"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."

Well I am sure that this path is worn out already so I am happy to move on from discussing whether one disagrees or agrees with my personal assessment on that one point and consider other points contained in Johnson’s blog. :)

[Alex G.] 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

the irony of that post following a dictionary definition of sycophant (which is the noun form of the adj. sycophantic) is quite humorous. I was pointing out that there is little substantive difference in calling someone a sycophant and saying they have “sycophantic affections” for Piper. And either way you say it, it is ridiculous. How “a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite” or “A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people” or the adjective form of that can apply to Johnson in any way is ridiculous.

[Don Johnson] but then I am often ridiculous.

Agreed.

As to the other points in Johnson’s blog, I thought that his point was well made (as usual). I agreed with almost all he said. This is an strange decision by Piper that will “temper my enthusiasm in recommending his teaching to impressionable people.” I cannot imagine why he is doing it. I am disappointed to be sure. Rick Warren is “shallow, pragmatic, and chameleonic” and much of what he has said is harmful to the church. But Piper still is my brother and much of the criticism coming his way from online sources especially is sinful.

Alex,

Please defend your assertion that Phil Johnson has “sycophantic affection.” Please quote some things from him that lead you to that conclusion so that those here can “explore the possibility” (your words) that he has had them. As of now, we have nothing but your bald assertion by which to explore that possibility, and that is grossly unfair to the topic that we should have to operate only with your assertion.

We’ve received enough of a vocabulary lesson today- feel free to pursue the possibilities and support one’s assertions, but please put the dictionaries down so the thread can remain on topic.
If you have any questions or concerns about this note, please email or PM Forums Director Peet. Do not discuss this note in the forums, as this would also be off topic.
Thank you.
+++END OF MODERATOR NOTE+++

sorry to get off topic.

Just felt the language being used was inappropriate to describe another believer.

…getting tired of all the nonsense.

…and people wonder why our camp is shrinking.

…will drop out now.

[Larry] Alex,

Please defend your assertion that Phil Johnson has “sycophantic affection.” Please quote some things from him that lead you to that conclusion so that those here can “explore the possibility” (your words) that he has had them. As of now, we have nothing but your bald assertion by which to explore that possibility, and that is grossly unfair to the topic that we should have to operate only with your assertion.

It is merely my opinion from a regular reading of Johnson’s blog and his disposition toward Piper. Do understand that every single opinion expressed here does not require some exhaustive defense or else you, Larry, and everyone here are SI from Aaron on down would be guilty of failing to provide such. So it might be you will simply have to be satisfied with less that you wish and accept that it is from accounts of reading over time and not obsessive and pedantic documentation. But if you wish to impugn my personal accounts (I am not saying you do wish this, I am just stating “if” without any presumption) of what I say I have read and observed, well you certainly are free to though I certainly would not consider such rebuttals as valid or having any merit for further response.

But, I will point out casually as a mild example contained in this one article (but again amplified, as I see it, throughout Johnson’s treatment of Piper over time )where Phil Johnson states:

John Piper
I love John Piper. People often ask me what living preachers I listen to besides John MacArthur. John Piper is my clear first choice.

Also

I’ve never read any book by Piper that I would give a negative review to. I’ve never listened to a sermon by him without being impacted by the power of truth.

This kind of obliqueness toward Piper from Johnson is not new. His expressions of devotional admiration and exaggeration of John Piper’s exegetical prowess (and Piper is no champion exegete he is at best confessional and often proprietary in his interpretations which in fact make him on the periphery of scholarship, not closer to it) have been consistent over time. It has been a blind spot, a rather glaring, but this isn’t without the recognition of Johnson’s own gifts or excellence in other areas as I have already noted. It simply is, as I said, an experience that advancing Christians will or have had at some point and here I believe due to the observations I have made regarding the nature of Johnson’s expressions toward or about Piper and his work, he has been a victim of a certain kind of sycophantic limp. And again, to his credit though late to the table, he is making acknowledgments.

I did post my initial response at Pyro and it was nice to read a response that stated:

Tyler Wallick said…

A-Guggs - that is exactly how I viewed it but lacked the ability to articulate. Thanks.

:)

[Greg Linscott]

[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

Exactly.

The truth is that my first encounter with Piper was in Dan Fuller’s living room in Pasadena in the 1980s, and it made me wary of Piper for a long time. The fact that he refused to condemn the mess known as the Toronto Blessing likewise didn’t endear him to me. It wasn’t until early this decade that I began to read his books and appreciate his teaching gifts. At the same time, he was becoming outspoken on issues that placed him at the opposite end of the spectrum from his mentor, Dr. Fuller. For example, he wrote an articulate, biblical answer to egalitarianism; and he wrote a brilliant answer to NT Wright, which entailed the repudiation of certain things Piper himself had said about justification in earlier years. So my appreciation of him grew and deepened. But no one has EVER accused me of being his sycophant. The normal accusation is precisely the opposite. So I’m rather pleased that someone could read what I wrote yesterday about Piper and confuse me with one of his “sycophants.” Thank you to whoever made that original remark. That’s practically a high compliment.

But as Greg correctly notes, EVERYONE knows I’m really John MacArthur’s sycophant. I’m not ashamed to be thought of in that way, either.

Phil

[Phil Johnson]

[Greg Linscott]

[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

Exactly.

The truth is that my first encounter with Piper was in Dan Fuller’s living room in Pasadena in the 1980s, and it made me wary of Piper for a long time. The fact that he refused to condemn the mess known as the Toronto Blessing likewise didn’t endear him to me. It wasn’t until early this decade that I began to read his books and appreciate his teaching gifts. At the same time, he was becoming outspoken on issues that placed him at the opposite end of the spectrum from his mentor, Dr. Fuller. For example, he wrote an articulate, biblical answer to egalitarianism; and he wrote a brilliant answer to NT Wright, which entailed the repudiation of certain things Piper himself had said about justification in earlier years. So my appreciation of him grew and deepened. But no one has EVER accused me of being his sycophant. The normal accusation is precisely the opposite. So I’m rather pleased that someone could read what I wrote yesterday about Piper and confuse me with one of his “sycophants.” Thank you to whoever made that original remark. That’s practically a high compliment.

But as Greg correctly notes, EVERYONE knows I’m really John MacArthur’s sycophant. I’m not ashamed to be thought of in that way, either.

Phil

First Phil, no one has yet to accuse you of being Piper’s sycophant and from a man who is acutely aware of the necessity of accuracy in their recollection and use of the words of others might I suggest you revisit your construct. But the “whoever” that made the remark was me and what I did state was that:

“Phil represents the student (as well as the teacher) who has been infected with sycophantic affection for Piper”.

If you want clarity on my use of this description, ask, but don’t rearrange it to make a charge based on something that does not exist.

And if you consider being referred to as a sycophant of Piper “practically a compliment”, well you certainly haven’t done your admirers here any favors seeing that the use of the word in any form to them in describing your affection for Piper to be ridiculous. So which is it, ridiculous or a compliment? But maybe this was a rhetorical device, eh? ;)

But we are not to be antagonists. And you have the right to and it should be the expectation of others that you would both clarify and defend yourself and I am glad you have though I do not believe after reading your post I am any less inclined to modify my view and am in fact reinforced by your expression of “brilliant” in describing Piper’s disjointed response to Wright. Piper is a pietist and a Calvinist (sometimes hyper) with a Reformed and charismatic identity (and in the name of Wayne Grudem this charismania is now more acceptable it seems). I understand his appeal in considering your doctrinal orientation. But reading your expression as Piper being your “clear first choice” (while that alone certainly is not fairly suspect) along with what I have read in your blog and your treatment of Piper along the way, I do believe there is a case for some degree of Guruism here. Obviously you don’t agree and there is always file 13 where you can dispose of my views if you wish.

Let me tell you a view I hold to that might prove to be a worthwhile comparison and give you some orientation regarding my own approach. I like John MacArthur. I listen to him sometimes and I have read numerous publications by him. I am also a non-Calvinist (I should say former Calvinist as well). However, if tomorrow John came out and said he is modifying his views of the apostolic sign gifts and believes they are for today, regardless of his expressions on other doctrines which I would not deny if they remained correct, I would reduce him to someone who has clearly departed from Protestant orthodoxy in some manner and submerged himself into an erring charismatic hermeneutic and my view of him would be altered if I chose to continue listening to him. He would certainly disqualify himself as a premium choice for doctrinal instruction. Why? Because of this one view? No, but because what this one view represents regarding his entire hermeneutic and approach toward Scripture. And I think this is the case with Piper. While he can and does echo well the sentiments of Calvnists and Reformed doctrine on many points and revisits puritanism to the satisfaction of many, his elevation as #1 in light of the erring hermenuetic that leads him astray to charismatic beliefs is frankly unexplainable to me other than the kind of obliqueness that I described earlier.

But to each his own and again, thank you for your response. I happily invite you to email or PM me any time.

I am certain SI is happy to have you enrolled and posting :).

Regards,

Alex

I’m a sycophant of Phil Johnson. So, by way of secondary sycophantism, I’m kind of a sychophant of John MacArthur.

P.S. This thread has clearly broken the record for uses of “sycophant” and related words on SI. And I have to admit, it’s a fun word to say: “Sycophant, sycophant, sycophant…”

I’m a sycophant of Greg Long …. 3rd generation! :)

Seriously

Paul said, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1 ). I’m a fan of all who are following Christ in the manner of the Apostle Paul

It is merely my opinion from a regular reading of Johnson’s blog and his disposition toward Piper. Do understand that every single opinion expressed here does not require some exhaustive defense or else you, Larry, and everyone here are SI from Aaron on down would be guilty of failing to provide such. So it might be you will simply have to be satisfied with less that you wish and accept that it is from accounts of reading over time and not obsessive and pedantic documentation.

No one asked for an exhaustive defense. I merely was interested in some statements that might support your assertion.

[Alex Guggenheim] Let me tell you a view I hold to that might prove to be a worthwhile comparison and give you some orientation regarding my own approach. I like John MacArthur. I listen to him sometimes and I have read numerous publications by him. I am also a non-Calvinist (I should say former Calvinist as well). However, if tomorrow John came out and said he is modifying his views of the apostolic sign gifts and believes they are for today, regardless of his expressions on other doctrines which I would not deny if they remained correct, I would reduce him to someone who has clearly departed from Protestant orthodoxy in some manner and submerged himself into an erring charismatic hermeneutic and my view of him would be altered if I chose to continue listening to him. He would certainly disqualify himself as a premium choice for doctrinal instruction. Why? Because of this one view? No, but because what this one view represents regarding his entire hermeneutic and approach toward Scripture. And I think this is the case with Piper. While he can and does echo well the sentiments of Calvnists and Reformed doctrine on many points and revisits puritanism to the satisfaction of many, his elevation as #1 in light of the erring hermenuetic that leads him astray to charismatic beliefs is frankly unexplainable to me other than the kind of obliqueness that I described earlier.

Alex, you’re assuming that those who are blessed by Piper’s books and sermons are people who are aware of his theological problems and yet choose to ignore them or say that it’s no big deal. Some of us, myself included, have had no idea about his involvement with the Toronto Blessing until someone else mentioned it on this site or on Pyromaniacs. Given the Fundy tendency to ‘separate by character assassination’ - where we don’t talk with the brother who is wrong and actually find out what’s going on, but rather just go straight into the ‘tar and feather the apostate’ mode, like what BJU did to MacArthur on the Blood issue - I tend to take rumors for what they are until I see or can substantiate the charge.

It’s also worth noting that the Toronto Blessing peaked in the late nineties. I was in high school and not planning on entering the ministry at all at the time, so I would have missed Piper’s involvement with it. There’s not exactly an abundance of Vineyard churches in the county that I live in, so I’ve never run into it first hand. The Toronto Blessing has never been mentioned in any of his books that I read. I do know that Piper is friends with some of the guys at Fuller, for which I disagree with him, and of course I think inviting Warren to speak at the Desiring God conference is an disaster.

Next - do you really agree with someone 100% of the time theologically? A quick review of Baptist / Christian history will make us shake our heads at the positions of some of the church fathers, but we sing their hymns anyway.

Finally, I mentioned this before, [URL=http://sharperiron.org/filings/4-5-10/14488#comment-12199] on another thread[/URL]:

[Jay C.]

At yet let’s heed Piper’s warning not to fall into an error of secondary separation. There is no need for us to separate from Piper over such a decision. We have plenty of latitude to disagree with him; let’s do so with respect for him and for his long and faithful history of ministry to the church. The sky is not falling, the world will go on.

In a context like mine, I’m not really sure that I ~could~ “separate” from Piper. The extent of the relationship that Piper and I have is that I download his free books and will occasionally download a sermon. So in what meaningful way could I “separate” from Piper?

If Piper and I were on a first name basis [snicker] , then, yes, I could - and probably would - separate from him because I think that Warren is not someone he should be providing with a platform, for all of the reasons that Challies delineated.

Fundys typically perform what I’ll call binary separation - you’re either ‘all in’ or you’re ‘out’ on a person/ministry…Phil brought that up in the “Dead Right” message at the 2005 Shepherds’ Conference. I think it’s time to realize that doesn’t exactly work and isn’t the Scriptural model.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/weird.gif
I think Greg Long and Jim Peet were on the right track (the thread was really improving at that point)
I’m a sycophant of Greg and Jim. By the way, Greg, it’s even more fun to say “supercilious sycophant.” Try it. You’ll like it.

(Good post, Jay. I’m a supercilious sycophant of Jay now, too)

[Jay C.]

[Alex Guggenheim] Let me tell you a view I hold to that might prove to be a worthwhile comparison and give you some orientation regarding my own approach. I like John MacArthur. I listen to him sometimes and I have read numerous publications by him. I am also a non-Calvinist (I should say former Calvinist as well). However, if tomorrow John came out and said he is modifying his views of the apostolic sign gifts and believes they are for today, regardless of his expressions on other doctrines which I would not deny if they remained correct, I would reduce him to someone who has clearly departed from Protestant orthodoxy in some manner and submerged himself into an erring charismatic hermeneutic and my view of him would be altered if I chose to continue listening to him. He would certainly disqualify himself as a premium choice for doctrinal instruction. Why? Because of this one view? No, but because what this one view represents regarding his entire hermeneutic and approach toward Scripture. And I think this is the case with Piper. While he can and does echo well the sentiments of Calvnists and Reformed doctrine on many points and revisits puritanism to the satisfaction of many, his elevation as #1 in light of the erring hermenuetic that leads him astray to charismatic beliefs is frankly unexplainable to me other than the kind of obliqueness that I described earlier.

Alex, you’re assuming that those who are blessed by Piper’s books and sermons are people who are aware of his theological problems and yet choose to ignore them or say that it’s no big deal. Some of us, myself included, have had no idea about his involvement with the Toronto Blessing until someone else mentioned it on this site or on Pyromaniacs. Given the Fundy tendency to ‘separate by character assassination’ - where we don’t talk with the brother who is wrong and actually find out what’s going on, but rather just go straight into the ‘tar and feather the apostate’ mode, like what BJU did to MacArthur on the Blood issue - I tend to take rumors for what they are until I see or can substantiate the charge.

Problem. The quote you are responding to is a specific address to Phil Johnson about his elevation of Piper, in spite of these problems, as his #1 choice or as Phil said his “first choice”. It is not an address in general with any assumption in general. There may some other statement by me you can quote that may better fit your response but the quote you are using is not a general one about “those who are blessed by Piper’s books and sermons.”

[Jay C.] Next - do you really agree with someone 100% of the time theologically? A quick review of Baptist / Christian history will make us shake our heads at the positions of some of the church fathers, but we sing their hymns anyway.

I am a bit baffled by this question Jay. Contained in the quote above that you used I rather distinctly stated,

I like John MacArthur. I listen to him sometimes and I have read numerous publications by him. I am also a non-Calvinist (I should say former Calvinist as well).

I would think it is rather clear here that contained in this statement is my position that I don’t agree or expect to agree with someone 100% of the time but I also stated that

if tomorrow John came out and said he is modifying his views of the apostolic sign gifts and believes they are for today…I would reduce him to someone who has clearly departed from Protestant orthodoxy in some manner… and my view of him would be altered if I chose to continue listening to him. He would certainly disqualify himself as a premium choice for doctrinal instruction

Which means that even when there is more than casual disagreement I might still listen to someone or understand their value but I certainly would not place them at a premium or a #1 slot for instruction with that degree of departure.

[Jay C.] Fundys typically perform what I’ll call binary separation - you’re either ‘all in’ or you’re ‘out’ on a person/ministry…Phil brought that up in the “Dead Right” message at the 2005 Shepherds’ Conference. I think it’s time to realize that doesn’t exactly work and isn’t the Scriptural model.

You are only preaching to the choir here Jay seeing that I certainly have not offered any such recommendations. I don’t know how many times I can state that I understand and recognize when Piper is right and don’t deny him due recognition but this isn’t about that or the binary “either/or” posture, rather it is about healthy and sound theological discrimination regarding teachers and their order.

So let me be most specific here. Yes, I believe John Piper’s charismania and neo evangelicalism has damaged his hermeneutic, a lot and more often than gets noticed. He takes gross liberties with texts and makes impolite assertions and attempts at prophetic utterances. This is not fundamentalism and this is not conservative evangelicalism. On the other hand his clock strikes well on some notes. Maybe these are notes that have gone unattended in fundie and C/E circles, hence the exaggerated status of Piper and the tolerance, excusing and minimizing of the glaring incongruities due to the refreshing edification in such areas. However, it appears to me that because of this reward other boundaries have simply been dismissed, other gates that must be kept have been loosely guarded and John Piper has been received as a grand fellow instead of a member whose contribution we must treat with some caution and distillation.

And it’s nice to see the kittens playing with the cast off yarn while the grown-ups do some work. :)

And it’s nice to see the kittens playing with the cast off yarn while the grown-ups do some work. :)

Well, even kittens grow up to be full sized cats occasionally. :)

Maybe these are notes that have gone unattended in fundie and C/E circles, hence the exaggerated status of Piper and the tolerance, excusing and minimizing of the glaring incongruities due to the refreshing edification in such areas. However, it appears to me that because of this reward other boundaries have simply been dismissed, other gates that must be kept have been loosely guarded and John Piper has been received as a grand fellow instead of a member whose contribution we must treat with some caution and distillation.

Did you see what I wrote? It’s hardly normative for someone to understand the errors of a teacher if they aren’t even aware of the errors. That’s kind of my whole point. As I said, I don’t know anything about the Toronto Blessing or about this supposed fascination with the charismatic ‘gifts of the spirit’. What I’m saying is that until I see evidence of this from Piper I’m not going to treat him like he’s in error. The invite to Warren is the first thing I’ve seen, so now I’ve got to put him on my proverbial radar.

That’s all I’m saying.