John Piper Announces Leave: "The precious garden of my home needs tending."
I’ll give Bob credit for one thing on this: my generation, as well as Piper’s (who is one ahead of me), is a whole not whinier than most that preceded it. This is the downside of “transparency.” When are you are you being “honest” and when are you just being whiny? I’m not accusing Piper of whininess in this case at all. You’d have to be on the inside of what’s happening to even half-know whether that would be a fair assessment. But there’s a kernel of truth in what Bob has posted. To a degree I resonate with the quit cryin’ and get back to work attitude. …to a degree.
As for navel contemplating vs. heart searching… it’s a fine line. Some are inclined to so much self-analysis they are forever trying to untangle subtleties of their attitudes and feelings when it would be much godlier to simply confess what’s clearly amiss and move on. Others just take everything on the surface as all that matters. There’s a balance to be struck there. If anyone’s found a fool proof way to achieve it, I’m all ears!
As for navel contemplating vs. heart searching… it’s a fine line. Some are inclined to so much self-analysis they are forever trying to untangle subtleties of their attitudes and feelings when it would be much godlier to simply confess what’s clearly amiss and move on. Others just take everything on the surface as all that matters. There’s a balance to be struck there. If anyone’s found a fool proof way to achieve it, I’m all ears!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jonathan Charles] 2. When a church has grown significantly like Piper’s has, and given he may have 5 years left, such a time could be edifying to the church. Many people are there because he is there, and, in my opinion, such a time like this might help the church become less Piper-focused.
You know, I wonder if a sabbatical for pastors isn’t a bad idea because it makes them aware of the time when they dwn’t have a pastor anymore due to death, retirement, illness, etc. Hopefully, DGM and Bethlehem [as well as all of us bystanders] will use this opportunity to plan for those days when there is no pastor to spearhead the direction and focus of the ministry. Has anyone here ever planned out something like that? Most churches that I’ve heard of haven’t.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Aaron Blumer] As for navel contemplating vs. heart searching… it’s a fine line. Some are inclined to so much self-analysis they are forever trying to untangle subtleties of their attitudes and feelings when it would be much godlier to simply confess what’s clearly amiss and move on. Others just take everything on the surface as all that matters. There’s a balance to be struck there.
I guess I need a couple of examples to fully understand what you mean, Aaron. I’m not tracking with you.
[Aaron Blumer] If anyone’s found a fool proof way to achieve it, I’m all ears!
I don’t know if there is a “fool proof” way to achieve anything! A fool will search his heart foolishly…unless a wise God intervenes!
However, here are some questions we should all ask…and be very honest with ourselves about our answers!
- What gets me most excited about the ministry?
- What gets me the most down about the ministry?
- When do I feel most fulfilled? Least fulfilled?
- What do I consider success? failure?
- What makes a good day a good day? bad day?
Given more time I could brainstorm some more…and I would love to hear other good questions from the wise folks here. But an honest evaluation of what drives me is important. I’m not sure if you wold consider that “untangling subtleties” or not…but if I’m being driven by man’s approval and applause, or a faulty definition of success (How big is your church now?), burn-out is inevitable, IMO.
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
This is a very interesting story and there are some very interesting posts, to say the least. Having pastored two small churches and also working for the past 10 years in the secular world, I would say that both scenarious offer different types of challenges.
Much of the stress faced by pastors, especially in small churches, comes from dealing constantly with a dysfunctional church filled with dysfunctional families. Another major area of stress is finances — the church budget and, consequently, one’s own budget. A third is lack of real job security or long-term stability. (Sadly, these are all self-inflicted maladies. It is too bad the stress is not a result of difficulties encountered in evangelizing, making disciples, etc.)
Granted, these are heavy issues, but I am not sure that there is a unique stress which is inherent to pastoring overall that is worse than one finds in the secular world. Most pastors can also set their own hours, adjust their days off, take time for family as needed — and even control their required productivity by adjusting the content of public services. They also do not have to face a boss screaming profanities in their ear.
All that being said, I am a fan of sabbaticals for pastors who are worthy of them. It is kind of ridiculous to expect a pastor to speak two, three or more times per week, with new material, all year — and just have two to three weeks of vacation. Compare this to the average college or seminary professor, who is actively teaching about seven months a year — and that with material he is constantly re-using and refining.
There is another issue in Piper’s case, however, and I have not seen it mentioned here. I am wondering about the Biblical wisdom of publicly announcing a private sin which is so nebulous that it cannot even be named and repented of? Is this transparency or psycho-babble?
To me, Piper’s statement opens many more questions than it answers. If he were more well-known in the secular media (i.e., MacArthur), this type of thing would lead to a world of speculation and media frenzy. I think the whole thing is rather unwise as he has presented it. I do pray the best for him and his family.
Much of the stress faced by pastors, especially in small churches, comes from dealing constantly with a dysfunctional church filled with dysfunctional families. Another major area of stress is finances — the church budget and, consequently, one’s own budget. A third is lack of real job security or long-term stability. (Sadly, these are all self-inflicted maladies. It is too bad the stress is not a result of difficulties encountered in evangelizing, making disciples, etc.)
Granted, these are heavy issues, but I am not sure that there is a unique stress which is inherent to pastoring overall that is worse than one finds in the secular world. Most pastors can also set their own hours, adjust their days off, take time for family as needed — and even control their required productivity by adjusting the content of public services. They also do not have to face a boss screaming profanities in their ear.
All that being said, I am a fan of sabbaticals for pastors who are worthy of them. It is kind of ridiculous to expect a pastor to speak two, three or more times per week, with new material, all year — and just have two to three weeks of vacation. Compare this to the average college or seminary professor, who is actively teaching about seven months a year — and that with material he is constantly re-using and refining.
There is another issue in Piper’s case, however, and I have not seen it mentioned here. I am wondering about the Biblical wisdom of publicly announcing a private sin which is so nebulous that it cannot even be named and repented of? Is this transparency or psycho-babble?
To me, Piper’s statement opens many more questions than it answers. If he were more well-known in the secular media (i.e., MacArthur), this type of thing would lead to a world of speculation and media frenzy. I think the whole thing is rather unwise as he has presented it. I do pray the best for him and his family.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] There is another issue in Piper’s case, however, and I have not seen it mentioned here. I am wondering about the Biblical wisdom of publicly announcing a private sin which is so nebulous that it cannot even be named and repented of? Is this transparency or psycho-babble?
My impression is that he felt like things were slipping or getting out of control and he wanted the time to get back up to where he [and his family] need to be - a sort of spiritual pre-emptive strike. I don’t think he’s done anything to disqualify himself, per se, but wanted to deal with whatever it is before it got to the point where he’d have to be forced out.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I see several species of pride in my soul that, while they may not rise to the level of disqualifying me for ministry, grieve me, and have taken a toll on my relationship with Noël and others who are dear to me. How do I apologize to you, not for a specific deed, but for ongoing character flaws, and their effects on everybody? I’ll say it now, and no doubt will say it again, I’m sorry. Since I don’t have just one deed to point to, I simply ask for a spirit of forgiveness; and I give you as much assurance as I can that I am not making peace, but war, with my own sins.
Noël and I are rock solid in our commitment to each other, and there is no whiff of unfaithfulness on either side. But, as I told the elders, “rock solid” is not always an emotionally satisfying metaphor, especially to a woman.
Based on this quote, ditto Jay- I got the same impression. And I’m glad that he is providing an example of a man who did not wait until the horse was out of the corral before he mended the fences.
It has been interesting to read the posts on this thread. It was especially interesting to read of the various attempts to counter my thoughts by accusations. To some I was arrogant. To others I was not sympathetic, or perhaps was unapproachable as a Pastor, or said what I said because of a dislike for Piper’s theology. One even said I would not so respond if it was “Zane Hodges.” I probably have as much disagreement with Zane Hodges as with Piper, so I found that odd. All the replies that attempted to bring ad hominem attacks to bear indicate another major problem with Fundamentalism and this generation of some (not all) pastors. An inability to deal with ideas, problems, and conflict (including personal problems) in a proper way. Rhetoric can be harsh, stern, or sympathetic and all within the bounds of Christian love.
I am sure my approach to Pastoral ministry may be different than some. I have 4 years in the military. Some Baby boom generation pastors went to Seminary, and then ministry, influenced at least in part by a desire to avoid the Viet Nam draft. That is not my own observation. I first heard that from a seminary dean and a Bible College President. Beginning in the late 60s to the early 70s there was a very drastic rise in most all Seminary enrollment. Dallas seminary went from about 200 to about 1500. Talbot Seminary went from about 150 to over 600. The Dean of Talbot for a period of time stated to me and a friend faculty member, who graduated from there, that the school at over 600 probably had about the same amount genuinely called to ministry as when it was under 150. During this time and through the 80s there was a great change in Pastoral ministry in churches. This was not just due to cultural influence but by the approach of many new Pastors. This occurred in Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. Part of this change involved the touchy- freely approach to ministry and spirituality. Manifestations involved music, increased emphasis on professionalism, and to choreograph the service. There was the emergence of the DMIN degree. It also involved in the MBA approach to church ministry. Pastors became increasingly aware of the business success model and became more ambitious for personal attainment and recognition. I was at a large Pastoral conference here in the So. Ca. area in the 1980s. The conference leader came up to me after a meeting and said he was asked to get my input concerning my opinion because I had a rapidly growing church. I stated I would be glad to share that from the emphasis at the conference that we should not waste our time in Seminary but instead go for the MBA at a business school. I was not put on the schedule of testimonies. My perception was and is that this was the spirit of the age for many in ministry. This was even so among some classified as Fundamentalism. It was the mood among the Fallwellites, Hylesites, most evangelicals, and new Charismatics (though with different nuances). Growth = success to a much greater degree than former generations.
During this time a great deal started to be said about Pastoral “burn out,” increasing Pastoral difficulties, and the role of Psychology and other catch phrases used in solving problems. Some of this was good but much was over statement regarding Pastoral demands. Were the difficulties of ministry that bad or was it a change in those in Pastoral ministry? Were the stalwarts passing from the scene and new wimps taking the spotlight? My view of the Pastoral ministry is to see it in the larger context of the foundation of the church and life for all Christians. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). However, the true nature of the church is seen when the word is translated “assembly.” The word church, constructed and imported from the Bishops bible, was to promote the hierarchy of a sacred institution and professional clergy. If the word had been properly translated throughout the NT we would have a more proper mentality of the church (assembly) today. The church is the assembly of believers who then recognize scripturally qualified leaders and voluntarily submit to them (Heb. 13:17). The submission is not absolute. The assembly recognizes and may withdraw recognition (1Tim. 5:17-24). My conclusion is that the pillar and ground of the truth is the assembly (congregation). The people are led by elders and are to conditionally submit to them, but they themselves are the guardians of the truth of the scriptures. The elders are to be given special (double)honor according to their teaching. This honor may include support. However, the elders are to live within the same spiritual sphere as all the assembly. The elders serve the assembly. The assembly does not serve the elders. The assembly is the final arbiter of all things with the Lord’s guidance (Matt. 18:17) What does all this mean? Assembly leadership is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The present “clergy Pastoral pedestal” concept, with imported the cultural influences of the success, entertainment, and platform star model, is contrary to the model and demands of the biblical model. The result has led to so called Pastors who create and lead an institution after their own image and particular ambitions. I have always been dismayed at the Pastor seeking process of a church without that so called Pastor. All is dismay and anxiety until the new spiritual rescuer can be mounted on the pedestal and the new brass plate put on the study door with Pastor, or better yet, the new nineties “Senior Pastor.”
In the midst of all the above the increased emphasis on Pastoral problems and difficulties in a sense created more difficulties. Pastors of the baby boom and beyond generations were not manifesting the spiritual freedom that understanding grace and filling (control) should bring. They instead reported burn out, inability to deal with family, and asking for, and often getting special privileges not available to the assembly. They appeared to increasingly take the respect but fail to manifest the stability to live in the real world. From a practical standpoint the privileges of the clergy Pastor far outweigh the lack of freedom in employment by most ion the assembly. I once heard a pastor preach on the sin of American retirement indicating he will never retire. He was right in that many need to make use of retirement for spiritual service. He was wrong to indicate that he would not retire and it is a wrong recent special privilege. Many in the congregation had jobs that they were faithful to for the sake of family but were mired in boredom, drudgery, and no greater future. I always always admired men that I knew that had the factory jobs, and worked in the places where there was only the immediate reward of the next paycheck. My grandfather was blinded in the coal mines. My mother was divorced but remarried a man who worked faithfully at a factory job for over 35 years. Up at 4:30AM every morning. Half hour for lunch, Often worked overtime to make ends meet. Retirement was a welcome relief at the end of his life. Retirement is a recent concept. in society. Before that you died in a boring and dangerous job. The Pastor who preached that sermon had the blessings of ministry. Worked hard but on his terms. Lunch with some people could be two hours. He could do his demanding but interesting work around a schedule of his making. Overtime was not at a machine or in a mine but often with the blessings of the word. His congregation had essentially the same demands spiritually. All are called to be Holy as God is Holy. So from my perspective a sign of real spiritual leadership and example is to live the spiritual life and ministry within the real world and on the same terms of others in the assembly. This does not preclude privileges. I had alway had one month vacation in ministry and additional time for conferences. However, I was easily granted that due to school teachers and government workers who had the same. I would not ever consider a so called sabbatical. Some well established schools do grant this to long term professors. It is not a part of almost all congregants lives.
As to the accusation that I said what I said because I disagree with Piper’s theology, that would be my opinion of such a statement of any clergy Pastor. I perceived asking for major concession that he knows most in his congregation could never have. Of course my sympathies and understanding would depend on circumstances. My opinion that John Piper’s present perceived need is based on his theology and spiritual outlook. As most know and Piper repeatedly states, he is a major Promoter of Calvinism and Puritan Calvinism. Anyone who has studied Puritan theology understands what it did teach. European Calvinism continued with Calvin and Luther’s definition of faith as including knowledge, assent, and trust. English Puritanism evolved and came to define Faith as involving knowledge, assent, and commitment. Their concept of assurance involved examining ones commitment. This involved an examination of the life. Many saw this as a constant examination of works to make your calling and election sure. European Calvinism continued with Calvin and Luther’s concept of assurance being grounded in the objective work of Christ. Calvin indicated that assurance was the essence of faith. Thus if you had doubts focus on Christ and ask yourself if his death did indeed justify you and did you really believe that. This of course is the emphasis of Hebrews 11. The Puritan who had doubts was told the must focus on self and to examine their works to see if indicate a faith that brings God’s Justification. Several Puritan divines died hoping for Gods salvation but not assured of it. The Puritans used a very articulate vocabulary to express in 10 thousand words what any other say in1 00 words. I have John Owen’s 7 Volumes on the book of Hebrews that appears to illustrate that point.
The theology of Puritan Calvinism is seen everywhere in John Piper’s writing. His articulate vocabulary literary knowledge has made his writings very popular. He expresses some truth in a way that makes it very clear. However, his emphasis on the relations of Justification involving an examination of works and of assurance appears to be very dangerous. By the way this is the emphasis of John MacArthur’s concept of a “Lordship Gospel.” I see a emphasis of an inordinate self consciousness of sin and an inability to leave things behind, based on biblical confession, and look to the high calling in Christ, This is not a trite dealing with sin. To recognize the awfulness and implications of sin is a must. However, this must be joined to an ever growing understanding of Justification, Christ’s ongoing advocacy, and the ability of God to bring continual change in our regeneration which involves a new nature and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual life in and with Christ is a continuing struggle. However it is a dry struggle. By that I mean that the rain of sin does not get us wet one bit. We have the umbrella of Justification carried for us by Christ himself. God puts that umbrella over us and the indicates we are to continue in our struggle without the distraction of the umbrella He provides having holes or being improperly positioned. We are completely dry because the position of the umbrella, and it’s quality, is of God by Grace. The very highest price was involved in it being ours for life now and to come. Mess the umbrella and how to obtain it and you can do great harm. The present generation is involved in full awareness of sin but very naive about spiritual truth. This extends to the present generation of Christians, including Fundamentalists. Some are inordinately followers of Piper, MacArthur, and Calvinism with little awareness of some implications, comparative theology, and historical theology.
I better conclude this too lengthy reply. My statement regarding John Piper’s statement is with regard to its context in my view of the inordinate emphasis on Pastoral problems and the Pastoral ministry. It is in the larger context of North American churches. I definitely do not see the clergy Pastor as having it harder than the congregation. They have become too wimpy (I am generalizing here). Many Pastors lack real life context and experience, and many may not even have the real calling and proper motives for ministry. Is it arrogant or proper to make such judgments? Perhaps, but I do not perceive it as so. I do examine my own impure motives in ministry. I do not need a time out to constantly do so. Perhaps we need more to speak up and turn our American spiritual church ministry around. Remember, I am speaking of a whole church social group. There certainly are several exceptions to my observations . Sufficiently good churches do exist.
I am sure my approach to Pastoral ministry may be different than some. I have 4 years in the military. Some Baby boom generation pastors went to Seminary, and then ministry, influenced at least in part by a desire to avoid the Viet Nam draft. That is not my own observation. I first heard that from a seminary dean and a Bible College President. Beginning in the late 60s to the early 70s there was a very drastic rise in most all Seminary enrollment. Dallas seminary went from about 200 to about 1500. Talbot Seminary went from about 150 to over 600. The Dean of Talbot for a period of time stated to me and a friend faculty member, who graduated from there, that the school at over 600 probably had about the same amount genuinely called to ministry as when it was under 150. During this time and through the 80s there was a great change in Pastoral ministry in churches. This was not just due to cultural influence but by the approach of many new Pastors. This occurred in Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. Part of this change involved the touchy- freely approach to ministry and spirituality. Manifestations involved music, increased emphasis on professionalism, and to choreograph the service. There was the emergence of the DMIN degree. It also involved in the MBA approach to church ministry. Pastors became increasingly aware of the business success model and became more ambitious for personal attainment and recognition. I was at a large Pastoral conference here in the So. Ca. area in the 1980s. The conference leader came up to me after a meeting and said he was asked to get my input concerning my opinion because I had a rapidly growing church. I stated I would be glad to share that from the emphasis at the conference that we should not waste our time in Seminary but instead go for the MBA at a business school. I was not put on the schedule of testimonies. My perception was and is that this was the spirit of the age for many in ministry. This was even so among some classified as Fundamentalism. It was the mood among the Fallwellites, Hylesites, most evangelicals, and new Charismatics (though with different nuances). Growth = success to a much greater degree than former generations.
During this time a great deal started to be said about Pastoral “burn out,” increasing Pastoral difficulties, and the role of Psychology and other catch phrases used in solving problems. Some of this was good but much was over statement regarding Pastoral demands. Were the difficulties of ministry that bad or was it a change in those in Pastoral ministry? Were the stalwarts passing from the scene and new wimps taking the spotlight? My view of the Pastoral ministry is to see it in the larger context of the foundation of the church and life for all Christians. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). However, the true nature of the church is seen when the word is translated “assembly.” The word church, constructed and imported from the Bishops bible, was to promote the hierarchy of a sacred institution and professional clergy. If the word had been properly translated throughout the NT we would have a more proper mentality of the church (assembly) today. The church is the assembly of believers who then recognize scripturally qualified leaders and voluntarily submit to them (Heb. 13:17). The submission is not absolute. The assembly recognizes and may withdraw recognition (1Tim. 5:17-24). My conclusion is that the pillar and ground of the truth is the assembly (congregation). The people are led by elders and are to conditionally submit to them, but they themselves are the guardians of the truth of the scriptures. The elders are to be given special (double)honor according to their teaching. This honor may include support. However, the elders are to live within the same spiritual sphere as all the assembly. The elders serve the assembly. The assembly does not serve the elders. The assembly is the final arbiter of all things with the Lord’s guidance (Matt. 18:17) What does all this mean? Assembly leadership is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The present “clergy Pastoral pedestal” concept, with imported the cultural influences of the success, entertainment, and platform star model, is contrary to the model and demands of the biblical model. The result has led to so called Pastors who create and lead an institution after their own image and particular ambitions. I have always been dismayed at the Pastor seeking process of a church without that so called Pastor. All is dismay and anxiety until the new spiritual rescuer can be mounted on the pedestal and the new brass plate put on the study door with Pastor, or better yet, the new nineties “Senior Pastor.”
In the midst of all the above the increased emphasis on Pastoral problems and difficulties in a sense created more difficulties. Pastors of the baby boom and beyond generations were not manifesting the spiritual freedom that understanding grace and filling (control) should bring. They instead reported burn out, inability to deal with family, and asking for, and often getting special privileges not available to the assembly. They appeared to increasingly take the respect but fail to manifest the stability to live in the real world. From a practical standpoint the privileges of the clergy Pastor far outweigh the lack of freedom in employment by most ion the assembly. I once heard a pastor preach on the sin of American retirement indicating he will never retire. He was right in that many need to make use of retirement for spiritual service. He was wrong to indicate that he would not retire and it is a wrong recent special privilege. Many in the congregation had jobs that they were faithful to for the sake of family but were mired in boredom, drudgery, and no greater future. I always always admired men that I knew that had the factory jobs, and worked in the places where there was only the immediate reward of the next paycheck. My grandfather was blinded in the coal mines. My mother was divorced but remarried a man who worked faithfully at a factory job for over 35 years. Up at 4:30AM every morning. Half hour for lunch, Often worked overtime to make ends meet. Retirement was a welcome relief at the end of his life. Retirement is a recent concept. in society. Before that you died in a boring and dangerous job. The Pastor who preached that sermon had the blessings of ministry. Worked hard but on his terms. Lunch with some people could be two hours. He could do his demanding but interesting work around a schedule of his making. Overtime was not at a machine or in a mine but often with the blessings of the word. His congregation had essentially the same demands spiritually. All are called to be Holy as God is Holy. So from my perspective a sign of real spiritual leadership and example is to live the spiritual life and ministry within the real world and on the same terms of others in the assembly. This does not preclude privileges. I had alway had one month vacation in ministry and additional time for conferences. However, I was easily granted that due to school teachers and government workers who had the same. I would not ever consider a so called sabbatical. Some well established schools do grant this to long term professors. It is not a part of almost all congregants lives.
As to the accusation that I said what I said because I disagree with Piper’s theology, that would be my opinion of such a statement of any clergy Pastor. I perceived asking for major concession that he knows most in his congregation could never have. Of course my sympathies and understanding would depend on circumstances. My opinion that John Piper’s present perceived need is based on his theology and spiritual outlook. As most know and Piper repeatedly states, he is a major Promoter of Calvinism and Puritan Calvinism. Anyone who has studied Puritan theology understands what it did teach. European Calvinism continued with Calvin and Luther’s definition of faith as including knowledge, assent, and trust. English Puritanism evolved and came to define Faith as involving knowledge, assent, and commitment. Their concept of assurance involved examining ones commitment. This involved an examination of the life. Many saw this as a constant examination of works to make your calling and election sure. European Calvinism continued with Calvin and Luther’s concept of assurance being grounded in the objective work of Christ. Calvin indicated that assurance was the essence of faith. Thus if you had doubts focus on Christ and ask yourself if his death did indeed justify you and did you really believe that. This of course is the emphasis of Hebrews 11. The Puritan who had doubts was told the must focus on self and to examine their works to see if indicate a faith that brings God’s Justification. Several Puritan divines died hoping for Gods salvation but not assured of it. The Puritans used a very articulate vocabulary to express in 10 thousand words what any other say in1 00 words. I have John Owen’s 7 Volumes on the book of Hebrews that appears to illustrate that point.
The theology of Puritan Calvinism is seen everywhere in John Piper’s writing. His articulate vocabulary literary knowledge has made his writings very popular. He expresses some truth in a way that makes it very clear. However, his emphasis on the relations of Justification involving an examination of works and of assurance appears to be very dangerous. By the way this is the emphasis of John MacArthur’s concept of a “Lordship Gospel.” I see a emphasis of an inordinate self consciousness of sin and an inability to leave things behind, based on biblical confession, and look to the high calling in Christ, This is not a trite dealing with sin. To recognize the awfulness and implications of sin is a must. However, this must be joined to an ever growing understanding of Justification, Christ’s ongoing advocacy, and the ability of God to bring continual change in our regeneration which involves a new nature and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual life in and with Christ is a continuing struggle. However it is a dry struggle. By that I mean that the rain of sin does not get us wet one bit. We have the umbrella of Justification carried for us by Christ himself. God puts that umbrella over us and the indicates we are to continue in our struggle without the distraction of the umbrella He provides having holes or being improperly positioned. We are completely dry because the position of the umbrella, and it’s quality, is of God by Grace. The very highest price was involved in it being ours for life now and to come. Mess the umbrella and how to obtain it and you can do great harm. The present generation is involved in full awareness of sin but very naive about spiritual truth. This extends to the present generation of Christians, including Fundamentalists. Some are inordinately followers of Piper, MacArthur, and Calvinism with little awareness of some implications, comparative theology, and historical theology.
I better conclude this too lengthy reply. My statement regarding John Piper’s statement is with regard to its context in my view of the inordinate emphasis on Pastoral problems and the Pastoral ministry. It is in the larger context of North American churches. I definitely do not see the clergy Pastor as having it harder than the congregation. They have become too wimpy (I am generalizing here). Many Pastors lack real life context and experience, and many may not even have the real calling and proper motives for ministry. Is it arrogant or proper to make such judgments? Perhaps, but I do not perceive it as so. I do examine my own impure motives in ministry. I do not need a time out to constantly do so. Perhaps we need more to speak up and turn our American spiritual church ministry around. Remember, I am speaking of a whole church social group. There certainly are several exceptions to my observations . Sufficiently good churches do exist.
This is probably unimportant, but Piper stated that he asked the elders not to pay him during this time, and they denied his request. If he doesn’t want to be paid, then he should refuse to accept it. I do think it is an improper example to his congregation for him to be paid to do nothing. I know of no other occupation where one can essentially take an extended period of time off and still get paid as if he is doing the job he was paid to do.
I know of no other occupation where one can essentially take an extended period of time off and still get paid as if he is doing the job he was paid to do.I know of a lot, as I mentioned earlier. Many jobs have some sort of sick pay benefits which can be accumulated over years. It enables people to take six months or a year off for various reasons. I know of people who have used thirty years of sick days to take nine months to care for a dying loved one while they still got their full salary. I know people who have 25-30 years of sick days to “retire” six months or a year before they actually retire, so they draw their regular salary which they have earned through their years of employment. So it’s not uncommon at all.
Probably everyone in Piper’s congregation (and yours, including you) gets paid vacation meaning that they get paid to “do nothing.” So I wouldn’t be too hard on the idea for a lot of reasons.
[Larry]You’re probably assuming that he has accumulated all of these sick days or that he has not taken many vacations. I know some police officers who have saved up a year’s worth of vacation time over 25 or more years and basically took the last year off. However, they had saved this time by not taking vacations. Also, I am not sure you can count these as sick days. I am a student now, but where I was formerly employed sick days were only to used for actually being sick, and they were a limited amount. One could not use them for just any reason. Moreover, he took a Sabbatical just four years ago; it would seem he would have used up his sick/vacation time then. Nevertheless, if his congregation is fine with paid leave of absence, then I am not too concerned about it.I know of no other occupation where one can essentially take an extended period of time off and still get paid as if he is doing the job he was paid to do.I know of a lot, as I mentioned earlier. Many jobs have some sort of sick pay benefits which can be accumulated over years. It enables people to take six months or a year off for various reasons. I know of people who have used thirty years of sick days to take nine months to care for a dying loved one while they still got their full salary. I know people who have 25-30 years of sick days to “retire” six months or a year before they actually retire, so they draw their regular salary which they have earned through their years of employment. So it’s not uncommon at all.
Probably everyone in Piper’s congregation (and yours, including you) gets paid vacation meaning that they get paid to “do nothing.” So I wouldn’t be too hard on the idea for a lot of reasons.
You’re probably assuming that he has accumulated all of these sick days or that he has not taken many vacations.I am actually not assuming anything. I don’t know the situation and don’t care all that much. I was simply responding to a couple of people who said that there were no jobs where someone could get this kind of time off. I was pointing out that that was not true. There are such job situations.
I know some police officers who have saved up a year’s worth of vacation time over 25 or more years and basically took the last year off. However, they had saved this time by not taking vacations.I imagine that they saved sick days not vacations. There are different things in different contracts. I just checked with a police officer who said that under their contract vacations can be saved for two years only if the city does not allow them to be taken; 120 sick days can be saved and usually the city will buy them at retirement. A lot of it has to do with contracts or agreements. In some places “sick days” are considered like personal days and there is no real accountability; other places are different. In my situation, about two years ago, I took ten weeks off for my back. I was paid for all of it and so far as I know there was never any consideration otherwise.
Moreover, he took a Sabbatical just four years ago; it would seem he would have used up his sick/vacation time then.Not sure what you are talking about. He quite often takes writing and study leaves, as do many pastors.
Nevertheless, if his congregation is fine with paid leave of absence, then I am not too concerned about it.Yes, and that was my original point. People’s employment/pay arrangements are between them and their employers, including pastors. So whatever they want to do is up to them.
For the record, Bethlehem has a stringent and documented Sabbatical policy. Sabbaticals can be applied for by any pastor on staff, not just the upper echelon. It is not correlated to accrued vacation or sick time. They are not considered “time off”. They are utilized to accomplish certain ministerial challenges such as writing or completing a book, completing a degree, etc.
IMO, a competent leader at the helm of a growing and influential ministry will rarely take the time off afforded them by their church. It’s like a small business owner. They eat, sleep and breath their role. They are on 24/7 to some extent. If after 35 years the elders of a church grant an extended time off for their competent leader, then its their business. He’s earned it.
IMO, a competent leader at the helm of a growing and influential ministry will rarely take the time off afforded them by their church. It’s like a small business owner. They eat, sleep and breath their role. They are on 24/7 to some extent. If after 35 years the elders of a church grant an extended time off for their competent leader, then its their business. He’s earned it.
Arizona basketball coach Lute Olson did something like this a few years ago, as I recall.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3094359
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3094359
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[JasonR] This is probably unimportant, but Piper stated that he asked the elders not to pay him during this time, and they denied his request. If he doesn’t want to be paid, then he should refuse to accept it. I do think it is an improper example to his congregation for him to be paid to do nothing. I know of no other occupation where one can essentially take an extended period of time off and still get paid as if he is doing the job he was paid to do.
You mean taking time off for FMLA or Maternity (Paternity - some places do that) leave? Nope, can’t think of any place that does that… ;)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
In some cases, jury duty, or military reserves called to active duty…
In this case, I would say that the church can do whatever they want. The man has been there since 1980. The church has changed radically in scope and ministry since Piper began to be the pastor there. I imagine that the resources with which they have to work with have also increased over that time. If they appreciate him enough to allow him to do this on a paid basis, what’s the problem? Would you question a church who gave their pastor a trip to Israel, or a car, or like ours did this year, a kitchen table and chairs? I mean, what other occupation does one’s employer give an employee a dining room table and chairs? Must be nice…
God has enabled them to have the resources where they can do this. I say I admire them for doing it.
Also FWIW- the pastor I served under in Iowa, first as a church member and later as Associate Pastor, was provided a paid sabbatical for some ministry related pressures. The church continued to pay his salary and provide him with the parsonage for something like 4 months as I recall. He resumed his duties and continues to serve there today. This isn’t perhaps the normal thing, but situations like this I’m sure aren’t unique to these two men.
In this case, I would say that the church can do whatever they want. The man has been there since 1980. The church has changed radically in scope and ministry since Piper began to be the pastor there. I imagine that the resources with which they have to work with have also increased over that time. If they appreciate him enough to allow him to do this on a paid basis, what’s the problem? Would you question a church who gave their pastor a trip to Israel, or a car, or like ours did this year, a kitchen table and chairs? I mean, what other occupation does one’s employer give an employee a dining room table and chairs? Must be nice…
God has enabled them to have the resources where they can do this. I say I admire them for doing it.
Also FWIW- the pastor I served under in Iowa, first as a church member and later as Associate Pastor, was provided a paid sabbatical for some ministry related pressures. The church continued to pay his salary and provide him with the parsonage for something like 4 months as I recall. He resumed his duties and continues to serve there today. This isn’t perhaps the normal thing, but situations like this I’m sure aren’t unique to these two men.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Discussion