Larry Rogier: Here’s My Take On Piper and Warren

[Matthew J] I enjoy hearing him preach, because when I do, I hear someone who is passionate about the glory and supremacy of God. It is a far cry from many fundamentalists (not all, it is the same reason I enjoy hearing Dr. Tim Jordan preach) who only are passionate about hell,sin, and the bad stuff. That stuff needs to be preached, and I preach on the judgment of God often, but Piper shows great love for the glory of God and that edifies my soul, therefore, I appreciate his ministry. … YF (and I am one) are excited when someone proclaims truth, not in snarky or angry tones, but in genuine passion for God’s glory.

Matthew, I hope my edits don’t alter your meaning!

I once observed to a friend that Piper seems to be “Johnny-One-Note”. He replied, “But what a note!”

Well… maybe. Maybe that note hasn’t been sounded enough, but I really don’t think so. I think we need to be committed to the whole counsel of the Word, and I don’t get that sense from my (admittedly limited) exposure to Piper. Also, note that I used the word “committed” rather than “passionate”.

I think that you are right that Piper’s appeal is connected with his passion, but I am not sure that is an appeal to the spiritual nature. Instead, it seems to be an appeal to the flesh. I am NOT accusing Piper of setting out to appeal to the flesh, nor of being fleshly. What I am saying is that the thing that is most often mentioned about his appeal is the “passion”, but I wonder if that appeal in the hearer isn’t an appeal to the baser nature rather than the new spiritual nature.

I think we need to become committed to the sincere whole counsel of the word of God. Not every preacher is gifted with the kind of personality that communicates truth “passionately”. I have a friend in mind who definitely fits the bill of not being passionate. OK, I can think of more than one. But they are faithful preachers of the Word, and their preaching blesses my heart when I give my spirit to full attention to what they are saying. (In my flesh, I sometimes wish the Lord would give them a jolt of something while they preach, but still…)

Does that make sense?

[Don Johnson]
I once observed to a friend that Piper seems to be “Johnny-One-Note”. He replied, “But what a note!”

Well… maybe. Maybe that note hasn’t been sounded enough, but I really don’t think so. I think we need to be committed to the whole counsel of the Word, and I don’t get that sense from my (admittedly limited) exposure to Piper. Also, note that I used the word “committed” rather than “passionate”.

Actually, on deeper consideration, I find Piper to be anything but a one-trick pony. As I mentioned before, his strength is that there is a remarkable unity of vision in all his works. If you read certain of his books, particularly his gateway books, there is redundancy due to that vision, but his work cannot be reduced to just that. First, he is a pastor, and as such has written on the ministerial vocation (Brothers, We Are Not Professional) and on preaching (The Supremacy of God in Preaching). His pastoral heart has led him to expound on marriage (This Momentary Marriage), on biblical manhood and womanhood (What’s the Difference?), on sexuality (The Supremacy of God in Sex), and on personal suffering (Suffering and the Sovereignty of God; Job). He has also kept a global vision beyond his own congregation, leading him to inspire others in the area of missions (Let the Nations Be Glad) and racial reconciliation (A Sweet and Bitter Providence; many sermons).

He is not merely a pastor, but also a reputable theologian. Not only does he hold a doctorate from a European research university, but he also has engaged in serious theological dialogue with contemporary theological issues. He has written extended exegetical arguments for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (Counted Righteous in Christ) and sovereign election (The Justification of God). He has argued against the new perspective on Paul (The Future of Justification) and open theism (Beyond the Bounds). He has defended the centrality of the gospel in Christian theology (God is the Gospel), expounded the meaning of the cross (Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die), and examined the teaching of Jesus (What Jesus Demands from the World). He is a historical theologian as well, authoring a series of thematic Christian biographies, as well as introductions to John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards.

He has done all of this while speaking at conferences, mentoring younger pastors, and strengthening ties in the conservative evangelical world. No movement Fundamentalist in fifty years has matched the depth, breadth, and sheer influence of his ministry. Mark Dever has called him “the single most potent factor in this most recent rise of Reformed theology.” I can understand why people on this site wouldn’t be enthralled with Piper, and I can even agree with some of the reasons, but someone must be really out of touch with the pulse of conservative Christianity not to recognize Piper’s appeal.

Paul, I would not consider Piper to be fully Reformed in a confessional and historic sense. First, he does not embrace covenant theology, rather only the more vague construct popularized by Ladd and Fuller. Second, he is non-cessationist, and it is dubious whether such a position is within the systematic boundaries of any Reformed confession. Also, I’m pretty sure he does not hold a Reformed position on the Sabbath, and his position on images of Christ would go against the mainstream Reformed interpretation of the 2nd commandment. Also, I have not seen in his ministry an understanding of the Regulative Principle of Worship, though I have never specifically heard him deny it.

It is interesting to read this discussion. Some talk about generational influence. Piper is 64 and MacArthur is 70. Aren’t they essentially of the same generation? MacArthur’ s first controversial book was the “Gospel According to Jesus Christ” was published in 1988. Desiring God by Piper was later. So perhaps MacArthur, through his Radio program was noticed first. However, the move away from Dispensationalism to a more Reformed theology may involve a more complex scenario than just the MacArthur and Piper influence. Many on here speak of being brought up or having an early first exposure to Fundamentalism. However, it may have been Fundamental extremism. Many of the Dallas graduates and Bible Institute graduates up until the late 1960s were more Fundamentalist and not New Evangelical. They were fine expository teachers. It seems that many who post here were exposed to Baptists and others who were always fighting someone or something and they heard a lot of three shouts and a pulpit pound sermons. These find MacArthur and Piper different and refreshing. The fact is they may have just been in the wrong places. There are many Fundamentalists who are fine Dispensational Bible teachers with very stable and ethical ministries. There are fine Dispensational moderate Calvinist schools such as Central, Detroit, Faith, and Calvary Baptist Seminaries. Are so called YFs looking in all the wrong places? Both MacArthur and Piper represent ministries that are simply not balanced. They are agenda driven. This has been more and more so with MacArthur, according to some who know him.

I do find it interesting that in Kevin Bauder’s article, “Lets Be Clear,” his list of so called “no enemy” Conservative Evangelicals were all strong (militant) Calvinists. CJ Mahany is Charismatic but on the list. Why? If he is attractive to YFs it must be his 5 point Calvinism. I do not see the ministry of any on the list as that of balanced Bible teaching that begins with exegesis, then exposition. Rather all teach expositionally but with an agenda that drives their teaching. That agenda is an inordinate emphasis on the so called “doctrines of Grace.” By contrast, may I call attention to David Jeremiah. He was well educated at Dallas and elsewhere, and brought up in the GARBC. He has a balanced, moderate Calvinistic, Dispensational theology and preaches and teaches with an appealing love and compassion. He has a national media ministry and a huge church in San Diego. Yet he has no attraction to the YFs. Why? Because he does not wear Calvinism or a Lordship Gospel on his sleeve. He did not make Bauder’s list, yet is stronger and more conservative than Dever or Piper. Dever will not have a person in his Pulpit that is not a 5 pointer. What is biblical or balanced about that?

Of course it is best to read all and follow none but Christ. However, that is not what often takes place.

I think many YFs are moving from some of their bad Funnymentalism exposure to an unbalanced militant Calvinist position built on the agenda of the so called “doctrines of grace.” This is not true Bible centered ministry and not true balanced theology. There are in fact many David Jeremiah’s out there more worthy of following. They also may make a better list of true Conservative Evangelicals.

As far as Piper and Warren are concerned. They are both middle of the road Evangelicals. A visit by Warren to Piper’s conference is less problematic than the whole Desiring God and TG4G conferences. At TG4G they talk about the Gospel. Warren does the Gospel all the time. Many of his converts are genuine and growing spiritually.
We may have a lot of differences with Warren. Some of his remarks and associations are problematic. His evangelism at his church is not as compromising as some think. At least that is my observation. However, I would not attend his church or recommend it. Same is for Piper. I see them both as essentially sincere and good Christians.

I do understand what you are saying Don, but am not convinced that the passion of Piper appeals to the flesh mostly (I assume that some may be fleshly that are attracted). I do not view Piper as an enemy, but I could not join his church as a member, the benefit of someone like me is that I can go to sermon audio and download a sermon of his on Psalm 71 be encouraged by his passionate exposition of the truth contained in there, I can also go and download Dave Doran’s sermon regarding Hebrews 5. I go to gty and download a message about expositional preaching and am encouraged and learn some good truths. I enjoy reading and listening to Ravi Zaccharias to hear a good polemic of the Christian faith. Here is the point, YF are possibly more discerning than everyone thinks. My concern is having the discernment about how to teach God’s people he has allowed me to minister to as pastor who will read these men’s books, who will hear them speak and to adequately warn them of dangers while at the same time realizing that they can contribute to gospel growth in their lives.

My post is to simply point out that YF attraction may not be that they are bedazzled by the “cult of Piper” (I am being a bit facetious so please understand that as a bit of overemphasis, but maybe they are excited to see someone preaching and passionate about truth (I am not talking about only presentation, but the intensity that Piper brings with him when he speaks). One of my favorite professors in school was dry speaking, but was fascinating to me because you could sense enthusiasm dripping while he spoke in a low monotone. Piper’s passion for God’s glory appeals to those fundamentalists who equate passion with a lot of yelling, snorting and stomping. Neither am I saying that he is the only one who is passionate. Just an observation that he is a breath of fresh air to some. (BTW, I have become more discerning of Piper since the whole Warren issue). Not because of Warren so much as it seems to me (please understand this is just opinion) I am confused at the mixed message being sent.

[Matthew J] I do understand what you are saying Don, but am not convinced that the passion of Piper appeals to the flesh mostly (I assume that some may be fleshly that are attracted).

Well, I agree with that. My earlier comment is a bit of an over-statement. I should say that the appeal of his passion could be fleshly.

Paul,

I am sorry that I was not clear. I am not saying that the reason YF are leaving Dispensationalism and going to Piper b/c of Lahay. I think some of his excesses have caused some to rethink their position. This is really true with Hagee. Hagee is more of a problem than LaHay. I think Bob made a good observation as well. Many Fundamentalists are just not well taught for a variety of reasons. Interesting discussion.

Everyone needs to read Bob T’s post #19. He knocked the ball over the fence, off the scoreboard, and clean out of the park with insightful thoughts on these issues! 8-) 8-) 8-)

David Jeremiah and Woodrow Kroll are without question two of the best Bible teachers/preachers on national radio. They are both younger than MacArthur and only slightly older than Piper. They both have extensive, classical theological education, have written serious books and are “balanced” dispensational teachers. Yet neither appears to be on the radar screen of the typical “YF” who is increasingly becoming enamored of Piper, Reformed Theology and contemporary methods of “doing ministry.”

If you want to be a “cool” fundy, it seems you have to quote Piper — Kroll, or even MacArthur, simply won’t do.

I am not trying to denigrate Piper. I hope you all enjoy his books and ministry.

I, frankly, am not drawn to Piper’s style or many elements of his thinking. More importantly, I am very concerned about the swift move to Reformed Theology which many YF’s appear to be making. As Bob points out, after perhaps being burned at one end of fundamentalism, they are instead going to a completely different point of the compass — jumping over 1,000 miles of ground in between.

Perhaps some were burned so badly that they aren’t willing to look at any of that ground, assuming that it is also “burnt over.” Undoubtedly, many are not even aware that other options exist. Perhaps there is also a bit of “groupthink” involved.

At any rate, this gives you some insight into what I mean when I speak of “not getting” the attraction to Piper…

I love to listen to David Jeremiah, Maybe I am not in the group of YF’s that many on this board are describing. I appreciate many aspects of many of these men’s ministries, which is why I completely agree with Buader’s point that these men are not our enemies. They are also not my close allies, they are gospel proclaimers and I am sure that in many areas, if they knew me, they would be warned of some of my “doctrinal problems.” I guess I am not as concerned about people’s affection for Piper as I believe it is a fad that has been around since the first century (think Corinth). I do not know if Paul would have been concerned and warned others about Apollos or Peter (and I am sure that at least Peter and Paul did not agree on everything). The point was to look to Christ and his Word. Where Piper, Mahaney, Jeremiah, Doran, Jordan, Bauder, MacArthur, etc. adhere to the Word of God ( in my estimation obviously), I appreciate their ministry and will use tools (nothing is original with me), where there is concern about deviation from the Word (IMO) I will be warned and warn and think about it comparing it to the Scripture to the best of my fallible ability. We can learn much from many different servants of the Lord without elevating them to place of “cult-like status.”

Amen, Matthew!

Good job.

I agree, and want to make it clear that I also listen to, read and enjoy many Reformed teachers and commentators. But my theology is fixed — thanks to God and the excellent teachers I have had.

Trends and fads come and go. The need of the hour is classical Bible teaching built on the right foundation — and it will continue to be so until the Lord returns.