John Piper: New School Presbyterian-Baptist-Revivalist-Enthusiast Style?

John Piper’s New Calvinism

New School Presbyterianism Baptist Style?

by Dale M. Coulter

John Piper recently gave a lecture at Westminster Theological Seminary about the New Calvinism that is already getting play at several Reformed sites (see here, here, and here). His aim was to argue for an interrelationship between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism and to attempt to ground the ethnic diversity of the movement in classic Reformed doctrines. If anyone has the stature and force of personality to will a connection between Old and New, it’s John Piper. Nevertheless, the probabilities are that Old Calvinists, who are better understood primarily as Old School Presbyterians, will remain unconvinced even if they think an alliance is the most effective way forward.

Old School Presbyterians had a more strident interpretation of Presbyterianism, complete with Sabbath keeping (no sports or other kinds of activities on the Sabbath) and following the old Reformed Directory of Public Worship. Raised a Missouri Presbyterian, Mark Twain once quipped about sabbath keeping that “we were good Presbyterian boys when the weather was doubtful; when it was fair, we did wander a little from the fold” (I imagine there are plenty of good Presbyterians in the northeast and Midwest this winter). On the whole, this reflects mid-nineteenth century Old School ways, not necessarily early twenty-first century. Yet, there remains a concern for proper worship and a distaste for revivalism commensurate with the Old Princeton theologians, Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield. The New School Presbyterians, conversely, were very much in line with revivalism as it unfolded in the nineteenth century and had a looser view about worship as a result.

It is the revivalist style of at least some members of the New Calvinism punctuated by constant references to Jonathan Edwards and the rise of charismatic Calvinism that has many Old School Presbyterians concerned. Piper side-stepped the main issue between the two camps: from an Old-School perspective the New Calvinism smacks of the evangelical revivalism of a D. L. Moody, or, more to the point, the baseball-player-turned-evangelist Billy Sunday (insert Mark Driscoll reference here). Sunday once called the novelist Sinclair Lewis  “Satan’s cohort” in response to Lewis’s 1927 satirical novel Elmer Gantry, whose main character—a hypocritical evangelist—was modeled on Sunday’s flamboyant style. 


For the rest, see:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/03/john-pipers-new-calvinism

Baptacostal John Piper at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia?

On March 12 John Piper was the guest lecturer for the 7th annual Gaffin Lectures at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. The title of Dr. Piper's lecture is "The New Calvinism and the New Community: The Doctrines of Grace and the Meaning of Race."
 

SGM-Mahaneygate: John Piper Quietly Dumps Good Friend Mahaney

http://thouarttheman.org/2013/07/11/john-piper-dumps-his-good-friend-c-j-mahaney/

 

John Piper Dumps His Good Friend C.J. Mahaney

 

Posted on July 11, 2013 by 2samuel127           

“Thank you C.J.  I chose to be here.  Nobody forced me.  He is a pretty persuasive guy but  I really, really wanted to be here.  And therefore when the opportunity arose I snatched it.  And I’m thankful for it.

I wanted to be here because I am excited about what God is doing in this church plant.  I’ve been following it from a distance.  And I’m thrilled with what is in the offing here in the mix of this city.  I’m excited to be here secondly because I love Sovereign Grace and what God is doing in it across the country and the world.

And most emotionally significant, I’m glad to be here because C.J. is right, he is my friend and he has meant a lot to me over the years both at the encouragement level of preaching and professional life – though nobody in the ministry is a professional – but even more at the personal family level of caring.  So it is real easy for me to stand here and be with you.  It is what I want to do.”

-John Piper, speaking at C.J. Mahaney’s church in Louisville, KY.  February 17, 2013.


Photo of the scheduled speakers at Piper’s Cross Conference as seen on the internet on July 2, 2013.


Photo of the scheduled speakers at Piper’s Cross Conference as seen on the internet on July 11, 2013.

Notice anybody missing?  Yep, Piper’s good friend C.J. Mahaney has disappeared. Piper, in a move reminiscent of the T4G boys attempt to quietly change their statement of support for Mahaney – unannounced and hopefully unnoticed, seems to have dumped Mahaney from the conference without making any public notification of the deletion.

Once again I must question the integrity of the “leaders” in the neo-reformed movement.

“Integrity and honesty in unbelievers is like the seashell of holiness. There is beauty still, but no life.

Vestiges of Imago.” -John Piper,  https://twitter.com/JohnPiper/status/186754953954598912

Like Loading...

     

About 2samuel127

My name is Todd Wilhelm. I reside in Dubai, UAE. I am 55 years old, a Christian holding to Reformed doctrine with much still to learn. "It is not the glorious battlements, the painted windows, the crouching gargoyles that support a building, but the stones that lie unseen in or upon the earth. It is often those who are despised and trampled on that bear up the weight of a whole nation." John Owen   

 

5 Responses to John Piper Dumps His Good Friend C.J. Mahaney

Mr. (Rev. Dr.) John Piper: TULIP

New Course on Calvinism from John

Piperhttp://www.credomag.com/2013/07/24/new-course-on-calvinism-from-john-piper/

       

From Desiring God ministries: The Bible gives us a glorious vision of God’s sovereignty in saving sinners. “Calvinism” is a kind of nickname for this Christian body of doctrine on salvation that so appropriately humbles humanity and so magnificently exalts divine grace.

In a new eight-hour course on Calvinism, or “the doctrines of grace,” John Piper walks through the historical “five points,” digging into text after text of Scripture and responding to many of the most common questions.

“The doctrines of grace,” Piper explains, “give the lowest view of the saved person as utterly depraved and hopeless in himself, and the highest view of the saved person as individually chosen and loved and purchased at infinite cost.”

These truths expose our desperate neediness, such that the subtlest form of boasting in ourselves becomes ridiculous. And at the same time, they highlight the grace of God such that we marvel with the apostle Paul, “To him be glory forever” (Romans 11:36).

TULIP (Part 1) — Introduction: Why Is Calvinism Relevant?

This class is devoted to building foundations under Romans 8:28 so we can survive. If you think we’re in this for fun and games, for a kind of theological ear-scratching, you don’t understand anything. The things that come at us in our lives cannot be managed by fluff. These are survival techniques

 

.

TULIP (Part 2) — Irresistible Grace (Piper starts with “I”)

God’s saving grace can be resisted and will be resisted by all human beings until God acts to overcome the resistance. When God decides to overcome your resistance to anything he can do it, without turning you into a robot.

TULIP (Part 3) — Irresistible Grace continued; Total Depravity

Christians ought to be supremely concerned about the invisible aspects of our nature. And I am arguing that when we get there, it’s really bad. . . . I don’t think most Americans feel nearly bad enough about how bad we are.

TULIP (Part 4) — Total Depravity continued; Unconditional Election

The reason we come to Jesus is because we belong to God… The call of God provides the decisive cause of faith 

.

TULIP (Part 5) — Unconditional Election continued; Limited Atonement

How do we know if we are the elect? Are you calling God “Father?” Do you call Jesus your Lord? You pursue the knowledge of your election indirectly. You pursue it by submitting to the lordship of Jesus and you pursue it by embracing God as your Father through Jesus Christ and his atoning work.

 

TULIP (Part 6) — Limited Atonement continued; Perseverance of the Saints

I love the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The older I get the more I love it. In a sense you should love it when you are young because it is the reason you can believe you’ll be a Christian in 60 years. But once you have lived those 60 years you look back and say, “Amazing. He is amazing.”

 

Brainerd, Edwards, Piper, Revivalism & Enthusiasms

David Brainerd. 20 Apr 1718- 9 Oct 1747.

Born the 6th of 10 children. His father, a CT legislator and farmer, died when Brainherd was 9; a few years later, his mother died when he was 13. He remained on the family homestead under his brother’s oversight. Later, he wanted to become a minister like one of the other brother siblings. He prepared for Yale by studying under Mr. (rev.) Fiske.

He still was “not” a church member by the age 19. Why? The Congregationalists required a “salvation experience” and a “statement of the assurance of salvation.” A Baptistic and Pentecostalist view? Proto-revivalism.

He also allegedly disliked original sin, the sovereignty of God, the strictness of law, and that he could not contribute to his salvation. He entered Yale, but was evicted for stating that a Professor had “as much grace as a chair.” Brainerd’s name will come to be associated with “New Lights,” a school within American Congregationalism-Presbyterianism.

Ultimately, he became a missionary to Indians in MA, PA, and NJ. At this point, more research is needed, but not inclined to do it, however.

Jonathan Edwards wrote “An Account of the Life of the Late Reverend Mr. David Brainerd” as well as editing Mr. Brainerd’s diary.

On 12 July 1739, Brainerd wrote this in his diary:

“When I was again walking in the same solitary place…unspeakable glory seemed to open to the view and apprehension of my soul. I do not mean any external brightness, for I saw no such thing…It was a new inward apprehension or view that I had of God, such as I never had before; nor anything which had the least resemblance of it…I felt myself in a new world…At this time the way of salvation opened to me with such infinite wisdom, suitableness, and excellency, amazed that I had not dropped my own contrivances, and complied with this lovely, blessed and excellent way that I had formerly contrived, my whole soul would now have refused it. I wondered that all the world did not see and comply with this way of salvation, entirely by the righteousness of Christ.”

To my mind, this is unanchored and misguided enthusiasm and mysticism.

Edwards wrote at the top of the page for the diary entry: “Lord’s Day, July 12th 1739 forever to be remembered by D.B.” Brainerd died in Edwards’s home in 1747. Age 29.

I took a graduate course on Jonathan Edwards years back, read his works and some of descendant-ministers but never could quite come to terms with him or his theology. Some American "evangelicals" seemed to like him. Or, to my mind, the “Great Awakenings” never seemed as “great” as some asserted. But, 100s have been favourably influenced by Brainerd.

The above quote, however, summarizes the rather “enthusiastic,” “mystical,” “experientialistic,” and “revivalistic” themes. It may be why Mr. (rev.) John Piper and other Particular Baptists have inclined to Edwards and Brainerd. It would seem to coordinate with American "contemporary music" of me and Jesus.  Brainerd and

Edwards, albeit an earlier version and restrained by "something" from Calvinism, Prayer Books, Psalms and Confessions, may well be or have laid the groundwork as proto-charismatics.  Experience!  Inner lights!  Inner visions!

Is there a theological culture clash between an old Calvinist Prayer Book Churchman and Congregationalistic Brainerdism/Edwardseanism? Liturgically, there was. There is on my end, definitively. Not sure how others view these things.

The question is more difficult than presumed. There are sub-textual issues. Of course, research and further readings are in order. And may moderation prevail rather than a parochial hubris that tosses the "baby out with the wash." Having said that, Brainerd and Edwards ain't this scribe's cup of tea. To my mind, Brainherd and Edwards seemed to be "Confessional Calvinism run amok."

The value of church history?  History in general?

It cures the parochialism and hubris, enabling one to transcend his or her limits. Don't be misled here: Anglicanism (some Carolina divines? Wesleyanism, Tractarians, etc.), Presbyterianism ("New Lights"), Lutherans (pietism), Romanism (a whole train of them), etc., have all had their share of "experientialists." "revivalists," "enthusiasts" and "pietists."


A retour of Chas. Hodge may be in order...on the subject of "mysticism."

Charles Chauncey, 1743, a Congregationalist cleric, eviscerated the Edwardsean movement as well as the Anglican revivalist George Whitefield. It's a must-read. Here it is online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=N84CAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=charles+chauncey+state+of+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PmfgUdriKoKxywHZ1YDwDQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=charles%20chauncey%20state%20of%20religion&f=false   

Here endeth the unresolved musings.  Rather than navel-gazing, we'll look fixedly and confidently to the Risen, Ascended and Sovereign Redeemer, but that's another story for another time.

(British Evangelical Journal): Examination of Piper's "Christian Hedonism"

H/t to Joe Coke for the leads here...two URLs.  Stunningly precise and much-needed criticisms of the high and revered celebrity figure in the American Baptyerian world of Mark Dever, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, Ligonier Ministires, Sproul and others.  His name is John Piper, a reworked revivalist.  The man, on our view, is undisciplined in Reformation Confessions, Prayer Book Churchmanship, or the sobrieties and gravities of Anglican and Reformed piety.  Just too dry for an emotionalist and revivalist like John.  By his standards, he'd piously judge us as "dead in our orthodoxy and sins."  It's such pious Corinthianism and Pharisaicism.  Sorry, John, learn some humility, son. Put this on my tombstone:  "A Reformed, Confessional Anglican, quiet, devout, and believing but not an enthusiast!"

This article gets at the real issues well.

http://www.britishreformedfellowship.org.uk/articles/Christian%20Hedonism%201.pdf

http://www.britishreformedfellowship.org.uk/articles/christianhedonism2.pdf

Piper and Lent? Anabaptist Piper Oddly Posts Various Posts about Lent

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/sixth-sunday-of-lent?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DGBlog+%28DG+Blog%29

Rather odd that a predestinarian Anabaptist, a TULIP Anabaptist, John Piper, is commenting about Lent when non-conforming Presbyterians, Congregationalist, and Anabaptistic types have strenuously and energetically opposed the liturgical calendar.  Most odd.  What can one make of it, but oddness?

Not that we mind, be we find it odd.

Why?  Preliminarily, regarding Reformation confessions, a drifter.  Preliminarily, regarding Reformed liturgies, again, a big drifter.  Preliminarly, re: revivalism, he's an Edwarsean and predestinarian enthusiast.  Throw in some uber-American evangelicalism as well.   It appears to be this simple.

Piper Steps Down From Bethlehem Anabaptist Church, Minneapolis, MN

Sorry, John, ya' ain't important...at all.  The Word and Sacraments are very serious rather than enthusiasms.  Your disappearance won't mean alot for the studious, thinking, reading and thoughtful Bible readers, Confessionalists, and Prayer Book students.  Bye John.  We suspect you'll be active on the Baptyerian front, like Lig Duncan's good old boy network at ACE.  Or, with the front office at Baptyerian central, Ligonier Ministries. We suspect you'll be proactive on other Anabaptistic, non-Confessional, non-liturgical and non-Conformist fronts.  John, we simply abhor and detest the errors of the Anabaptists, a simple Reformed (and, historically Anglican) viewpoint.  The Confessionally Lutherans say the same.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/transition-questions-and-answers-from-pastor-john-for-bethlehem

Transition Questions and Answers from Pastor John for Bethlehem

March 27, 2012| by John Piper| Topic: Events & Announcements

• Text Only Feed
• Sermon Audio
• Sermon Video
• Sermon Text

View list of podcasts and feeds

How do you feel about Jason’s candidacy?

I am overjoyed. Both at the process and the person. As I heard the results emerging from the various meetings, there were times when I wept for joy. I thought, “God was actually doing this. God is loving Bethlehem. God is giving unity. God is anointing Jason. His hand is on him for this. This is no mere human process. God has been at work in this for over twelve years. (Yes, and in eternity!)”

I will not duplicate here the long list of gifts and graces and competencies that suit Jason for the position. You can read those at the links in the Bethlehem Updates Blog. But a calling to the ministry is not simply equivalent to a sum of competencies. What I have been praying for the elders to have is not mainly the savvy to spot competencies (as important as that is), but, more importantly, the Holy-Spirit-given discernment to perceive the hand of God on Jason’s life for this specific calling. Spiritual discernment is more than gift assessment or competency calculation. Just as the calling is spiritual, the discernment of it is spiritual. That is why I wept for joy.

In my initial conversation with Jason on November 10, 2011, to ask if he were open to being considered, there was an astonishing sense of his readiness for this. It was beyond what I had expected. From that moment on, the sense of his calling has grown.

I joyfully and expectantly commend him to you with all my heart. Not only because of a long list of gifts and graces and competencies, but also because I believe God has chosen him and anointed him for this role. May the Lord confirm this with a hope-filled, happy, unified vote of the Bethlehem family.

What was your role in choosing and testing Jason Meyer?

I was involved in the process until we had narrowed the field to two candidates. At that point, I stepped away. I was not part of the meeting or the vote to narrow the field to one candidate. From that point on, I withdrew from all interviews and discussions and votes.

The main reason is simple: Part of discerning Jason’s convictions, competencies, styles, attitudes, habits, plans, and more, is to ask him how his would be different from those of John Piper. That kind of questioning calls for my absence. Another reason for not being part of the vetting process was that my voice carries significant sway, and in this case, it was better that the emerging unanimity of the elders rise from Jason’s own anointing. It did.

Why are you stepping down from your pastoral role?

• Not because I am weary of preaching. O how I love to herald the greatest truths in the world! I hope to be doing it to the end.
• Not because any staff or elders have urged me to. On the contrary. There has been significant push back over the several years we have been talking about this.
• Not because I love you any less. Or love any less what this church stands for.
• Not because I want to leave the church or leave Minneapolis. I hope to be part of the church and launch my life from this urban home till I need skilled care.

The reason we are moving forward with the succession plan now has to do with a strong conviction that good pastoring is more than preaching. I could still preach. Some have encouraged me to do just that. Just preach. Hand off other leadership responsibilities to others. I do not believe such an arrangement would make Bethlehem a healthy, thriving, mission-driven, aggressively visionary, growing church—which is what she should be!

A disconnect between the pulpit and vision-casting will not work for the good of the church. The pulpit is the main voice of the vision. The vision is hammered out in the grueling labors of countless encounters with staff and elders as biblical truth meets structural, congregational, and cultural reality. These vision-forming, vision-sustaining, vision-finalizing labors require leadership—leadership to keep the vision biblical; leadership to keep the vision energized and joyful and wise and relevant and possible; leadership to keep the vision moving through obstacle after obstacle; and leadership to trumpet that vision winsomely to thousands of members.

That kind of leadership does not happen without one chief among equals leading the way. And that person, in my view, must be the Pastor for Preaching and Vision. The one who heralds the vision and captures the hearts and minds of the people for the vision can only do that if he has paid the price of crafting the vision and winning his fellow leaders for it. He cannot herald a vision with integrity and power that he has been handed on a piece of paper.

With that background, I hope it will make sense to you that the time is right for the succession plan to move forward (with Jason and me overlapping for a season). Until recently, I felt like I could give that kind of leadership to Bethlehem. But now there are at least four factors that cause me to believe that this chapter is almost over. In other words, while I can still preach with joy and strength and fruit, the season of fruitful and effective leadership in structuring this church for maximally effective pastoral care, church-wide discipleship, effective evangelism, strategies for growth, and more, is drawing to a close.

Here are some of the factors that lead me to this conclusion.

1) Most importantly, I am less competent at leading Bethlehem structurally and organizationally than I used to be. For about 30 years, I was usually able to see through the complexities and formulate feasible and exciting plans—always with the help of incredibly devoted and gifted partners in ministry. This is no longer the case. For two reasons: One is that Bethlehem is more complex than it used to be; and the other is that my energies and abilities for this kind of organizational and structural planning are diminished. If I were younger and more focused, I might be able to do what I used to do. But I am not younger or more focused. This is a glorious moment in the history of Bethlehem, and it is not a time for less focus and energy for planning, but for more.

2) There is an ever-increasing pull on my life to be involved in ministry outside Bethlehem. Much of this feels strategic to me for the cause of Christ. While I felt competent and energized to formulate plans for the structures of Bethlehem, this outside pull was secondary. But I sense that this is changing. It seems to me that the Lord is saying: “You have led Bethlehem to this point; it is time to hand off the internal leadership labors to another; I have a few other things yet for you to do.”

3) Writing has always been a calling. But it has been secondary to preaching at Bethlehem and to internal leadership at this church. You have been very generous to me over the years to give me writing leaves. As my years go by I realize that there are writing projects that I think God wants me to finish. This adds to the pull I feel away from the demands of internal leadership at Bethlehem.

4) I want to finish strong. It seems, in view of all this, that it is wise to step down from this role before my weakening leadership competencies jeopardize the amazing potential of this church.

Finally, I have felt confirmed in this by several other factors. One is that Noël agrees that this decision is wise. Her discernment matters a lot to me. Another is that God has given me strong assurance that I am not leaving you without caring for your welfare after I am done. God has, I believe, raised up a shepherd after his own heart for this very season. This is a huge confirmation to me that God’s mercy is holding sway here. He is loving his church well. That is what I long for. I want the work of the last 32 years to be a platform for greater depth of discipleship, and for phenomenal growth. With Jason ready to lead, I believe that is what this transition means.

What will you do?

After the overlap season with Jason, Noël and I and Talitha plan to leave town for a year or so and find a place for writing and reflection. There are several writing projects I want to make headway on. And I want some time and distance before I lock in to any pattern of ministry too quickly. I need to get some perspective and pray and think about the next ten years.

In general I can say that, if God gives me life and health, these years will involve my role as Chancellor of Bethlehem College and Seminary, and my role as founder and teacher for Desiring God. I love to teach seminary students, and I love to encourage and strengthen the God-centered, Christ-exalting, Bible-saturated vision of pastors. And I love to write. So some configuration of those loves is what I expect to see.

My life’s calling remains the same: I exist to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. Pray that I will spend and be spent for this till I can speak and write no more.

What will your relationship to Bethlehem be?

This is delicate. Traditional wisdom is that a long-term pastor needs to make himself scarce lest he undermine the leadership of the new pastor. That’s part of why Noël and I want to leave town for a while.

But with the guidance of the elders and staff, I hope that our membership can remain at Bethlehem and that we can worship here when we are not committed elsewhere. It is not biblical to become a “free agent” accountable to no church. In other words, if, in the next years, I were to move in any direction that would bring reproach on the name of Christ, this is the church I want to discipline me.

I do not expect to have any official role in leadership in the church. Nor do I think this would be wise. My “elder” gifting and call should be expressed, I believe, not through active membership on the Council of Elders, but, at their commission, in the roles of teaching and preaching outlined above. In other words, my place at Bethlehem will be very low profile as Noël and I enjoy worshipping with you and sitting under the anointed ministry of Jason Meyer. If at any time, we or the elders felt this was an unhelpful arrangement, we would do what’s best for the church.

How do you feel?

Overwhelmed with thankfulness for God’s faithfulness for 32 years, and for his provision for the next season under Jason. Sorrowful for my personal and ministerial failures of the last decades. Affectionate for you, the people I have loved and served. Confident that God has greater things in store for you than you can imagine. And for us. For the Christian, the best is always yet to come. Always.

© Desiring God

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

Rick Warren, Common Word, Ecumenism

John Piper is making some news, especially at some blogs, over Rick Warren's stir and relation to Muslim ecumenist documents.  Apprising Ministries has been watching Warren and Piper for some time.  This is somewhat confusing.  As non-Anabaptists, we'll continue to watch the developments as the Anabaptists watch each other.  There is a Piper-video at the end with his response.  They are carrying the story at: 
http://apprising.org/2012/02/28/john-piper-on-rick-warrens-chrislam/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+apprising%2F2+%28Apprising+Ministries%29

By Christian Research Network contributor Justin Edwards of airō
This is a repost of an original article on airo:



The internet has been abuzz since Sunday on the news that Rick Warren “has embarked on an effort to heal divisions between evangelical Christians and Muslims by partnering with Southern California mosques and proposing a set of theological principles that includes acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God” (source).
Now it seems that Warren, who sits on the Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s interfaith Religious Advisory Council, is backtracking or is trying to cloud his intentions as to what he is attempting to accomplish through his interfaith P.E.A.C.E projects.

Ken Silva has more about that at Apprising.

What I would like to briefly address in this post is the fact that Rick Warren signed a 2007 document published in the NY Times titled, A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word Between Us and You’.


The following is an excerpt from the document, and clearly shows the Christian writers suggested that Christians and Muslims believe, serve, and love the same God:

What is common between us lies not in something marginal nor in something merely important to each. It lies, rather, in something absolutely central to both: love of God and love of neighbor. Surprisingly for many Christians, your letter considers the dual command of love to be the foundational principle not just of the Christian faith, but of Islam as well. That so much common ground exists – common ground in some of the fundamentals of faith – gives hope that undeniable differences and even the very real external pressures that bear down upon us can not overshadow the common ground upon which we stand together. That this common ground consists in love of God and of neighbor gives hope that deep cooperation between us can be a hallmark of the relations between our two communities…

…Abandoning all “hatred and strife,” we must engage in interfaith dialogue as those who seek each other’s good, for the one God unceasingly seeks our good. Indeed, together with you we believe that we need to move beyond “a polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders” and work diligently together to reshape relations between our communities and our nations so that they genuinely reflect our common love for God and for one another…

…We are persuaded that our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the requirement that we love God and one another. It is with humility and hope that we receive your generous letter, and we commit ourselves to labor together in heart, soul, mind and strength for the objectives you so appropriately propose.

As a reminder, Rick Warren signed this document. Rick Warren is also the man who John Piper has given a full-fledged endorsement since 2010 by stating that Warren is “at root theological and doctrinal and sound” and has given Warren multiple platforms over the last two years for which Piper has affirmed his endorsement of Warren’s ministry.
As for “A Common Word Between Us and You“, I actually first covered this document in a December 2010 article titled, Global Peace, Stability, and Unity Through Interfaith Cooperation, where King Abdullah of Jordan highlighted “A Common Word” as being the backbone for future interfaith harmony between Islam and Christianity. So this is no minor issue and holds great significance as the world enters into a global pluralistic religious society that will ultimately morph into a global antichrist religion.


This brings us to the following transcript from the below 2008 video. In it, John Piper makes a clear and precise case as to why documents like “A Christian Response” are not helpful but hurtful to the Church and to unbelievers. It is deceitful in fact. My hope is that John Piper would consider his very words from just four years ago and how they might apply to his relationship with Rick Warren.


Will we hear from John Piper about Rick Warren’s continued push for Chrislam, and will Piper separate from Warren? Also, Piper mentioned in this video that he desires to prepare an alternative document that clearly proclaims the deity and authority of Jesus Christ the Son of God, that this new document would give us a basis for which Christian leaders can engage Muslim leaders based on the truth and love of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead. I am not aware that Piper has put an alternative document together, but now would be an appropriate time. This is what the Church, the invisible Church, the true Body of Christ, needs at this hour to fight this ecumenical and interfaith pluralism seeking to build unholy alliances between today’s apostate church and the world’s religions.


Now from John Piper:


The main thesis [of the "A Common Word Between Us and You"] was that love for God and love for neighbor is a common ground between Christianity and Islam…The main [response] that concerns me is…the one that was published in the NY Times back in November 2007…it’s called “Loving God and Neighbor Together, ‘A Christian Response to a Common Word Between Us’”.


And I just want to register publicly a disappointment with this document, in fact a profound disappointment with the way it is worded, and surprise at some of the people who signed it, some of my friends who signed who I would have thought would have been more careful in what they lend their support to, because what’s missing from this document is a clear statement about what Christianity really is and how we can come together to talk with Muslims from our unique, distinctive biblical standpoint.


It won’t work to simply say “you have a prophet, we have a prophet.” Which is really the way this document sounds. “We have a prophet that says love your enemies, you have a prophet that says love your enemies.” That’s how this document sounds. I’m sure the people that wrote this document do not believe that, but that is what it sounds like…


…So I just want to say that when we speak of the love of God and even quote a verse from 1 John 4 and don’t take into account the very next verse where the love of God that sustains us Christians is the love of God that sent the Son Jesus Christ into the world to be the propitiation for our sins, that’s the next verse, but not the one that’s quoted in the document, we are not…being honest.


We are not saying to the world that is reading this document that the love of God that we get strength from is the love of God uniquely expressed through Jesus Christ as the propitiation for our sins because He died on the cross and rose again, all of those things Islam radically rejects. So they do not believe in the God we believe in, they do not believe in the love of God that we believe in, they don’t beleive in the Son of God that we believe in, they don’t believe in the propitiation that He made for us, and to then talk in vague terms as if the love of God is a common standing place is to deceive, it is to be unclear at best.


Jesus is so crystal clear when He talks about this, “if you reject Me (Jesus said in Luke 10:16)…you reject the One who sent Me.” Muslims do reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Son of Man, crucified, risen Savior of the world. They reject Him, and therefore they are rejecting God.


We don’t stand together on a common love of God, or a common understanding of God. They don’t worship the true God according to Jesus. He who has the Son has life, He who does not have the Son does not have life. The Bible is so crystal clear that Jesus is the litmus paper as to whether or not we are talking about the same God…


…So all this talk about smoothing over these profound differences, and then using language to lead the readers of the NY Times and to lead the Mulsims to think that we really do have a common vision of love of God when we don’t even have a common vision of God, is not honest. It’s not helpful.
So I want to commend those who are stretching out their hands to Muslims. I want to write an alternative document than this one “Loving God and Neighbor Together”, and put Jesus Christ clear and lucid and unique and distinct and necessary like He should be, right at the center of the document – Who He is, Son of God, Savior, Son of Man, Sovereign King of the Ages, and then say, “we would love to sit down and commend this Christ to you as the basis of tolerance.”


We do not want strife, we do not want war, we do not want violence, we do not want hatred. We want to exalt Jesus Christ as the Son of God as the ground of why we don’t kill. We do not come killing as the way to win disciples. Jesus said, “if my kingdom were of this world, my disciples would fight. My kingdom is not of this world, therefore my disciples are not fighting.” Christians don’t fight to get people to believe in Jesus. That would contradict the very nature of the voluntary nature of saving faith in the Son of God.


So we would be happy to sit down with any Muslim group and commend Christ to them, and let them talk to us about their prophet, but we’re not going to smooth things over and talk in vague language about how we have the same God and the same love of God, call Mohammed a prophet, call Jesus a prophet, quote Scripture selectively so that it sounds just like the Koran, we’re not going to do that.


So may the Lord grant His Church today to be faithful to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, crucified, propitiating sins, justifying and giving righteousness to those who have faith in Him, and rising from the dead and reigning over the world, and coming again, and one day, every knee will bow before Jesus Christ and confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father, and those who have not bowed their knee before Jesus Christ Son of God and Savior and the unique representation and embodiment of the Divine and in whom the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily, those who haven’t bowed the knee will be cast into outer darkness. This is no small thing.


Oh may the Church be faithful to her witness to Jesus Christ. It’s the only loving way to lead people out of destruction and into everlasting life. These things are important. If you are involved at all in Muslim-Christian missions or dialogue, I pray, that you for the sake of Christ and for the sake of the lost, will speak the truth about the glory of the Deity and the crucifixion, and the death, and the resurrection, and the unique saving power of Jesus Christ.

The original appears complete with a comments section for you to join the discussion right here.

See also:
JOHN PIPER, RICK WARREN & FOSTER-WILLARDISM
MARK DRISCOLL, ACTS 29 NETWORK, AND RICK WARREN
JAMES ROBISON AND RICK WARREN WORKING TO REVERSE THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

Piper's Sell for 2012: Samo, samo

John assures us this is new, as if the Word of God, was new.   Samo, samo, samo.  More reading.  God's Word right is more substantive here than travelling to MN.  Sorry, John.  Sorry, John, the Advent readings of Scripture rules.  Same for the old BCP prayers.  God meets and has met us here, by day and night.  What dost thou offerest John?  We're old BCP folks here.


http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/senior-pastors-bring-your-leaders-to-this-conference-ong n-building-men?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DGBlog+%28DG+Blog%29


The theme of our 2012 Conference for Pastors is "God, Manhood and Ministry: Building Men for the Body of Christ" — being held in Minneapolis from January 30 to February 1. We encourage senior pastors in particular to take advantage of our group rate of just $100 (per person) as a great opportunity to build into your elders and lay leaders.


Register Now!

Name-droppers: Online Evangelical Culture of Self-Promotion

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/09/03/online-evangelical-culture-self-promotion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29

Online Evangelical Culture & Self-Promotion

Dane Ortlund—recognizing the good of social media but troubled by all the mentions of “here’s where I’m at,” “here’s who I met,” “I’m humbled that so-and-so praised me in this way,” “here’s what I’ve written”—raises some good questions for all of us:

The amount of self-foregrounding that takes place on these media—by Christians—by pastors—is troubling. Promotion of our own books, letting everyone know where we’ve been and whom we’ve met, drawing attention to what others are saying of us—how easily we Corinthianize and employ the world’s mindset for ostensibly kingdom purposes.
What are we doing, brothers? I am asking myself no less than you.

What if we made up our minds to refuse to quietly electronically parade whatever accomplishments the Lord grants? What if we let the Lord decide who knows of us and what we’ve done? What if every post, tweet, and FB update was passed through the fine filter of Matthew 23:12?

What are we of? What’s driving us? Is this how true faith acts, faith in a God who one day ‘will disclose the purposes of the heart’ (1 Cor. 4:5)?

‘Get a life, Dane. Quit the alarmism. I’m just trying to spread the gospel by alerting others to resources. Is it really a problem if that includes some of my own stuff?’

Maybe. Maybe not. That’s between you and the Lord. There is certainly some gray in this conversation, it’s not all black and white; there’s room for wisdom here, not simplistic rules. And I have in mind individual ‘marketing’; corporate marketing is, I think, in another category. But as far as your own personal online presence, why not determine to honor the Lord by getting up each day, keeping your hand to the plow, and letting him sort out who knows about you and what you’ve done? When you’re unsure as to whether or not something is self-promoting, why not err on the side of blessed obscurity, to which God loves to draw near?

We are increasingly cultivating an online evangelical culture of self-projection. Trying our hardest, of course, not to look like we’re self-promoting. This is not where God’s power lies.