God speaking to the ELCA in "the whirlwind"?

And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind:

1 Kings 19:11.

I’m not surprised (or am I) by the strong negative reaction by many to Piper’s comments about the storm. See here: http://tinyurl.com/l5lx6u for a taste.

Guru Piper has just joined Robertson at “Club I’m A Prophet”. This is bad, very bad. As one blogger noted:

http://www.patrolmag.com/sessions/1786/john-piper-sees-signs-in-the-wind

I have a problem with this. I have read and respected Piper on several subjects, but we all know where things go when evangelicals start interpreting cataclysmic events as heavenly signs. Piper’s interpretation isn’t even hedged with “maybe” or “could be”; it baldly states God’s opinion and reactionary behavior as a matter of fact.

And the same blogger in responding to a self-justifying claim that Piper’s website is “dripping with humility” in handling the topic David Sessions soundly responded:

I don’t care about the nature of the reminder, whether it’s gentle or harsh or humble or something else. It’s a principle that no one takes seriously enough: you do not know what God meant by the weather or if he meant anything, and it’s arrogance (if not blasphemy) to claim you do. “Humility” is no excuse to say things you have no authority to say.

And sorry Nathan, but I don’t do wagon-circling. It’s not about being angry or tearing anyone down, but some things have to be said. Constant self-critique is the only way for any nation, institution, or church to maintain its standards.

I don’t think Piper is stating absolutely the tornado is due to the gay vote. He draws out the coincidence of the timing, and then says generally storms are controlled by God and a statement about the problem of sin. He said the storm should remind us all not to tolerate sin. He’s not exactly stating, “thus saith the LORD, the tornado is because…”. He’s written more carefully than that.

I see, when Piper states at the end his “prophetic” interpretation:

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us

He really wasn’t speaking conclusively regarding his interpretation? We are to believe he used the word conclusion, he drew a conclusion but he was not really making a conclusion that through the weather God was saying “thus and thus” to the ELCA though he clearly stated he was giving an interpretation and drew a conclusion at the end? That’s a pill with razors I am not willing to swallow.

And if Piper didn’t mean to convey he was trying to say this is what God was saying through his interpretation and conclusion then what was he saying? What was the purpose of his declarative article? What was the purpose of presenting the obvious that God “might” have been doing anything? If all you are saying is that God “might” have been doing this or that, you haven’t interpreted or concluded anything. You have taught nothing. “Might” is speculation, not interpretation and we are not free to “speculate”, especially regarding a role as a teacher and one now saying they are “interpreting” an event. What kind of teacher would do such a dance and then declare he wasn’t really dancing, he was just moving his legs. This then calls into question the trustworthy posture of such a teacher. Sorry that doesn’t jibe either.

I realize it is difficult to watch a sacred cow bleed, and though Piper’s theology is a mish-mash of Reformed doctrine, quasi-charismaticism, hyper-calvinism, divine sovereignty overloading and puritan asceticism and certainly in that lies many acceptable teachings, on this occasion, he exceeds the brittle foundations of his more eccentric and startling interpretations and is simply “out of bounds”.

[Jim Peet] Expanded … there was not revelatory content (on par with the authority of Scripture!) in the tornado. I’m not sure if Piper was really saying that or that he was saying that it was an unusual coincidence.

About a year ago, a horrible series of tornadoes went through this area and into Western Wisconsin. A small child was sucked from his bed and tossed into a nearby pond where he drowned.

Is God sovereign? Yes! Is God the author of sin? No! Can we say that in the grand scheme of things God’s will was accomplished (even in the tragic death of this child!)? Yes! Doesn’t all nature testify to God’s majesty and power? Yes! Was that tornado an illustration of man’s frailty and mortality? Yes! Was there a specific revelatory message in that tornado? No!

I think that he was just noting the unusual coincidence of the tornado occuring on the same day as the opening of the conference and at the exact spot where it was. I don’t think that he’s overreaching to argue that it may have been a sign from the Lord. If I had been at the ELCA, I would have absolutely wondered if God was in the wind, but then again, I don’t think that there are any people who are in the ELCA who believe in Biblical Inerrancy, so I wouldn’t have been there anyway. Well, that and I’m not a Lutheran :)

Those who are speaking out against Piper should probably question their own grasp of the Scripture before they question his. I only had to read 3-4 comments to get an accurate (and unflattering) picture of those who oppose him and his service to the Lord.

I just read Piper’s blog & the facts of the case, and I find it incredulous that fundamentalists are reluctant to see the hand of God in this! Have we so completely lost the “prophetic mantle” (to borrow from Klein’s book, Reclaiming the Prophetic Mantle) that we can’t draw such simple conclusions? I recall the comment of a very godly pastor & Bible teacher when he heard about the space shuttle Challenger disaster. He simply said, “The Lord is trying to get our nation’s attention.”

I firmly agree with Piper’s conclusion and see no harm in it whatsoever. To say that this particular freak tornado striking where it did and when it did sends a “message” from the God who controls the weather is warranted. Is it on par with written revelation? Unequivocally no.

[Jay C]
I think that he was just noting the unusual coincidence of the tornado occuring on the same day as the opening of the conference and at the exact spot where it was.

Well the problem is that ISN’T just what he was doing. I’ll be happy to read where he said that it is “an unusual coincidence”if you will show me where he did say that. On the other hand I will show you where he in fact he did not once approach it as a “coincidence” rather he asserts clearly that it is more than a coincidence stating:

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us

Unless of course you believe Piper is such a poor communicator that when he uses terms like “conclusion” he really means “unusual coincident” well, that’s another story.

However to be clear, I just called Desiring God ministries and the spokesperson with whom I spoke stated emphatically (after my making quite sure several times that I was asking if Piper meant to not go beyond pointing out it was just an “unusual coincidence”), that Piper was not trying to say that it was an unusual coincidence but meant more and just what he said, that:

The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us

So, Mr. Robertson, move over you have company.

If you PM me I will happily give you the name of the person with whom I spoke and the number to call (you can get it yourself from the web page if you aren’t interested in a PM exchange).

[Norm] Those who are speaking out against Piper should probably question their own grasp of the Scripture before they question his. I only had to read 3-4 comments to get an accurate (and unflattering) picture of those who oppose him and his service to the Lord.

You are conflagrating the issue by attempting to place it in a personal context so that you, by default, accuse anyone objecting of some personal agenda against Piper. No one is speaking out against Piper’s person, this isn’t a personal issue. Piper as a person isn’t being questioned, his judgment in this case and claim of being able to speak for God as to why God decrees weather for certain people at certain times, which requires additional revelation to speak conclusively (yes he made an assertion, built a case and ended with a conclusion) as Piper did, is what is being challenged. But again, Piper is open to the “Charismatic Chaos” as John MacArthur so aptly put it.

I read the blog post, and generally agreed with Mr. Piper right up to #6, and then I went http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif .

Noting the coincidence and wondering if God is trying to say something is one thing- declaring it as fact or special revelation is quite another.