“That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened.” - Martin Luther in “Heidelberg Disputation”, Disputation #19.
This blog was never designed to be a theological and ecclesiastical current events source. It’s unlikely that you’ll ever read late-breaking church news here. As I stated from the beginning in the purpose statement for this blog, the purpose is submit ideas and practices to the authority of Christ and to let Christ’s word rule above all else regardless of who the idea belongs to or how absurd the conclusion may strike us against the background of our conventional views.
From time to time, then, something takes place in contemporary theology and culture that intersects with a broader theological point, and provides a unique opportunity to explore that broader theological point in connection with that contemporary moment.
Several weeks ago, Christians around the world watched as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) held its biennial convention in Minneapolis to vote (among other things) on a proposal on human sexuality that would approve of monogamous homosexual relationships and allow active, monogamous homosexuals to serve as recognized clergy in the ELCA. The consideration of (not the vote on) the proposal was scheduled to take place at the fifth session of the convention at 2 PM on Wednesday, August 19, 2009. But the events wouldn’t take place as scheduled. A tornado hit downtown Minneapolis around the time the consideration of the proposal was scheduled. The tornado hit the convention center where the convention was held as well as Central Lutheran Church across the street from the convention center resulting in damage to both buildings. According to weather reports, the tornado was not expected. It seemed to come out of nowhere. It was an odd serious of events to be sure.
Several conservative Christian leaders who were saddened by the continuing doctrinal shift of the ELCA, rushed to give an interpretation of this weather catastrophe that hit the ELCA convention. Popular Calvinist Baptist preacher John Piper took center stage in this task. According to Piper,
This comment by Piper left many wondering just what should we say about the role of these kinds of events in our lives. Is God warning us about our sin? Is he punishing us? What does it mean when God allows suffering into our lives?
The question is a good one. Unfortunately, Piper’s answer to it is a bad one.
First, we mustn’t think that God has only one purpose for suffering or the evil threatens us. Piper’s God has a singular purpose for suffering: to call us to repentance for sin. In an attempt to further explain his comments about the tornado that hit the ELCA, Piper makes a metaphor of the tornado for his own suffering. Piper was diagnosed with prostate cancer three years ago and now calls this “the tornado of cancer”. What is the purpose of this suffering?
Contrary to what Piper says, Scripture assigns purposes for suffering that are neither the result of a person’s sin nor calls to repent of sin. In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ disciples asked him who’s sin was the cause of a blind man’s blindness. Jesus simply doesn’t accept the premise of the question. This man’s blindness isn’t about sin. Instead “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him” (Jn 9:2-3). To claim that all natural evil that we suffer is a call from God to repent of a sin we’ve committed requires the premise that the evil we suffer is causally connected to some particular sin. But this explanation simply doesn’t wash with the teaching of Scripture. Even if you should never sin again and have no sin to repent of, you will still suffer. Maybe you have already repented. That’s good, but a tornado may still strike your house. Jesus Christ had no sin to repent of and yet he still suffered. So we can’t say that the “tornados” in life always fit the purpose Piper describes.
Neither can we retreat to the explanation that suffering is the result of sin in general. It is true that suffering comes about because we live in a fallen world brought about by disobedience to God, but this isn’t the same as saying that all suffering is the result of some particular sin and is issued by God as a call to repent of specific sins. Even a sinless Savior suffers in a fallen world and yet it isn’t a call for him to repent of sin. The reasons for suffering run deeper than your sin. It’s bigger than your sin. Suffering is woven into the fabric of human existence in such a way that prevents us from the trite and foolish task of connecting each item of suffering to a sinful act. God has subjected our human existence in this world to futility (Rom 8:20-21), and as such, suffering will often defy our explanation and our attempts to assign each item a particular meaning. Piper’s God is a God who visits suffering quid pro quo or tit-for-tat. Commit a sin, and God might design some suffering. Experience some suffering and it means you must repent of the sin behind it. But often, the best we will be able to come up with for the meaning of suffering is that “man is born for trouble ” (Job 5:7). The futility of life will sometimes be as deep as we can explain suffering whether its a rock in your shoe or cancer in your body.
Second, we have to acknowledge that some suffering is connected to a particular act of sin. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their wickedness (Gen 19:12-15). God sent suffering to the people of Israel because of their disobedience (Ez 5:7-11). But in each case where we see suffering connected to particular sins we have a word from God that accompanies it to tell us what the reason is. His word interprets the suffering for us. Apart from God’s commentary we are only groping in the dark for an explanation, and a liberal Lutheran’s explanation of a tornado is as good as Piper’s.
Any hope that suffering can be explained won’t be found in studying our sin and grasping for ways to connect it to something we did. The best we will be able to do is to explain it in through the cross of Christ. This is the only hope in the futility of suffering. Otherwise, how do we even begin to say what the suffering means or if it means anything at all? In his Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther observed that “That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened” (Disputation #19). Unless God unfolds it, the invisible council of God is not perceptible from the events we see. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether Piper deserves to be called a theologian (I know how Luther would cast his vote). If we can’t arrive at God’s purposes through what we see, how are we to arrive at them? Luther tells us it is through the suffering of the cross: “He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross“ (Disputation #20). Luther makes clear in his explanation of Disputation #20 that God is not found in our wisdom as we seek to make sense of his ways according to our judgments (such as when people say: “God must have been warning the Lutherans. Look at the way all those events happened together. I know what God was up to!”). God’s ways are folly to us. We like to think that we know what he’s doing by reading the tea leaves of this event or that event. But God has told us that we can only recognize him in the humility and shame of the cross. So without him giving us an explanation of what he has done, our attempts to get into the mind of God and declare what we think is the meaning of suffering is foolish and dangerous.
Third, outside of seeing suffering through the lense of the mercy shown us in the suffering of Jesus Christ, whether it’s a tornado, a mosquito bite, or toilet paper sticking to the bottom of your shoe, God’s action is indiscernible from the devil’s. Only when God is disclosed in Jesus Christ do we truly know him. Christ reveals the Father to us (Jn 14:6-11). It is only in Christ that we know that God is for us. Without Christ, God is hidden. He is the one who (in the words of Oswald Bayer) “becomes my enemy. He turns cruel to me” (Bayer 2007, 206). This is more than just the effect of the law which declares me a sinner.
We are confronted by this hiddeness in evens such as the senseless catastrophes of nature, unrectifiable injustice, innocent suffering, starvation, murder, war, incurable illness, and the tragic death of the young. “God” for the most part remains anonymous in all this, almost always concealed in passivity. He is not for life but against it, not a preserver of life but its destroyer, who contradicts his revealed will and the gospel. This is the cause of the most profound testing, trial, and spiritual attack: that one who presents himself “for you!” in the promise of life and of eternal community, vouching for it with his own death, is the same one who, as Luther says with the Old Testament “neither deplores death nor takes it away,” “but works life, death, and all in all.” Who can comprehend this? No one (Bayer 2007, 105)!
So God’s actions are not, as Piper tells us, the kind that can all be explained. Even looking at events through the suffering of the cross doesn’t tell us what they mean. What it means to see suffering through Christ is not to get some God’s-eye view of events. It simply means that because we look to Christ and know that the cross is proof that God is for us we don’t have to wonder if it means that God is against us when we encounter suffering. So long as we are looking at things through the cross we can say as Job did that our suffering cannot mean that God is against me — even when it may seem that way. Christ settles that question for Job and he must for us too: “Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high. My intercessor is my friend as my eyes pour out tears to God; on behalf of a man he pleads with God as a man pleads for his friend” (Job 16:19-21) and “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God” (Job 19:25-26).
It is when we think we have some overarching explanation for all suffering that we become like Job’s friends. Job doesn’t come through his suffering with some grand explanation. He doesn’t say as Piper does, “That is the message of every calamity.” Suffering brings him to silence not explanation: “…I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer– twice, but I will say no more” (Job 40:4-5).
Fourth, this explanation leaves countless questions unanswered. If there is some overarching purpose for all suffering, why didn’t Paul invoke it from the outset of his encounter with his “thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me” (2 Cor 12:7)? Why did its purpose have to be revealed to him? The answer is simple: there is no grand explanation of all suffering that we can grasp. Piper’s error isn’t that he proposes the wrong explanation for all suffering, but that he proposes one at all. The explanation fails on so many levels: biblically, empirically, and practically. If, as he writes, ”the cancer-tornado was a merciful rebuke to my worldliness and a timely thrust toward holiness” and ”this is the lesson…for every tornado in any city, and any life, anywhere in the world”, then I have to wonder how this can be true in cases in which a tornado kills a person? How is this a merciful rebuke to worldliness or a timely thrust toward holiness? And when did holiness become the result of our work in responding the right way to suffering? Isn’t holiness found only through faith in the work of Christ? (1 Cor 1:30; Rom 6:22). I experienced the suffering of an itch on my back the other day. Was this a merciful rebuke to my worldliness and a timely thrust toward holiness? Or does it only work for tornados and cancer? And if all suffering is rebuke to worldliness, then why do the wicked of the world get just the opposite message so often? “Why do the wicked live on, growing old and increasing in power? They see their children established around them, their offspring before their eyes. Their homes are safe and free from fear; the rod of God is not upon them….They spend their years in prosperity and go down to the grave in peace” (Job 21:7-9, 13).
Suffering is too great, too common, and too complex to give it a weak, failing and simple answer as Piper’s. Whether you are a liberal Lutheran believer who is flat wrong about what God says about homosexuality or whether you are a popular evangelical pastor/preacher/author anything you say about suffering is your word and not God’s. Our attempts at wisdom in the face of suffering cannot establish meaning. Only a specific word from God attached to it can do this, and we so rarely have this benefit (they rarely had it in the events recorded in Scripture, too). In most cases suffering will defy explanation. But in all cases we do have the God revealed in the cross and resurrection that overshadows all things and declares to us that God is for us. This lens does not become a decoder for each event by which I can now know its meaning. It is a lens that allows me to see that I cannot deny that God loves me and goes to any lengths that I might be free, even when my suffering defies a preacher’s attempts to tell me the meaning behind it all.
John,
I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I think you are reading too much into what Piper said. I will say that I think it was unwise of Piper to juxtapose these two truths next to each other (1. that the ELCA would be acting in sin by ordaining homosexual clergy, and 2. that disasters are a general call to repentance). I’m glad you didn’t invoke the Falwell, and Roberson corollary as others have. I hope you see the distinction. Piper said “and all of us”, they didn’t.
Luke 13 was the passage that Piper quotes to prove his point about disasters being a general call to repentance. You seem to disagree with this understanding of Luke 13, but why shouldn’t natural phenomena serve as reminders to repent any less than they should serve as occasions to worship God? Is Jesus not saying in this passage that when natural calamity strikes to look inward to your own rebellion? This is why I think it was unwise of Piper to juxtapose these two truths, but criticize him for what he did not the boogey-man that you describe in these two quotes: “So God’s actions are not, as Piper tells us, the kind that can all be explained.” and “Piper’s God is a God who visits suffering quid pro quo or tit-for-tat.” Come on John, you know Piper doesn’t believe that all of God’s actions can be explained nor that God always punishes people here and now in direct response to their sin. This is a very uncharitable reading of what Piper says here and an ignoring of what he has said elsewhere about the issue of suffering.
Why do you say multiple times “Piper’s God” do you believe that you and He worship different ones? I’m just curious about that and will reserve any further comments until you respond.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Jonathan
Jonathan,
I realize it’s risky business criticizing Piper among so many fans. I’ve seen other bloggers do it and end up with Calvinist evangelicals on them like monkeys on their backs.
I’m not out to get Piper. I just think he has presented a view of suffering here that is inaccurate and unbiblical. It seeks a comprehensive explanation for all suffering and that doesn’t work for all the reason that I cited in the post. I’ve heard from others that he has presented a better view elsewhere in other teaching on suffering. I don’t read or listen to Piper enough to know. So I leave it as an open question whether he is contradicting himself. But even if he does present a more biblical picture of suffering elsewhere that doesn’t change what he wrote about tornado-cancer (btw, if I was truly out to get Piper, this is a phrase that I could capitalize on endlessly. It’s been a while since I heard a theologian introduce a term more ridiculous).
The fact remains, however, that he takes all suffering to have a universal explanation. And he’s relying on his ability to waffle on this matter to prevent people from accusing him. On the one hand he says that the reason the tornado hit the Lutherans was because of their departure from biblical teaching and then when people point out how ridiculous this claim is, he generalizes it to say that all suffering is a warning to all of us. If that’s all he’s saying I would still have have a problem with it, but that’s not what he said originally. If he’s simply pointing out that this tornado had the same function for all of us, then why did he go into such detail to describe the relation of this tornado to the vote on homosexuality? It’s because he thought there was something special about this tornado (hence all the details about what the Lutherans were busy doing when the tornado hit). Why was the fact that it hit liberal Lutherans directly so prominent in his interpretation of the event? Why not just say, “A tornado hit Minneapolis. This is a warning to all of us that we should all repent?” The reason is obvious, he thinks this tornado was sent because of what the ELCA was voting on, but the fact remains: none of us (Piper included) have any right to assign a motive to God when he hasn’t disclosed his own motive.
About Luke 13. Several things in this passage don’t square with Piper’s interpretation.
First, the passage is not about suffering, it’s about perishing. It’s about death. Jesus doesn’t say, “I tell you, unless you repent, you too will all suffer things like tornados, prostate cancer and bad acne.” He says, unless you repent you will also perish. Death is connected to not repenting, but the same doesn’t follow for suffering in this life. Spiritual and physical death can be connected with sin, but suffering cannot be without a specific word from God on it.
Second, Jesus nowhere says (as Piper does) that the REASON these events happened was to call the people in the event to repent. So I don’t know what entitles Piper to this interpretation. Notice he doesn’t tell us why these people were killed, and notice that it wouldn’t work as a reason anyway. If God’s way of calling someone to repent is to put them to death, then he’s just created an insurmountable obstacle to the repentance he desires.
So when I see a tornado hit liberal Lutherans it doesn’t cause me to say “Oh! I better repent or God might hit me with a tornado or prostate cancer or rabies, etc.” but I can say about a human death: “That is a terrible thing, but there is a final death in store for me if I don’t repent.” My statement is true and fits Luke 13; Piper’s doesn’t.
I might call for you to give a more charitable reading of what I wrote. I never said that Piper thinks that God always punishes people in this life in direct response to their sin. I said “Piper’s God is a God who visits suffering quid pro quo or tit-for-tat.” This is true even if he doesn’t do it everytime. I’m aware that Piper never said that all sin gets suffering, but this is not what I’m criticizing. What I’m criticizing is the claim that when we see suffering, we know it’s the result of some sin that we are being called to repent of. Not only is this teaching absent from Scripture, we find just the opposite teaching.
My reason for using the language of Piper’s God is this. On this issue, I mean to distinguish between what he says about God and what I (and I think the Scriptures) say about God. Now I could say each time “Piper describes God this way….” or I can say “Piper’s God is like….” I prefer the latter. I guess I find it easier. But that doesn’t commit me to saying that we worship entirely different God’s. But it does mean that what he thinks God is like differs in at least one important way from what I think God is like. However, since I haven’t specified any other differences, no one is warranted in loading my wording with further differences.
John,
Thanks for your reply. I get what you are saying and I agree with you about 95%. I guess we may disagree that in addition to death, suffering is also an occasion to repent. I certainly agree that we should not assign motives to God for what He allows to happen to others especially. I agree with Piper’s estimation of his own tornado cancer, but do think Piper was stretching a bit with his interpretation of the tornado at ELCA. Thanks for the clarification on “Piper’s God.” I understand what you mean and certainly didn’t want to read into it anything that wasn’t there. Also I’m sorry if I read too much into your comments on Piper’s view of suffering “tit for tat” etc.
In Christ,
Jonathan
John,
A well stated critique.
It is strange to me that anyone would argue the view that Piper does. ELCA members could just as easily argue that Piper’s cancer was a warning from God to cease things which they consider to be sin–things like denouncing homosexual behavior. There is no limit to the absurdity which can flow from such ideas.
KWR
John,
One more thought just came to me. I don’t think you mentioned animal suffering. Does a thorn in my puppy’s foot mean that I need to repent of something? Perhaps Piper would care to tell us what!
KWR
To say that any pain and suffering that we go through in this life should point us to the horror of sin, lead us to repentance and make us long for heaven is a very biblical concept. Maybe I’m just crazy but this seems to be a constant biblical pattern that the sufferings of God’s people function to cause us to repent of sin (that we all have!) and become less and less comfortable in this world and desire to be with Christ more. I totally get the thorn in the puppy’s foot thing, but again you are reading way too much into what Piper said. Read this short answer to a question about suffering. http://ow.ly/lpjA
I just want to appeal to you guys to try and read people in the most charitable way possible, the way you would want to be read.
I admit I’m biased because I am a huge John Piper fan. Heck I named one of my daughters after him. Dr. Piper doesn’t need me to to defend him, but I think if you read more about what he says about suffering you will find that he is much more reticent to tie particular sufferings to particular sins.
Regardless of being pro or con how the votes came out at the ELCA convention, I think that you have summarized this situation so much that what you wrote is somewhat inaccurate. Firstly, the tornado hit on Wednesday. The vote on the ministry issues was on the Friday, two days later. The ministry vote wasn’t if homosexual people can be pastors, but, in part, whether homosexual people in relationships that are monogamous, etc. can be pastors/ordained. As in many denominations, Celibate homosexual people have been pastors for decades. This has been a sort of don’t ask, don’t tell policy, until these days, when so much is not hidden any longer. I just read today that the tornado also damaged another church in the city, as well as the other neighborhood houses already noted in the news.
Well, I do agree that we need to be careful when interpreting events, at least interpreting them for other people, as Piper did. Someone, claiming to have done researdh, commented on his blog, that some time ago, his church was also hit by a tornado.
PS,
Thank you for correcting my language about the vote. You are right. The vote was scheduled for Friday, not Wednesday. It was the consideration of the proposal that was interrupted on Wednesday but the tornado. I have corrected the language to reflect that fact in the post.
Your second attempt at correction is unnecessary. I clearly stated in my post that the proposal concerned “active, monogamous homsexuals” so I’m not sure why you saw fit to correct. Perhaps you didn’t read it carefully enough.
I’d be interested to find a source on the tornado that hit Piper’s church. Thank you for your comment.
John,
You have given a proper caution to those who rush to put words in God’s mouth. The hymn writer says it simply ‘God is his own interpreter and he will make it plain’.
Darryl
Kevin,
I suppose that Piper’s bizarre view could address your comment about the suffering of animals in this way: since animals aren’t called to repent, God doesn’t send them suffering to call them to repent of sin. So an animal’s suffering isn’t an occasion for anyone’s repentance because the suffering isn’t related to some particular sin it committed.
But I think your point can be adapted and used against Piper’s view in another way. Animal suffering doesn’t come about because of an animals sin, but it is the result of living in a fallen world full of sin. This shows that there is a distinction to be made between suffering because of general conditions brought about by human sin in general and suffering visited by God because of a particular sin (like approving of homosexual activity). Animal suffering makes this distinction quite clear and shows that it is possible to experience suffering that isn’t connected to some particular sin.
Fraiser
First, you said that Piper’s God has only one purpose for suffering. Anyone familiar with Piper’s writings (especially on suffering) knows this is a bit silly. But even if someone is not familiar with his other work, they should not conclude that Piper has nothing more to say about the issue from two short articles. Furthermore, there is nothing in these two articles that necessitates that we understand that Piper believes that God has only one purpose for suffering.
Second, Luke 13 does provide biblical evidence for the view that calamity serves as a call to repentance. This does not mean that this is the only purpose, but it is one. Jesus does not address all the reasons why God allowed those things to occur; however, He does indicate that one purpose it serves is to call men to repentance. This is all Piper is pointing out. I found nothing in your post that refutes Piper’s point on Luke 13.
Third, if in fact Luke 13 proves that calamity serves as a call to repentance, then what is the problem with Piper applying this specifically to the ELCA, if we agree with him about homosexuality?
Troy,
It’s a little odd to see you making assertions rather than taking your usual Socratic method of pelting me with questions. Perhaps I’ve struck a Piper-nerve. I like having an opportunity to respond to your statements rather than answer all the questions.
I don’t know if you have read the rest of the comments or not, but in response to others, I have mostly answered what you say. First, it’s clear that I’m reviewing Piper’s comments and thoughts on the tornado incident. I’m not doing a Piperian theology of suffering. If he says something elsewhere on the subject, that’s nice I suppose, but it can only at best put him at odds with himself and what he states here. So I’m not very concerned with what he says elsewhere. Not everyone who reads what he wrote will, or needs to, check out what else he said about it.
Second, Piper was the one who said that “That is the message of every calamity.” Those are his words, not mine. This sounds pretty singular to me. He doesn’t say that anything else is the message of every calamity.
I have a problem with Piper’s interpretation of Luke 13. See my comment on September 1 for details.
Fraiser,
First, there seems to be a false dichotomy here. Either you agree with Fraiser, or you must be a Piperite. Well, I am neither a Piperite, nor do I agree with you (yet).
Second, when Piper says that every calamity has a call to repentance for sinners, it does not entail that this is the only purpose for the calamity. Therefore, there is no conflict with what Piper says here and what Piper says elsewhere.
Third, Piper is drawing out a general principle from Luke 13, rather than trying to find some specific proof-text that says “When a tornado hits the meeting place of a denomination about to discuss homosexuality, in which no one dies, then know that God is calling them to repentance,” which is seemingly what you require.
Fourth, you are right that not everyone needs to read everything Piper says about suffering to give their two cents about his two articles. However, when you write a response that is around 2,500 words in response to two articles that have a combined total of less than a 1,000 words, it seems like it is more than a passing comment—more like a substantial response to Piper’s view. When someone does this, they should be fair enough to read a little more of what Piper has to say than two very small articles, especially when the implication of your article is that Piper does not deserve the title theologian according to Martin Luther’s definition. I wonder how you would feel if Martin Luther was the target instead of Piper? I have a sneaky feeling that you would be saying, “You cannot just look at few things Luther said over here and not seek to understand how that fits into his overall view given what he has said elsewhere.”
Fifth, maybe I should come up with my own false dichotomy. Either Piper is right about his view of suffering, or you are cranky former baptist.
Troy,
All of your points have earned my disagreement and a few of them my offense. I’ll visit the offense first. You seem to think that what’s motivating my criticism of Piper is not that I genuinely disagree with him. No, it can just be chalked up to me being a cranky former baptist and that Piper is a Baptist.
If it was someone who had earned my theological respect, say Luther, I wouldn’t be so critical. I’m tempted to dismiss your claim here as a cheap jab, a jejune stand-in for an argument, but for the sake of those who might be reading, I’ll address it.
I could give you numerous examples of places where I disagree with Luther and it doesn’t matter what he says elsewhere since the best he can do is contradict himself. But I only need one. His view of the Epistle of James outlined in his Preface to the New Testament is simply a wrong view of James. Elsewhere he has praise for James, but does it doesn’t eliminate what he says in his Preface.
Now, as history judges, Luther was a much better (and arguably more careful) theologian than Piper so thankfully there aren’t many places where we have to clean up after Luther. The fact that Piper needs it here, is a commentary on Piper, not me.
Lastly, I’ll point out that Baptists weren’t the only one who took a Piper-like interpretation of the events. I later learned that some conservative Lutherans said nearly the same thing. And I’m not busy trying to find a way to show that somehow they said something better than Piper. I disagree with them too.
I’m done entertaining your explanation of my motive.
I’m aware that Piper never said that a call to repentance is the only purpose for suffering, but Piper very clearly says that all suffering has this purpose. And to my knowledge he doesn’t say this about any other purpose for suffering. Maybe I’m wrong, and you know of a place where he calls something else THE reason for all suffering.
But just because Piper doesn’t say that this is the ONLY reason for suffering it doesn’t mean he doesn’t contradict himself. Though I haven’t read much on Piper and suffering, I suspect that he does contradict himself. Was Christ’s suffering a call for Christ to repent? I’m quite sure that when Piper talks about what Christ’s suffering meant for Christ, Piper gives him a pass on the whole repentance business. Also, I dare say that there are cases of suffering where he doesn’t honestly think that repentance is God’s purpose for the suffering (such as suffering in death — if God kills someone, how can the person repent? — or, say, suffering that Christ experienced that no one ever found out about — perhaps he hit his thumb with a hammer or was bitten by an ant. Christ is obviously exempt from repentance, but since no one else knows about these small cases of suffering, how can they be calls for other people to repent? Besides, don’t you find it silly to make the move from “Christ was bitten by an ant” to “I should repent.”?).
There’s no way that Piper has thought through what he’s said very well. According to Piper, a call to repentance is the purpose behind good things and bad things, pleasure and suffering. When everything is a call to repentance, nothing is. It cheapens true calls to repentance when belly button lint, finding a quarter in sofa cushions, bad coffee, good coffee, a bad hair day, a good hair day, bad sex with the Mrs., good sex with the Mrs. — these are all calls of God to repent. What sins are they calls to repent of? Well, Piper doesn’t tell us, but you better start repenting of something. The whole thing is clearly ridiculous and if there’s a defense for the view that every event is a call to repentance, please step in for Piper here and make it.
I can’t imagine that Piper takes his own words very seriously. Does he go around repenting with each beat of a butterfly’s wings, or when he sees raindrops on roses, and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles, and warm woolen mittens, brown paper packages tied up with strings
(these are a few of my favorite things)?
I suspect the course of events went something like this. He got his foot stuck in his mouth with what he said about the Lutherans and the way he presented suffering and then, facing the bind he was in, he tried to cheapen his initial remarks by saying that the tornado is no different than everything else. It’s all a call to repentance. The message of God in the tornado wasn’t unique because, well, it’s the message in everything! Really? Well, then why did you pick the tornado and go into all that detail about it? Why didn’t you just tell us that the toilet didn’t flush?…repent.
On Luke 13, what’s the general principle that you say Piper is presenting? That calamity is a call to repentance? I simply don’t see this in Luke 13. Jesus tells them that repentance is the only way to avoid perishing. He doesn’t tell them the same about suffering. It doesn’t work as a text for suffering. If it does, then you’re gonna have to peddle the prosperity gospel: unless you repent, you will all likewise suffer tornados and cancer!
Lastly, I was very clear in the beginning of the post, that Piper’s words were an occasion for me to look at what Scripture teaches about suffering. What I had to say about suffering was larger than simply refuting Piper. Piper was mostly the jumping-off point, not the focus of what I had to say. Piper’s interpretation of the tornado opened up the conversation for people to think about the place of suffering in the Christian life. The place of suffering was my topic. So if your biggest complaint is that I wrote too many words without doing enough Piper homework for your taste, I’ll have to beg off from that task and move on because I’m just not feeling the sting of this complaint. Seems like weak sauce to me.
If you would like to discuss how to make sense of the idea that every event is a call to repentance or how Luke 13 relates to suffering then I can take further interest.
Troy,
You may not like what Fraiser says, but you have GOT to admit that the way he said it is hilarious! Don’t you wish all theology was that much fun to read?
KWR
Fraiser,
I apologize if I have offended you. My last point was merely a joke, which I thought was clear by the fact that I called it a false dichotomy and left a smiley face.
For a guy who likes to dish out little jabs (see your first paragraph of your first response to me), I did not think you would mind. My intention was never to offend.
Troy,
I did perhaps overstate my attitude. I shouldn’t say I was offended — at least not in any deep way. I am a little sensitive toward the accusation that I am against certain ideas simply because they came from Baptists. People have accused me of this before with great seriousness, and I disagree with the claim. I enjoy a good jab as much as anyone. So I certainly need to be able to take a few.
Now what about Luke 13, and the idea that every event is a call to repentance?