• Archive for August, 2009

    Some Struggles with John Piper

    August 28, 2009 // 16 Comments »

    When I was a sophomore in college, I helped to lead a high school mission trip to Russia.  On the plane, I was reading a book someone had recommended, “Desiring God,” by John Piper.  Through the first 1/2 of the book, I was looking for a way to throw it off the plane – I thought it was crap.  By the end of it, I was transformed.  I had a completely different take on the nature of Christian faith and discipleship that has stood the test of time.

    Once I started to get into Podcasts, Piper’s was one of the first ones I subscribed (iTunes link) to.  I still listen to it with some regularity and commend it to you.

    When I was contemplating resigning my role as a student pastor in 2004 to pursue more theological education, I decided to take some time off to think, pray, reflect, and ask questions.  I traveled to Minneapolis, visited Bethlehem Baptist Church where John Piper preaches, and had the chance to talk with him for a while after one of the services.  An alum of Fuller Theological Seminary, I expected him to be encouraged that this was one of my options.  He wasn’t.  He said that they had gone down a dangerous to path toward Christian liberalism.

    I went to Fuller anyway and discovered that John was wrong.

    My idolatry of Piper broken, I began to notice some other aspects of his theology that I had a really hard time with.

    I think he gets the issue of God’ sovereignty wrong – not because I believe the opposite, but because I think the whole Calvinist/Armenian debate is flawed at its core.  Both positions assume that salvation is something one can have and therefore argue about who secures our having it – God or man.  With good intention, some will attempt a middle road and say it’s a both/and issue.  It’s not.  It’s a neither/nor issue.  When you begin to understand that “salvation belongs to God” (Rev. 7:10) and is therefore something we can only participate in, never have, the whole debate changes.

    I also lament Piper’s view on women. Again, he will argue the “conservative” side of the complimentarian/egalitarian debate, which I think begins with flawed premises.  Do men and women compliment each other or are they equal?  That question isn’t nearly biblical enough to be of any real value.  A more important question, at least as the Bible is concerned, is, how do men and women, who only together image God, as couples and singles, function together in doing and equipping others for ministry.  And the plain answer is that they serve as co-laborers – that each and every aspect of ministry, from preaching and teaching, to caring for children, suffers when not practiced by both capable and gifted women and men.

    There was much bally-who in the blog-o-sphere last week when Piper connected a tornado in Minneapolis to a meeting the ELCA was having regarding the issue of homosexuality (here’s the original article and a follow up one).  I have listened to Piper enough that I think what he meant to say was that whenever natural disaster strikes it is an opportunity for us to remember and turn to God, but he seemed to be saying quite a bit more than that and it calls for some accounting.

    Lastly, he’s got a bad take on the woman at the well (John 4).  Like perhaps the majority of preachers, he is quick to assume the moral degradation of the woman Jesus encounters, frequently noting that “she’s sleeping with her boyfriend.”  As I take into account the cultural factors at play in this passage as well as the fuller scope of Jesus’ ministry, I find this interpretation to be maddening.

    Women had not rights in Jesus’ day; they had not power to divorce a husband; they were property.  Unless they were from a royal or extremely well off family, they had almost no hope of being able to provide for themselves.  As the Bible makes clear, the ability to produce children more often than not determined a woman’s worth.

    While we might trip over some of the translated language, I think it’s much more faithful to the text to understand this Samaritan woman, not as a whore (essentially what Piper and others tend to d0), but as a shamed and broken victim of injustice.  When Jesus notes that this woman had had five husbands, he’s not digging her for her sin – when did Jesus ever do that except for the religious leaders?!  And when he says that the man she now has is not her husband, he’s not some *&$%^&# calling her out for “sleeping with her boyfriend”  – again, just doesn’t fit the Jesus of the gospels.  He is calling out the source of her shame and injustice so that he can heal it – something he did all the time.

    I love John Piper as a brother in Christ.  His passion and zeal for the supremacy of God captivates and inspires me.  But here’s the final thing about John and this gets me more than anything else.  I have never heard him say (and he’s really public!), “I might be wrong.  There are other followers of Jesus who believe differently than me and they just might be on to something.”  Even if he has said something like this at some point – it is quite definitely not a theme in his teaching the way I wish it was.  I’m not talking about being wishy-washy.  I am taking about some good ol fashioned humility and firm trust in God’s work over his theology.

    I am not writing this to disparage.  Beginning with myself, I would ask anyone who has some theological issues with another brother or sister in Christ, to think first and foremost about who they really are and what they have done for the sake of the gospel.  I am no anti-Piperian. I consider John a true partner in the gospel and would run to his defense on most occasions.  But this is just some stuff that I really struggle with enough to hope that others would as well.

    Posted in bible, Fuller Seminary, gender, Jesus, preaching/teaching

    Moving & The Muddy Buddy

    August 11, 2009 // 9 Comments »

    Last weekend (July 31 – Aug 1) was what you might call… slammin!

    We spent all day Friday and Saturday getting moved out of our studio apartment and into our 2 bedroom apartment just 75 yards up the same street.  Big thanks to Caleb, Susan, Dustin, Whitney, Josh, Annie, Haley, and mom and dad Garrington for all the help over the two days.  There was a big festival here in Elgin on Saturday that provided free live music on the streets for our movers and the Verve Pipe (yeah Freshmen!) was playing just down the way.  To cap things off, we were able to see fireworks outside our living room windows to end our exhausting move.  Here’s a quick tour of our new place.  We’re anxious for company, so bring it on!

    Due to a slight oversight on my part, I was scheduled to preach on Sunday morning which just happened to be the same day that Amy and I had registered for The Muddy Buddy Race.  So, after a restless night of sleep in our new place, Amy and I were up at 5:30AM and off to the race.

    We actually started at 7:41 and were in the car at 9:18.  Caked in mud and grime, Amy and I sped off for the service at Life on the Vine, rolling into the parking lot at 10 for the service at 10:15.  Thankfully one of the pastors lives directly across from the church building so we were able to shower there quickly and made it just in time.  Here are some pictures from the race.

    So, word to the wise, watch your schedules closely!

    Posted in Amy, LOV

    You Should Go to Fuller Theological Seminary

    August 7, 2009 // 5 Comments »

    If you are considering working on a masters degree in the areas of theology, missiology, or psychology I’d like to encourage you to consider Fuller Theological Seminary.  I graduated back in 2006 and have been an avid evangelist for the school ever since.

    Aside from having a world class faculty, Fuller is one of the most ethnically and racially diverse seminaries in the world which adds a ton to the processes of learning and formation.  And let’s face it, you can’t beat the weather in So. Cal!

    More than all this, the alumni of Fuller just received an email from the admissions department letting us know that they have received a hefty donation and are offering more scholarships than usual to incoming students.  So the timing is perfect.

    If you are interested in going to seminary, but love the idea of a more integrated approach to education where you are studying while you’re engaged in a specific area of Christian leadership, you really need to check out the Master of Arts in Global Leadership program.  In my opinion, this is one of the best programs being offered in the entire landscape of graduate theology/missiology.

    If you are looking for any more guidance, have any questions, or would like me to help connect you with some people who might be valuable to the ends you have in mind for seminary, just let me know.

    Oh, make sure you take something with Mark Lau Branson ;)

    Posted in Fuller Seminary

    Cultural Gravity (Part 2)

    August 5, 2009 // 7 Comments »

    In my last post, I tried to unpack a basic understanding of what I was calling cultural gravity and said that I wanted to offer a few thoughts on what this has to do with missional churches.

    In general my thoughts flow from the main idea that missional churches are those whose basic ecclesiology and structure are predicated on the reality of cultural gravity.  To say it another way, given the post-Christendom framework of missional churches, they tend to think of “Christianity” & “church” not as a part of culture, but rather as an alternative culture. This being the case, missional churches…

    1. emphasize spiritual formation.    Sin is never the result of simple and immediate decisions – it grows out of the experiences, paradigms, and structures that make up the worlds we live in.  The cosmic significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection notwithstanding, sin is most powerfully overcome not by making individual decisions, but in faithful devotion to the way of Jesus – the entrance into a new world of cultural gravity.

    2. are inherently incarnational. There are those who would maintain that the church should be both attractional and missional.  If they are really astute they attempt to correlate this to the biblical notions of centripetal mission (the world being attracted to the people of God) and centrifugal mission (the people of God going forth in the world embodying and proclaiming the gospel) – thereby causing all those who deeply care about the true nature of missional ecclesiology to cringe, tear there clothes, and gnash their teeth for 2 reasons.

    A) Attractional churches are not practicing centripetal mission.  Mimicking culture and slapping a Christian label on it, pandering to the wants and whims of a chosen demographic, making people as comfortable as possible so that they can “hear and respond to the gospel,” etc. are not examples of centripetal  mission, but they are nearly universal practices of those who seek to defend attractional approaches to ecclesiology and mission.

    The centripetal mission spoken of in Scripture has to do with God so blessing his people for their covenant faithfulness that others take note and want to participate.

    B) Being missional is not a counterpart to being attractional.  It’s not a tactic.  We don’t seek to be attractional to effectively reach one segment of the population and missional to reach another.  To be missional is much deeper, more inclusive, and theologically holistic than this pop understanding.

    The centrifugal mission spoken of in Scripture has to do with the people of God seeking to love and bless the world around them – to bring light where there in darkness, healing where there is brokenness, and peace where there is discord.

    Centripetal and centrifugal mission are not two things to be held together in a both/and sort of way.  They are two effects of a sole commitment to being incarnationally faithful to participating in the Missio Dei.

    What has all this to do with cultural gravity?  Missional churches seek to embody a cultural gravity predicated on a biblical vision of God’s Kingdom that emanates out as it transforms peoples lives.

    3. have an affinity for multi-culturalism.  Having an understanding of and appreciation for cultural gravity is not threatening to missional churches, but embraced as an opportunity for growth and even conversion.  Missional churches find mono-culturalism unfortunate, limiting, and generally boring.  They will seek to be as cross-cultural as possible given their context and will do what they can to facilitate cross-cultural experiences as a vital aspect of spiritual formation.

    Just a few thoughts on the matter.  More than open for additions, clarifications, or push-back.

    Posted in christendom, church, culture, missional, modernity, spiritual formation, theology