A passion for Piper?

John Piper is the senior pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church (BBC) in Minneapolis.

He is author of more than a dozen books and has been in the UK speaking at conferences organised by such diverse groups as FIEC, Banner of Truth and the Clarendon Centre.

Piper's life mission statement, adopted by his church, is 'God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him'. With echoes of his hero, Jonathan Edwards, Piper's plea is for a pervasive God-centredness 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 this 'Christian hedonism' modifies the answer to Question 1 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 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!' She is not going to turn and say: 'You egotist, it isn't about you!' Rather, my delight in doing this dignifies the act.

In a sermon entitled 'Brothers Consider Christian Hedonism' (Desiring God Ministries website) Piper outlines the reasoning behind his belief that our duty as a Christian is to maximise our joy in God: Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who died in 1804, was the most powerful exponent of the notion that the moral value of an act decreases as we aim to derive any benefit from it. Acts are good if the doer is 'disinterested.' We should do the good because it is good. Any motivation to seek joy or reward corrupts the act.

Against this Kantian morality (which has passed as Christian for too long!), we must herald the unabashedly hedonistic biblical morality. Jonathan Edwards, who died when Kant was 34, expressed it like this in one of his early resolutions: 'Resolved, to endeavour to obtain for myself as much happiness in the other world as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigour and vehemence, yea, violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.'

A visit to BBC

As 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 pastors' 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 desire to see 2,000 people converted and to send 2,000 people into short and long term mission and ministry of various kinds, by the year 2000 is BBC's goal! Whatever we think of such targets they do not reek of introspective self-seeking!

'A charismatic'?

When John Piper visited England in 1997 he spoke at Clarendon Fellowship and the Banner of Truth Conference. Clarendon are part of the New Frontiers movement with restorationist theology. At the same time the review of the conference by Banner of Truth and Christian Research Network (CRN) Journal have both criticised Piper's 'Christian hedonism' as 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 God's presence were evident.

Nevertheless it is certainly a misunderstanding to equate intense emotions as being 'charismatic'.

Critics

The most sustained criticism of Piper has come from publications by the CRN, notably the booklet 'John Piper on the Christian Life: an examination of his controversial view of 'faith alone' in Future Grace(3) (1999) written by Mark Karlberg. This 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'.

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 says that Piper has also moved away from orthodoxy.

The booklet is technical and not 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.

Future grace

So, what is Future Grace all about and should I be commending it?

Future Grace is a provocative book. Piper is concerned that much Christian motivation is based on a notion that we have to 'pay God back'. He calls this the debtors' ethic. To illustrate, he says, imagine that a 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 bucketfuls 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.

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: 'Gratitude is not set forth in the Bible as a primary motive for Christian living. Gratitude is a beautiful thing. There is no Christianity without it. It is at the heart of worship. It should fill the heart of every believer. But when it comes to spelling out the spiritual dynamics of how practical Christian obedience happens, the Bible does not say that it comes from the backward gaze of gratitude, but that it comes from the forward gaze of faith' (p.43).

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. 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 for the sake of the gospel.

The need for balance

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.

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.

Fellowship of Word and Spirit are hosting a 'Study Day on John Piper' at St. Luke's, Wimbledon Park on Thursday November 23 2000 at 10.00am - 4.00pm (cost £5.00). Further info on 020 8946 3396.

Simon Vibert

© Evangelicals Now - November 2000
Please consider supporting this ministry by subscribing.