacity (he admits as much at tinyurl.com/m8efram) would at first blush seem to point to narcissism.
In Piper’s case, however, maybe it is a matter of being located on that part of the autism spectrum that was until recently called Asperger’s Syndrome. The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome indicates that those who suffer from this condition exhibit, among other things, significant difficulties in social interaction (e.g. Piper’s need for marital counseling and his alienation from his own son). The article speaks of the “preservation of linguistic and cognitive development,” but also of the “atypical (peculiar or odd) use of language.”.
Whether or not Piper suffers from some diagnosable mental condition, it seems to me that so much of what others see as being (persuasively) clever and erudite is actually so lacking in actual, intelligible, meaning as to be merely peculiar or odd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Julie Anne, I cannot say what is or is not motivating Randy, but if it happens to be true that his sense of self-worth is tied up in being a sycophant of John Piper, then criticizing Piper will feel to Randy like a personal attack, like he has no personal worth. Sometimes those who think their very worth before God and man is being attacked will respond with actual attacks on their perceived accusers.
Then again, it could simply be that Randy is not sufficiently grounded in his own thinking that he must resort to insults. My own belief is that Randy’s positions are so indefensible that personal attacks are the only weapons at his disposal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary wrote,
“Whether or not Piper suffers from some diagnosable mental condition, it seems to me that so much of what others see as being (persuasively) clever and erudite is actually so lacking in actual, intelligible, meaning as to be merely peculiar or odd.”
See, that’s sounding a lot like Randy, from the other side. Insult intelligence. Suggest a mental disorder. I happen to generally agree with Piper. Shall I tell my wife I too have been diagnosed as autistic, possible Aspergers?
There’s better ways to interact, by both sides.
LikeLike
Julie,
I need you to help me with a problem I am having with what appears to be a double standard here. It seems your expressed desire that people be kind and gracious only applies to those who are reading and commenting on your blog. If people aren’t here, it appears it is OK to malign them, misrepresent them, marginalize them, show contempt for them, etc. For example, I just read a comment someone made that is neither, kind, gracious, nor true, yet not a word of reproof was offered by anyone. This person wrote, “Piper is just another Pharisee hawking Calvin as God.”
I am relatively sure you will deny this, but it appears to me that your posting of Piper’s tweets was an attempt to marginalize him by showing contempt for him and making fun of what he tweeted.
You have accused me of defending Piper even though I have told you I am not. I am not even defending his teaching though I would be in agreement with much of it. All I have asked is that you state his beliefs and the beliefs of others you disdain accurately.
I understand it is your blog and you may do as you wish, but it would be nice if you are going to ask one person to be gracious in their comments, you would ask everyone to follow those guidelines.
LikeLike