Simon
Vibert Online
|
|
|
| A Passion for Piper?Desiring God and "Christian Hedonism"1John Piper is the Senior Pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. He is author of more than a dozen books and a popular conference and convention speaker. He has been in this country speaking at such diverse conference events organised by the FIEC, Banner of Truth and the Clarendon Centre. Piper's life mission statement, adopted by BBC, is "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him". With echos of his hero, Jonathan Edwards, Piper plea is for a pervasive God-centeredness in all of life and worship. He contends that our satisfaction, pleasure and delight is not ultimately at odds with God's design for us. God not only wants us to be holy, but also to be happy. His provocative statement of Christian Hedonism modifies the answer to Question I of the Westminster Shorter Catechism as "Man's Chief End is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever". By inserting 'by' instead of 'and' in the answer he argues that our enjoyment of God is not an added extra for the ultra emotional or enthusiastic Christian, but rather an indication of whether God really is our chief end. For example, if I come home with a bunch of a dozen red roses, my wife swings open the front door, sees the flowers, flings her arms around me and says: "Darling thank you so much they are wonderful, you shouldn't have". Would I as a husband respond: "Well, that's the kind of thing a husband should do, it is my duty". Immediately a response like that would deflate the event and would be crass. But if I respond as a loving husband would, "My darling I love you and I can think of nothing I want more than to do this. It is my pleasure to give you flowers!" She is not going to turn to me and say "You egotist, it isn't about you!" Rather, my delight in doing this dignifies the act, and such pleasure-seeking devotion is a greater indication of love than an unmoved fulfilment of duty. In a sermon entitled "Brothers Consider Christian Hedonism" Piper outlines the reasoning behind his belief that our duty as a Christian is to maximise our joy in God:-
A visit to BBCAs a typical English Stoic I find John Piper challenging! It is provoking to be reminded that I have not fully responded to God by merely fulfilling my Christian duty whilst my Religious Affections remain unmoved (to use Jonathan Edward's phraseology). Piper is something of an enigma to English Evangelicals. I have read everything that he has written and this year decided to go to the BBC Pastor's conference to see and hear first hand his ministry in action. Some have expressed concern that the Hedonistic emphasis of BBC leads to introspection and experience based self-interest. However the ambitious plan adopted by BBC is stated in the following terms: '2000 by 2000'. This articulates a desire to see 2000 people converted in the local Minneapolis area and to send 2000 people into short and long term mission and ministry of various kinds, all by the year 2000! Whatever we think of such targets - which remained clear goals even though not fully realised in the millennium year - they do not reek of introspective self-seeking! I was intrigued to discover how the priority of mission is worked out practically in the life of the Church. The couple I stayed with whilst attending BBC had fairly recently joined the Church but had already sensed the importance of the Urban Missions programme they run and were being challenged to take seriously the call to move into Urban areas of the city (BBC itself is in an Urban Priority Area). Piper encourages 'War time' mentality, particularly for the staff team who live surrounded by the street antics of drug crime, violence and prostitution. Before BBC is prepared to support a new Missionary overseas they encourage them to be involved in the Urban missions department on the grounds that if the candidate can not cross cultures in this area they will probably not be able to do so overseas. "A Charismatic"?When John Piper visited in England in 1997 he spoke at Clarendon Fellowship and the Banner of Truth Conference. Clarendon are part of the Pioneer House Church movement verging on restorationist theology. At the same time the review of the conference by Banner of Truth and another journal (CRN) have both criticised Piper's 'Christian Hedonism' primarily on the grounds that the theology is charismatic. Such a claim Piper vigorously denies! However I appreciate why there is such a misunderstanding. During the time I spent at BBC the senior Pastor displayed intense emotional reactions in corporate worship: tears, hand raising and a high sense of the immanence of God were evident. Nevertheless it is certainly a misunderstanding to equate intense emotions as being 'charismatic' and non-intense emotions as being 'reformed'! QED. This is precisely Piper's point and the central thrust of 'Christian Hedonism'. Past Grace and Future Grace2The most sustained criticism of Piper has come from publications by the Christian Research Network, notably the booklet "John Piper on the Christian Life: An Examination of his controversial view of 'faith alone' in Future Grace" (1999) written by Mark Karlberg.3 This article is the most scholarly response to Piper's teaching, but has been preceded by two articles appearing in the CRN Journal. 'John Piper: an Evangelical Whitewash'4 concludes 'John Piper is little more than yet another speculating, neo-evangelical theologian - a modern day "wolf" dressed up as a sheep, from whom pastors should protect those committed by Christ into their spiritual care'. An earlier article entitled 'John Piper: Hedonist Theologian' expressed concern over his association with Wayne Grudem, John Wimber, Toronto and Promise Keepers warning that we should not hold him up as a shining example of Reformed thinking because of the flawed judgement and absence of sound convictions on a range of issues.5 However, the booklet written by American Mark Karlberg should be taken most seriously, for as Andrew Paterson pointed out in his EN review, his work is scholarly and his tone is gracious. Karlberg should also be taken seriously because he asserts that Piper has not only departed from the Reformed faith and evangelical theology, but has also moved away from orthodoxy. Karlberg's booklet is technical and not particularly easy to read for two reasons. First the debate surrounds issues which arise out of Piper's book Future Grace. Piper believes that grace was operative in the 'Covenant of works' from the beginning, in other words that even in his unfallen state Adam related to God by grace not through meritorious works. Confused? Maybe you should be, for according to a scholarly and gracious reply to Karlberg's assertions, staff member Justin Taylor cites good evidence indicating that many other Reformed thinkers have believed that the Covenant of Works was gracious (including John Owen, R.L. Dabney, Geerhardus Vos, John Murray etc. etc.).6 The theological point is not irrelevant, but surely it is not at the forefront of ultimate tests of orthodoxy. Secondly, the booklet does not interact very carefully with what Piper says in Future Grace. Moreover, given the relatively minor theological debate (in the grand scheme of theological battles!) to move from criticism of Piper's view of grace to a charge of unorthodoxy is not reflective of the scholarly style in which the booklet is couched. So, what is Future Grace all about and should I be commending it?Future Grace is a provocative book. Piper is concerned that so much Christian motivation is based upon a notion that we have to 'pay God back'. He calls this the debtors ethic (p.33). To illustrate, he says, imagine that a glorious fresh stream is pouring out of the mountainside. You are so grateful for that life-sustaining water. How then do you show your appreciation? Appreciation is not shown by climbing the mountain with bucket fulls of water and trying to replenishing the stream. No, appreciation is shown by drinking deeply from the well of water, and being satisfied. Hence: God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him. The danger of the 'Debtors Ethic' is an assumption that we can replenish the inexhaustible fountain of God's grace. What we should rather do is come back again and again to be refilled with fresh supplies of grace - and to trust God for future grace. We should not assume that we can in some way 'pay God back'. Imagine the horror, suggests Piper, of enjoying a wonderful meal at a friend's house and as you are about to leave for home you get out your cheque book and ask how much you owe them. Such an appalling social faux pas is to be compared to our thinking we can ever pay God back for His free grace. This point is important for Piper when it comes to understanding what it is that motivates the Christian to love and good works. For it isn't backward looking gratitude that motivates, but forward-looking faith:
It is only by faith in God's future supplies of grace that we can be motivated and equipped for Christian living. This teaching is tremendously refreshing. We find ourselves satisfied and encouraged in the lavishness of God's promised future supply of grace. This faith in future grace gives us a taste of Spiritual Beauty; it satisfies us with all that God is for us in Jesus; it overcomes bitterness, lust and despondency and produces holy desires issuing in love and service. Moreover this biblical emphasis encourages us to take seriously God's covenant commitment to supply the needs of His followers with all they need for life and godliness. Indeed we can and must live by His promises if ever we are going to be daring and risky for the sake of the Gospel. Without an assurance of 'future grace' none of the saints of old (such as those listed in Hebrews 11) could have stepped out with certainty. Clearly a balance is needed here. Gratitude is a powerful motivator. Romans 12:1f. encourages a backward look ('keep God's mercy in view'), and by way of response to His sacrifice, we are called to offer our own sacrifice of dedicated lives. We can never pay God back for this great sacrifice. But that very sacrifice encourages us to sacrifice dedicated lives out of overwhelming gratitude. To have a friend back for dinner is not inherently an attempt to pay them back, merely a healthy desire that hospitality is returned in order that the friendship may continue to be appreciated. And I guess for me this is my main issue with Piper. He is provocative! Anyone who advocates that Christians should be Hedonists is out to wake you up! And because he is provocative he overstates his case. But would I wholeheartedly recommend that my congregation read and listen to him? Certainly. And having been to BBC in the flesh and seen Desiring God Ministries at work they are the genuine thing! Their Church planting and missionary zeal are refreshing. Piper is writing thoughtful, scholarly books faster than I can read them. And I believe that English Stoics like me need to told that joyless duty should be repented of, not encouraged as the acme of Christian Commitment! But I guess that is a little unorthodox. Simon Vibert
1. Teaching found in Desiring God: Meditations of a
Christian Hedonist This article first appeared in Evangelicals Now. |
