Tag: controversial

Tim Challies on Piper & Warren: Responding with Grace

~ Bob Hayton

Last week, I posted my response to John Piper’s invitation of Rick Warren to speak at this year’s DG Conference. I have since gotten mixed reactions to it. Both on my blog and elsewhere, I’ve seen a wide range of reactions. Some are denouncing Piper as a heretic. At least one has withdrawn any endorsement or use of Piper’s books and materials in his church’s ministry. Some are waiting to see how this turns out, but displeased with Piper’s action. Others see no problem at all and are incensed with all the negative reactions.

Today, Tim Challies posted his response, and I think his post is a model of how to respond gracefully to such controversies in the church. He posts clear and thoughtful reasons why Piper shouldn’t have invited Warren. But he does this charitably and stresses it isn’t that big of a deal. We shouldn’t disregard Piper’s proven record of faithful ministry over this one decision.

I encourage you to check out Challies’ post, and may we all learn to express ourselves with such reserve and grace in such matters.

John Piper, Rick Warren & the Watchbloggers: The Persistent Problem of Secondary Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 42 Comments

I wish I had more time to comment on this. As it is, I’m away from home and don’t have much online time this week….

I fired up my twitter feed when I got to our destination, only to see a lot of ire being directed toward John Piper for his invitation of Rick Warren to speak at the Desiring God National Conference this fall. The watchbloggers, most notably CrossTalk blog (formerly Slice of Laodicea), are all upset over this and seem to have totally written John Piper off. I won’t repeat many of the charges, I’d feel dirty doing so. Just search the term #apj in Twitter to see some of this for yourself, or scour the comments at some of Justin Taylor’s recent blog posts.

Piper had explained his rationale for inviting Warren in audio/video posted here or in the comments. This comment under that post provides a transcript of Piper’s words on the subject and is helpful.

Last night, DG had hosted another ask Pastor John live online Q & A event, and so of course Piper had to deal with the controversy. The DG Blog has a 12 minute video-clip up from last night’s event, that should satisfy anyone’s curiosity. In that clip, which I recommend you watch, I found a few segments very insightful and pertinent to the issue of secondary and excessive separation. Let me provide some excerpts here and then offer some thoughts. I apologize in advance, if I don’t get the transcript exactly right.

…I’m real eager that this glorious thing God is doing in the “young, restless, reformed” — whatever this thing is called that God’s doing, awakening people’s love for the supremacy of God in all things. I’m real eager that that not become a brittle, narrow, ugly, excessively separatist movement, and so I’m not devoting my life to finding a lot of enemies to attack. I’ve got some, but I like to do it simply by hammering on truth….

Separatism or, who you do things with, is an important Biblical question. And so, I don’t put Rick Warren in the group that I’m going to hold at an arm’s distance. …I’m not going to draw the circle there.

And suppose you disagree with me on that. Now you’re faced with the question, ok, I’m with John Piper theologically. I’m not with Rick Warren on a bunch of things. John Piper has just chosen to hang out with Rick Warren. What do I do with John Piper? That’s called secondary separation issues. And there you are, I hope we can disagree about who we hang out with. Okay. Because a lot of traditional fundamentalists have said, no, if you hang out with somebody that I believe I should separate from, then I’m going to separate from you. And I want to say, look let’s, can we disagree about whether he would come to your conference and you still be willing to eat with me, talk with me?

So I would encourage you to think through that issue of secondary separation. The way I have chosen to live my life for the sake of reformed theology and the supremacy of God and the inerrancy of the Bible and the importance of solid Reformation gospel truths, the 5 solas, and so on, is to give all my energy to putting them in a positive, aggressively spreadable form, not to spend my time shooting at the people who don’t like them….

I think Piper does a good job explaining secondary separation. It is always a problem, because people always will disagree with others on their particular approach to ministry. So, should we just separate from anyone not exactly like us? No.

I find it interesting that many who aren’t fundamentalists exactly (they aren’t card-carrying Independent fundamental Baptists), still think secondary separation should apply here. I think it’s the natural human reaction when we face disagreements. It is certainly easier to just write people off, then allow for important differences.

Yet, Rom. 14-15 should apply here. We can accept others even thought they differ from us. Personally, I’m encouraged that Piper is reaching out to Warren. He may perhaps influence Warren, and Warren does have some positive things to share with us, too.

I have serious reservations about Warren and his methodology. But his book revolutionized my grandfather’s life. I can’t argue with that. When we take small differences and make them so important we will die over them, we are making mountains out of molehills. And in the process, the important, fundamental truths–that list Piper shared that Warren upholds– are rendered meaningless. As I have pointed out before, we “minimize the gospel through [such] excessive separation.” I think the unity we have in the big things should enable us to get along enough to respect others who differ with us in relatively minor matters.

What’s your thoughts on Piper and Warren. Do you agree with my thoughts here? If not, why should we think of Piper as “selling out” for this invitation of Warren to speak? Please join the conversation in the comments below.

Vern Poythress, John Walton & “The Lost World of Genesis One”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

IVP recently published John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Walton brings ancient near-Eastern (ANE) cultural and linguistic parallels to bear on the text of Genesis chapter 1. I found the book both fascinating and challenging. His method of developing his argument proposition by proposition, kept the argument clear, comprehensible and concise. Ultimately, I found it quite convincing. I will be reviewing that book on my site in the near future.

Of course, a big sacred cow has been tipped in this book. Against the very real attacks by atheistic evolutionists, Christians in general have united around a Creationist perspective that upholds a literal, six-day, young earth, non-evolutionary model of the origins of the earth and all life. Over the last few decades, a steady stream of scientific analyses of Scripture have hit the shelves of Christian bookstores. If you stop to think about this from a wider perspective, you would have to think that many church leaders of old would be amazed at the degree of scientific specificity that modern creationists find in the pages of Scripture. It should be obvious that Scripture wasn’t written to answer every question in our science books.

I am currently exploring this issue in more depth and looking to Scripture for what perspective to have on this issue. John Piper’s thoughts on the matter are similar to mine at present. In a recent online Ask Pastor John event, (the answer is not yet posted on their site), Piper says he leans toward Sailhammer’s view (as explained in the above link).    After reading Walton (as well as G.K. Beale), I agree. I don’t think the issue has to be as divisive as some make it out to be.

Everyone doesn’t agree that such matters should be open to such variation, however. Vern Poythress, who I highly respect, recently offered a decidedly negative assessment to Walton’s book in World magazine. His review, obviously bound by space constraints, did not adequately explain Walton’s position. It misrepresented the book. Now, John Walton has responded to that review. Both Poythress’ assessment of the book, and Walton’s rejoinder are short reads and will provide a peek into the nature of the debate (and of course, the book). I encourage you to take the time to read both articles, and let me know what your thoughts are.

Vern Poythress: Walton has read Genesis with a false contrast between material and functional, and with equivocal meanings for the two terms. As a result, he artificially detaches Genesis 1 from questions of physical appearance and produces an unsustainable interpretation…. In short, Walton’s book has mixed value. Positive insights about the practical focus of Genesis 1 mix with some unsound claims. (read the entire review)

John Walton: I have read a few other reviews of the Lost World of Genesis One by scholars who had reservations about my theory. They were balanced, understood my position well, interacted with my ideas and evidence in depth, and offered assessment of aspects of the theory as they raised important questions. These are much appreciated. Dr. Poythress is certainly capable of offering such a review, but this effort fell far short of that helpful ideal. In the process I believe he did a disservice to me, to his readers, and to the discussion. (read the entire response)

Please feel free to share your thoughts on this in the comments below!

You can purchase the book at Amazon.com or Westminster Bookstore, or direct from IVP. Westminster Bookstore has a .PDF excerpt available as well on the book page.