|
|
|
|
On the Ministry of John Piper |
by Mike Riley
Other than John MacArthur, it is unlikely that any modern evangelical
author has been more influential and respected in Fundamentalist
circles than John Piper. Piper, the senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist
Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has broadened the reach of his local
ministry through his extensive book and sermon publications. A prolific
author, his books have been well-received and widely read by
Fundamentalists. Precisely because Piper has been so influential, those
in positions of spiritual leadership will do well to be familiar with
the basics of his theology, along with the strengths and weaknesses of
his ministry.
It is beyond reasonable question that Piper ought to be considered a
theological conservative. He holds to the traditional position on
inerrancy. His understanding of salvation is consistent with that of
the Reformers and historic fundamentalism, as over against the more
social understanding of salvation that is typical of liberal
theologians. Basic Christian teachings, such as the deity of Christ and
the authenticity of biblical miracles, are simply assumed in Piper’s
teaching and writings. In simple terms, it is sufficient to say that
Piper is a genuine evangelical, in the best and historical sense of the
term.
It is certainly not difficult to identify Piper’s main theological
emphasis. He unambiguously declares that the theme of his entire
ministry is, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in
him.”1 His three most important works expand upon this premise. In The
Pleasures of God,2 Piper advances the idea that God values himself more
highly than he values anything else. In Desiring God, he challenges us
to value God more than we value anything else, and in Future Grace,3 he
outlines in very practical terms the sort of life that results from
such a God-centered focus.
It is this emphasis on being satisfied in God that inspires Piper’s
most valuable contribution to contemporary evangelical discussion.
Piper’s theology is in some ways a fresh updating of Jonathan Edwards’
emphasis on the necessity of right affections. It is easy in our
approach to our ministries to reduce genuine Christianity to right
doctrine and right practice, because these are the easiest to judge
based on externals. Piper, however, insists that right emotions are
just as vital as these other essentials. He recognizes that it is
possible to believe the right things intellectually and do the right
things morally, and yet have no emotional inclination toward God. He
relentlessly attacks the popular idea that obedience to God should be
pursued from the motivation of mere duty, comparing it to a man who
buys roses for his wife on their anniversary merely because it is his
duty to do so. Instead, Piper encourages a pursuit for God that
encompasses the entire person: mind, will, and emotions.
Piper argues that all people everywhere live for pleasure, but he does
not consider this to be a bad thing. What makes a person good or bad,
he contends, is not that he pursues pleasure as much as what he pursues
for his pleasure. That is, people who find their pleasure in cheap,
temporal things betray that they themselves are shallow. However, since
people were created to enjoy God forever, Piper contends that we are
fulfilling God’s design when we seek to find our joy in Him.
Another major emphasis of Piper’s ministry is missions. His approach to
missions is radically God-centered. He opens Let the Nations Be Glad,
his major work on the subject, by asserting, “Missions is not the
ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because
worship doesn’t.”4 Such a mind set should resonate with any
Fundamentalist who understands that the spread of God’s glory is of
greater significance as a motivation for missions than is the salvation
of men. Piper’s understanding of missions also undercuts the driving
force behind the modern mega-church movement, which tends to center on
the felt needs of the unbeliever, rather than on the spread of the
genuine worship of God.
A final commendation of Piper is that despite his immense popularity,
his ministry has not appeared to be profit-oriented, offering an open
invitation to those short of funds to request resources at reduced or
no charge for their own edification and spiritual growth.5 In a time in
which Christian celebrities offer books with so many related spin-offs
and products, such an approach is undeniably refreshing.
However, Piper’s thinking has not escaped criticism entirely. Many have
objected to the pleasure-oriented language that he employs to describe
the Christian life, especially his characterization of sanctification
as “Christian Hedonism.” If one is to literally judge his book by its
cover, it would be logical to assume that Piper is endorsing the
unbridled notions of Christian liberty and antinomianism common in
modern evangelical theology. However, this is simply not the case.
Piper is sensitive to these charges, even offering an extended defense
of his use of the term hedonism to describe sanctification.6 He
acknowledges that, to some degree, he uses the term for its shock
effect, intending to grab his reader’s attention and focus it on a
neglected area of sanctification.
Others have charged him with soteriological reductionism, in that he
tends to identify the entire sanctification process with the one
element of pursuing pleasure in God. Peter Masters, pastor of the
Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, has articulated this particular
criticism. He writes of Piper, “Delighting in God . . . becomes the key
formula for all spiritual vigor and development . . . The entire
Christian life is simplified to rest upon a single quest, which is
bound to distort one’s perception of the Christian life and how it must
be lived.”7 This is an interesting charge, and one not to be
underestimated. Clearly, one could read Piper in such a way that other
important biblical motifs for sanctification, such as warfare and
sacrifice, are entirely neglected in the pursuit of joy. It is
doubtful, though, whether this is Piper’s intent. For instance, he
offers an extended chapter in Desiring God on the importance of
suffering in the Christian life. Piper frequently challenges Christians
to deny themselves lesser pleasures for those which are truly greater.
There are elements of Piper’s ministry and teaching, however, that call
for a higher level of concern. Piper offers an uncertain voice on the
place of miraculous gifts in the modern church.8 This is not an issue
in his books, by and large, as the topic simply does not surface.
However, those who read Piper’s books and become unduly enamored with
his genuine passion for Christ might find themselves giving a more
sympathetic hearing to the arguments for the continuation of the
miraculous gifts.
Piper is also inconsistent in his practice of separation. Certainly, he
acknowledges that there are those who claim the name of Christ, but who
in reality are not truly Christian. However, the latitude he allows in
his own associations is troubling. For example, while Piper’s own
position on inerrancy is solid, he offers enthusiastic support for
Daniel Fuller,9 who has publicly undermined the traditional
understanding of the authority of Scripture.
The most problematic example of Piper’s non-separatism, however, is his
reaction to the heresy in his own denomination. Piper’s church belongs
to the Baptist General Conference. This organization, however, also
includes Gregory Boyd, a former professor at Bethel College in St.
Paul, Minnesota. Boyd is one of the foremost advocates of a heretical
theology, frequently called open theism, which denies that God’s
knowledge of future events is exhaustive. In a denominational meeting
in 2000, a resolution was passed that deemed open theism to be
inconsistent with the denomination’s historic position on God’s
omniscience. However, the same meeting acknowledged that such a
position would be tolerated within the seminaries and churches of the
conference. Piper himself has been outspoken in his opposition to open
theism, calling it “a massive re-visioning of God” and a “distortion”
of the faith.10 However, in spite of the denomination’s failure to
divest itself of this heresy, Piper decided to maintain his membership
in the union.
Piper’s rejection of fundamentalist separatism cannot be chalked up to
ignorance of the position. Piper grew up in Greenville, South Carolina
and his father was a board member at Bob Jones University. Thus, his
decision to maintain unacceptable ecclesiastical associations is made
in full knowledge of the Scriptural position on separation, but in
conscious rejection of it.
In the main, Piper’s books spur Christians to love the Lord with all of
their heart, soul, mind and strength. Piper articulates the claims of
the gospel to modern believers in such a way that he challenges the
far-too-comfortable lives of middle-class suburban Christianity. When
read with discretion, he provides much that is beneficial to
Fundamental believers and churches. However, because of Piper’s neglect
of biblical separatism, Fundamentalists cannot give a blanket
endorsement to his ministry.
1 John Piper, Desiring
God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, 10th Anniversary Expanded
Edition (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1996),9.
2 John Piper, The
Pleasures of God: Meditations on God’s Delight in Being God, Revised
and Expanded (Sisters, OR; Multnomah, 2000).
3 John Piper, The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1995).
4 John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993).
5 Piper. Pleasures of God, 341–342.
6 Piper, Desiring God, 287–290.
7 Peter Masters, “‘Christian Hedonism’—Is it Right?” Sword and Trowel
(2002): 10–16. Cited 30 April, 2005. Online:
http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Pages/HEDONISM.html.
8 Note, for instance, that Piper makes a distinction between open
theism, which he believes to be very destructive to the church, and
differences over the charismatic gifts, which he finds more acceptable
(John Piper, “We Took a Good Stand and Made a Bad Mistake: Reflections
on the Baptist General Conference Annual Meeting, St Paul,” n.p. [cited
30 May 2005]. Online:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2000/070500.html).
9 “As with most everything I do, the influence of Daniel P. Fuller
pervades.... I would be happy to view this book as explanation and
application of his great book, Unity of the Bible (Zondervan, 1992). He
remains a treasured friend and mentor” (Piper, Desiring God, 11).
10 Piper, “Good Stand,” n.p.
|
|
