John Piper: the Emerging Church was “an upper-middle-class, white, departure from orthodoxy…”

Do you really want to know what I think, or is that just a rhetorical question?

@Jason Postma: If you can find your way past your intense hatred for John Piper and say something objective, I’m all ears. ;-)

Objectivity is a myth (unless you’re John Piper, who, by the way, I don’t hate…I just have rather large questions concerning certain tenets of his theology. Like I said before, I can feast at the Eucharistic table with Piper; I doubt he can with me).

A few preliminary comments:

Piper call the EC “upper-middle-class” and “white” is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Secondly, how is truth not relational? Even in the modernist/objectivist paradigm in which Piper theologies, the researcher is in relation to that which is under investigation – any scientist will confirm this. Following the postmodern critique of epistemology, the EC is correct in challenging the supposed objectivity of Enlightenment rationalism, of which John Piper and his ilk are certainly heirs. The “prioritization of truth” smacks of dogmatic rationalism and a rational dogmatics – Piper’s understanding of God sovereignty (God as the author of evil) is nothing if not logically consistent.

Thirdly, attacking the EC in terms of the personal issues of its leaders is a rather low blow. Piper’s appearance of protecting the inside information he has regarding said personal issues is hidden behind his smug smile and will do nothing less than plant seeds of gossip. Where is the pastoral concern for the leaders of the EC? Piper would rather wag his finger – you reap what you sow!

Fourth, Piper’s posturing as the definitive Reformed “pastor-theologian” (or however he defines his role) is astounding. His theological self-assuredness is infuriating – there but for the grace of John Piper goes God. He is completely unwilling to engage with the EC in the legitimate questions it raises. Rather, Piper smugly smiles and continues to draw lines in the sand. If you’re not with him, then you must be against him.

Fifth, Piper seems completely unaware of the larger theological world beyond his brand of American Evangelical Calvinism, other than the objects of his critique. His modus operandi is to criticize in order to protect what is (apparently) self-evidently true. To disagree with Piper is to find yourself outside the flock (by his account and those of his disciples).

The EC itself (whatever that is – Piper acknowledges that it is difficult to pin down and yet denounces it carte blanche) might be a blip in the history of North American evangelicalism, but the questions and issues raised by the EC are not going to simply “fade away” in ten years because the EC is part of a larger cultural shift (and this is what Phyllis Tickle says notwithstanding; any intellectual, cultural, or social historian will tell you that western civilization has being undergoing a fundamental shift in the past 100 years). People are leaving “traditional” churches in droves for a number of reasons (militant hyper-Calvinism is one), opting for EC congregations, house churches, or out of church altogether.

Moreover, it is difficult to paint all churches that define themselves as emerging with the same brush and then to declare that they won’t be around in 10 years (again with the arrogance). Congregations are based on the characteristics and culture of the local community (socially and geographically). No church as it exists today will be the same in 10 years as it is now, both Piper’s church and EC congregations.

So, Piper comes across as we would expect – arrogant, smug, and hostile (he tends to exemplify the character of folly that we see in biblical wisdom literature – what he says sounds good, but in the end…).

I would prioritize love (I’m pretty sure that is what Jesus said the summary of the law is about) as we worship the Truth.

Apparently, doctrine saves…

I thought you might like this post:

http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/why-john-macarthur-leads-to-bart-erhman/

RE: Piper’s claim that EC is a “white…middle class” movement.

As contrasted to what?

Just saying…

@Jeff Cebulski: He was speaking to a black church. So that’s the context in which he said it.

I’m not sure that it’s ironic. I know he lives in one of the poorest hoods in Minneapolis and buys his clothes at a thrift store… that’s cred, no? ;-)

Well, sure…but would he say that to a white audience?

@Jeff Cebulski: I don’t see why not. Surely he was aware of the video camera in front of him. Do you think the statement is inaccurate?

I am just curious about how we “say” something is modified according to who our perceived audience is.

Since his statement was apparently meant to be pejorative, it suggests that upper middle-class white people can’t be right. This might gain points with his local audience. But a lot of Piper’s supporters “out there” are from that middle-class milieu he pillorized.

I think McLaren would be at least slightly confused that a person who claims to speak from “the common” would not see the relevance of his points, especially in the context of colonialism and the church. Piper’s comments suggest that he sees MC as a matter of snooty liberalism, thus placing it into a quasi-political mode. McLaren, of course, sees the ‘conservative’ branch of the church as having already crossed the line into brotherhood with power. Since context is everything, by placing the MC into that mode Piper gains points with his ‘brethren’ but not necessarily from a scriptural view. Ad hominem attacks feel better when removed from the religious context even though they are meant to attack the religious integrity of another. Mixed contexts lead to mixed rhetoric.

@Jeff Cebulski: I will have to leave this for a couple of days as I’m heading into a monster weekend. Sorry. Will get back to it next week.

[...] [1] http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/2010/03/24/john-piper-the-emerging-church-was-an-upper-middle-class-whi... [...]