"From my perspective it looks like Dr. Piper is repeating the worst errors of the neo-evangelicals, and his critics are imitating the worst misconduct of the hyper-fundamentalists."
I believe Phil represents the student (as well as the teacher) who has been infected with sycophantic affection for Piper (Guruism) but is waking up to the reality of the treacherous paths to which such undiscriminating admiration leads. And while Johnson may be waking up, a little late, imagine the masses that don’t have the constitution of Phil Johnson’s and will forever be stuck in a world of denial, minimization and justification of Piper’s erring practices and teachings.
But it is a shame because long before these mea culpas on Piper’s part regarding his platform invitations were his unorthodox teachings, particularly his “double” or “second” justification. And these departures have been addressed by other Reformed men, again somehow missed and without rebuttal in the minds of Piper’s students. And may I add about this view that one is justified by their works before God for salvation, as Piper teaches, is a teaching that has far more consequences and impact on other doctrines than his student have detected, hence they have been infected in these places as well.
But Phil Johnson is right, Piper is just being Piper. He hasn’t deceived anyone. You (those of you surprised) are confused or disappointed because of the deception you put upon yourselves regarding Piper. Did you bother to learn about his theological origins or pick up on his acceptance of such broad theological fellowship and commendation in all of his publications that stand out like a sore thumb?
And Phil Johnson is also right that the extreme responses to Piper’s problems with personal comments or posturing and finger wagging with a judgment on his spiritual condition are wrong. But Johnson too conveniently labels all such miscreants as hyper-fundamentalists. If they are hyper-fundamentalists as he accuses they aren’t the ones shocked or upset, such people never endorsed or followed Piper and more than likely most of them are preoccupied with their theological/spiritual fiefdoms. But there are militants within the Reformed/Covenant community and it might be that they are the people to which he is referring which would be his own community!
The problem isn’t with Piper. Piper has a right to be and teach, before God and man, whatever he deems his conscience convinces him is necessary and permissible. And obviously I don’t agree with Piper on some critical issues, hence I don’t use his material though I may read it from time to time to stay educated regarding his trends and gladly recognize when he is right. The problem is with his students. They have failed to discern and discriminate which has led them to a view of Piper that isn’t and wasn’t John Piper and their injury is their own.
But it is a shame because long before these mea culpas on Piper’s part regarding his platform invitations were his unorthodox teachings, particularly his “double” or “second” justification. And these departures have been addressed by other Reformed men, again somehow missed and without rebuttal in the minds of Piper’s students. And may I add about this view that one is justified by their works before God for salvation, as Piper teaches, is a teaching that has far more consequences and impact on other doctrines than his student have detected, hence they have been infected in these places as well.
But Phil Johnson is right, Piper is just being Piper. He hasn’t deceived anyone. You (those of you surprised) are confused or disappointed because of the deception you put upon yourselves regarding Piper. Did you bother to learn about his theological origins or pick up on his acceptance of such broad theological fellowship and commendation in all of his publications that stand out like a sore thumb?
And Phil Johnson is also right that the extreme responses to Piper’s problems with personal comments or posturing and finger wagging with a judgment on his spiritual condition are wrong. But Johnson too conveniently labels all such miscreants as hyper-fundamentalists. If they are hyper-fundamentalists as he accuses they aren’t the ones shocked or upset, such people never endorsed or followed Piper and more than likely most of them are preoccupied with their theological/spiritual fiefdoms. But there are militants within the Reformed/Covenant community and it might be that they are the people to which he is referring which would be his own community!
The problem isn’t with Piper. Piper has a right to be and teach, before God and man, whatever he deems his conscience convinces him is necessary and permissible. And obviously I don’t agree with Piper on some critical issues, hence I don’t use his material though I may read it from time to time to stay educated regarding his trends and gladly recognize when he is right. The problem is with his students. They have failed to discern and discriminate which has led them to a view of Piper that isn’t and wasn’t John Piper and their injury is their own.
[Alex Guggenheim] I believe Phil represents the student (as well as the teacher) who has been infected with sycophantic affection for Piper (Guruism) but is waking up to the reality of the treacherous paths to which such undiscriminating admiration leads.That is the most ridiculous thing I think I have ever read on SI… and I have read a lot. “sycophantic affection”? Give me a break.
[Ryan]
That is the most ridiculous thing I think I have ever read on SI… and I have read a lot. “sycophantic affection”? Give me a break.
Are you saying it’s ridiculous that Phil Johnson would be considered to be in that group or ridiculous that such a thing exists? (It does.) Your response doesn’t make your point completely clear.
Dave Barnhart
[Ryan]Thank you. Being #1 at something is nice now and then. :)[Alex Guggenheim] I believe Phil represents the student (as well as the teacher) who has been infected with sycophantic affection for Piper (Guruism) but is waking up to the reality of the treacherous paths to which such undiscriminating admiration leads.That is the most ridiculous thing I think I have ever read on SI… and I have read a lot.
Dave,
I guess I am saying that it is ridiculous that Phil Johnson’s response would indicate that he is some mindless sycophant following Piper. Why can’t we get it into our heads that someone can be greatly influenced by a man without having “sycophantic affection.” It’s not like much of fundamentalism has suffered from its own “sycophantic affection” for their guru’s - mercy, we just had one channeled from the grave like Samuel and the witch of Endor to condemn a fundamentalist leader for saying men like Piper aren’t our enemies. While I might not dot my i’s and cross my t’s the same way as Phil, I think it is safe to say that he has demonstrated a fairly discerning spirit in most of his material.
I guess I am saying that it is ridiculous that Phil Johnson’s response would indicate that he is some mindless sycophant following Piper. Why can’t we get it into our heads that someone can be greatly influenced by a man without having “sycophantic affection.” It’s not like much of fundamentalism has suffered from its own “sycophantic affection” for their guru’s - mercy, we just had one channeled from the grave like Samuel and the witch of Endor to condemn a fundamentalist leader for saying men like Piper aren’t our enemies. While I might not dot my i’s and cross my t’s the same way as Phil, I think it is safe to say that he has demonstrated a fairly discerning spirit in most of his material.
That little clip a few posts below in the filings column by Wilson made an apt analogy - flinging from the bottom of the monkey cage…
[Ryan]And if someone were to have said that Phil Johnson is a “mindless sycophant” then you might have grounds for objecting, but of course no one said that.
I guess I am saying that it is ridiculous that Phil Johnson’s response would indicate that he is some mindless sycophant following Piper.
[Ryan] Why can’t we get it into our heads that someone can be greatly influenced by a man without having “sycophantic affection.”“We” can, but sometimes that is not the case. In this case I believe Phil Johnson is a little late to the table and I trace it to a certain extreme prejudice, i.e. sycophantism which I am sure all of us can, at one point or another, discover in our spiritual/theological journey.
[Ryan] It’s not like much of fundamentalism has suffered from its own “sycophantic affection” for their guru’sAnd? Who has said otherwise?
[Ryan] While I might not dot my i’s and cross my t’s the same way as Phil, I think it is safe to say that he has demonstrated a fairly discerning spirit in most of his material.Again no one has argued otherwise. But it is not a case without exception and here, I believe, is an exception, up until now that is.
Look at the definition of sycophant: “a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.” To apply such a term to a man like Phil Johnson is derogatory in a way that does not reflect well on the person using it or on the name of Christ. Disagree with Phil all you want, but he has consistently expressed discernment that has challenged and helped many. Saying that he has a “sycophantic affection” for Piper is an ugly, unsubstantiated accusation.
[Alex Guggenheim] And if someone were to have said that Phil Johnson is a “mindless sycophant” then you might have grounds for objecting, but of course no one said that..
no you just said,
“who has been infected with sycophantic affection for Piper (Guruism) but is waking up to the reality of the treacherous paths to which such undiscriminating admiration leads”
having a hard time telling the difference.
just to be clear - sycophantic does not just mean certain extreme prejudice, or undiscriminating admiration -
[Quote=dictionary.com]
syc·o·phant [sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh-]
–noun
a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.
…
A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.
[MClark] Look at the definition of sycophant: “a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.” To apply such a term to a man like Phil Johnson is derogatory in a way that does not reflect well on the person using it or on the name of Christ. Disagree with Phil all you want, but he has consistently expressed discernment that has challenged and helped many. Saying that he has a “sycophantic affection” for Piper is an ugly, unsubstantiated accusation.It does feel good to indulge one’s self in some moral posturing, no doubt, but as you pointed out it means “self-seeking”. And that is exactly what one does when they ignore what is evident in order to protect themselves from the indictment that they, themselves, have not been so discerning in a matter or even refuse to see what is right in from of them. But as I stated, it is clear Phil Johnson is waking up and to his credit which I duly noted.
[Ryan]Well having a hard time telling the difference between the two sentences is an issue you might want to take up with a grammarian who can aid you in learning to concretely interpret words based on their meaning and use. In the mean time we can simply disagree on my opinion of what led Phil Johnson to be late to the table.[Alex Guggenheim] And if someone were to have said that Phil Johnson is a “mindless sycophant” then you might have grounds for objecting, but of course no one said that..
no you just said,
“who has been infected with sycophantic affection for Piper (Guruism) but is waking up to the reality of the treacherous paths to which such undiscriminating admiration leads”
having a hard time telling the difference.
just to be clear - sycophantic does not just mean certain extreme prejudice, or undiscriminating admiration -
[Quote=dictionary.com]
syc·o·phant [sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh-]
–noun
a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.
…
A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.
[dcbii] Are you saying it’s ridiculous that Phil Johnson would be considered to be in that group or ridiculous that such a thing exists? (It does.) Your response doesn’t make your point completely clear.
FWIW, I think it’s ridiculous that Phil would even be considered a Piper ‘sycophant’.
"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
[Jay C.]Well, if instead of exploring the possibility that someone has had “sycophantic affections”, hence blurring their discernment (as opposed to being a “Piper sycophant” and if the distinction isn’t recognized then we probably won’t get any further) another option is call it “ridiculous” and not have to give it any examination at all. Yeah, that’s the ticket! The road to enlightenment![dcbii] Are you saying it’s ridiculous that Phil Johnson would be considered to be in that group or ridiculous that such a thing exists? (It does.) Your response doesn’t make your point completely clear.
FWIW, I think it’s ridiculous that Phil would even be considered a Piper ‘sycophant’.
[Jay C.] FWIW, I think it’s ridiculous that Phil would even be considered a Piper ‘sycophant’.Right. Everyone knows that Phil is a MacArthur sycophant. C’mon, people! :D
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Does “sycophantic” = “sycophant”?
It seems to me that there is a difference, but then I am often ridiculous.
It seems to me that there is a difference, but then I am often ridiculous.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion