Holy What?! Piper on Hero Worship

This post comes to us from guest blogger Kevin Regal and addresses an issue that seems to be particularly problematic in evangelicalism where the movement seems to surround around megapastors and popular leaders. What results is often nothing less than the worship of these leaders which is manifested in name-dropping, autograph-seeking, mimicking preaching styles, and defending one’s hero under almost any circumstances (to name a few). For those who might wonder whether this blog has become an anti-Piper blog in light of the recent frequency of posts pertaining to Piper let me say two things: 1) Kevin was working on this post before Piper wrote his statement about the tornado that hit the ELCA convention. It was mostly a matter of coincidence that I decided to write a post responding to his statement about the ELCA; 2) whatever part isn’t coincidence is owed to the fact that Piper has of late put out a rash of unusually outrageous and unbiblical statements. Since I find that so many evangelicals take his ideas so seriously, it is worth the time to respond to them.
________________________________________

One of the things that bothers me most about Evangelicalism is the abundance of praise, adoration, and exultation which many Evangelicals direct toward prominent pastors, radio speakers, authors, etc. Because of that frustration, I was very interested when I heard that John Piper had written an article addressing the topic of hero worship (“Hero Worship and Holy Emulation”). A statement—any statement—discouraging the worship of men is long overdue from most Evangelical leaders, and I very much hoped that was what Piper was up to. I generally appreciate much of what Piper writes and says, and I believe that, should he endeavor to, he could make a powerful case against the evangelical tendency to worship its leaders.

My hopes were, however, sorely disappointed. Piper’s statement was far from the kind of open and honest self-evaluation I had hoped for. I’ll try to explain my disappointment in terms of four main areas in which I disagree with him.

First, Piper is wrong in his definition of hero worship. He writes “Hero worship means admiring someone for unholy reasons, and seeing all he does as admirable (whether it is sin or not).”

So, according to Piper, hero worship is nothing more than misguided admiration. The acts and attitudes which constitute hero worship are actually virtues if the worshipers focus them upon the good qualities of the heroes.

Applying that idea to virtually any other situation yields obviously bizarre results; for example, to be consistent Piper would have to conclude that Daniel’s friends could have bowed to Nebuchadnezzar’s image (or to Nebuchadnezzar—whom the image obviously represented), so long as they only admired its/his good qualities. Bowing down to a calf image would also have to be deemed acceptable, so long as it is admired it for its beauty, etc. All people (even evil people) have some admirable qualities. Machiavelli could be admired for his brilliance, Hitler for his determination, Madonna for her…well I can’t think of anything, but I’m sure there’s something which could be legitimately admired.

Hero worship is not just a bad kind of admiration. It seems so obvious that I wonder how Piper could have missed this, but hero worship is a kind of worship. And worship directed toward anyone or anything but God is idolatry. There is no good or acceptable way to worship anyone or anything but God.

Second, Piper is wrong in his identification of the internet as the problem. Basically, Piper claims that the rapid and ready availability of information causes pastors to become celebrities. Piper doesn’t explicitly connect celebrity status to hero worship, so it is difficult to know quite what he thinks about it. This is especially so because he seems rather ambivalent on the matter—approving of the widely-celebrated notoriety of such pastors but disapproving of that notoriety being called what it is, celebrity. He appears to like the fact that the very presence of pastors like himself draws large crowds to conferences (like Advance 09), but dislike it when reporters observe that “celebrity pastors” have come to their city. You can’t have it both ways, John.

But really that rapid and ready flow of information provided us by the internet is a good thing; Piper seems to agree (at least partially) when he observes that many sermons, articles, and books are available—often free of charge—via the internet. However, he asserts that internet tools like blogs, Facebook, and Twitter “contribute to” the celebrity status of pastors—which he says is “media-driven.”

Like all good things, a tool like the internet can be abused. For example, the internet makes pornography much more available than it was twenty years ago. But the problem is not the tool, it is the sin. And, like the worship of church leaders, pornography is a problem that was around long before the internet. Surely, the internet does provide a great new outlet for the expression of the sin in peoples’ hearts, but it did not put that sin in their hearts.

Third, Piper’s defense of what may be called “good hero worship” is both illogical and unscriptural. Apparently to escape the criticism of hero worship, Piper invents the phrase ‘holy emulation’ (a phrase which is completely meaningless and yet sounds rather spiritual) and transfers the ideological content of the phrase ‘hero worship’ to his new phrase. But it is not a complete transfer — what Piper appears to want is to keep the phrase ‘hero worship’ as a decoy so that all the criticism, negative connotation, etc. can be absorbed by that phrase while he transfers all the attitudes and actions which actually constitute hero worship to the new phrase (‘holy emulation’). In that way, he is able to acknowledge criticisms of hero worship without actually condemning any of the attitudes and behaviors which are generally indicated by the phrase.

There’s more. Though ‘holy emulation’ is an empty phrase, the word ‘emulate’ is close in meaning to the word ‘imitate.’ So, when Piper argues that ‘holy emulation’ is exactly what is meant by passages like 1 Cor 11:11 (“Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ”) and Phil 3:17 (“Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.”), it is easy for us to be tricked. If Piper was only speaking of ‘emulation,’ per se, then it would probably be fair to substitute it for ‘imitation.’ But Piper is not speaking about ordinary emulation; he is speaking about ‘holy emulation’—the phrase which he has just loaded with all the content of hero worship.

I think it is obvious that Paul’s commands to imitate him are to be understood as commands to imitate what he was doing that was right. That, of course, requires discernment on the part of the person doing the imitating–imitating Paul’s faithfulness to Christ would be correct; imitating his speaking gestures would be silly; showering him with praise and adoration which belongs only to God would be idolatrous. Autograph- seeking, name-dropping, flat-out praise and adoration—really do fit hero worship and really have nothing to do with the kind of imitation commanded by Paul and the author of Hebrews.

Fourth. I hesitate to write this, but I think it is a point which needs to be made: the attitude of Piper’s entire article on hero worship is wrong. Piper’s article begins with a rather confused run of blame-shifting. It could be summarized: “It’s not my fault, it’s the internet, etc. that’s doing it, and I don’t know what to do about it!” That’s not a new line; Aaron defended himself the same way: “Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!” (Exod 32:24)

Piper then accuses those who criticize hero worship of pride and threatens them with dangers worse than bullets, bombs, and death. He brands them as ‘cynics’. Piper pretends to be warning everyone of those dangers, but he is careful to excuse both worshipers and heroes from blame. The heroes can’t be blamed, for it is the internet’s fault. The worshipers can’t be faulted because to do so would be to “assume the worst of people.” Only the critics are left under his condemnation—he seems quite willing to assume the worst of them.

Strangely, after rejecting any blame for heroes and worshipers alike, Piper goes on to argue that hero worship (newly named ‘holy emulation’) isn’t actually wrong, and even goes so far as to claim that it is commanded by scripture. Nowhere in his article does he attempt a serious evaluation of the concerns or of himself and other ‘heroes’ in light of them.

I wish that Piper had imitated Paul; he left us a very good example on this matter.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: “Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. (Acts 14:14-15)

And scripture tells us that even the angels refuse to accept worship. John wrote:

And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, “Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!” (Rev 22:8-9)

The danger Piper mentioned is real, but it wasn’t cynics who were punished after the golden calf incident, and it was Herod himself, not his cynics, who was eaten alive by worms.

I’ll conclude with this citation about idolatry. It is from philosopher Paul K. Moser:

Idolatry is the universal human tendency to value something or someone in a way that hinders the love and trust we owe to God. It is an act of theft from God whereby we use some part of creation in a way that steals from honor due to God. Idolatry conflicts with our putting God alone first in our lives, in what we love and trust (see Exod 20:3-5; Deut 5:7-9; Rom 1:21-23). In idolatry we put something or someone, usually a gift from God, in a place of value that detracts from the first place owed to God alone, the gift Giver. That thing or person is an idol.

KWR