What do you think God thinks about John Piper? Some times, often times, I think we think that since certain pastors have huge followings; that this is a sign that somehow this 
particular preacher/teacher has beenΒ anointedΒ of God in a special way. In the Calvary Chapel movement (a movement essentially founded by Chuck Smith out of Costa Mesa/Santa Ana, CA—I attended there for awhile), they follow what is known as the “Moses model;” wherein the senior (nowadays “lead”) pastor is known to have a special anointing of God on them and their ministry—much like Moses (this is a self conscious designation and model that is intentionally followed within many Calvary Chapels). The result is that if someone wanted to question a doctrinal point that someone like Chuck Smith might hold and articulate; then that person is not simply questioning the man, Chuck Smith. But that person is questioning God’s anointed (and thus God) himself! I think there is transference to this model of ministry (and theory of authority) along most of the continuum of what we know as Evangelical Christianity in America. I think John Piper has come to carry, for many, Moses’ anointing; so that if someone wants to question John Piper’s teaching, then that someone is now questioning God’s anointed and anointing. The Pope could be said to be someone who has Moses’ anointing too; couldn’t he?
Theologie der krisis
πππππ’π π·ππ πππππ‘ ππ πππ‘ππππ’π. ππ‘π ππ¨π«π π¨π ππ¨π π°π’π₯π₯ π₯ππ¬π ππ¨π«ππ―ππ«.
People are prone to be sheep. Looking for a shepherd they find one they like. Then following becomes much easier.
Wow, Jon, you don’t waste time π .
Yes, there is a certain sociology to it (I mean look at my header at the blog here for goodness sake π ). But I think the point of this post is trying to press a little deeper than that; it’s the unquestioned role certain men are given, in normative ways, that is deeply problematic. I think we could make the same case for the way that Evangelicals collapse their particular tradition into the Scriptures; as if their interpretive schema is Scripture … without the capacity to critically distinguish between the two. I think this is exactly what happens with the so called ‘Moses model’ and it is deeply troubling and dangerous! I think pastors only have a derivative authority; derived insofar as they “accurately” communicate and live the Gospel. Beyond that, they don’t have a platform from God to lead with a blank check so to speak.
I agree. I have seen this Moses model in action in very detrimental ways. On the positive side there is an anointing on guys like Smith and Piper. How we respect and relate to them is where we need to be more careful and less “idolizing”.
I am always amazed at how slavishly some people will follow others, whether Christian or not, human history is replete with excessive devotion to strong leaders for good and ill.
Yes, Bobby, I agree there is a lot of that with many pastors. However, John Piper’s humility – or honest struggles to be humble – also add to that feeling of trust for many. I personally disagree with John Piper on a number of things but I admire his willingness to admit his faults, his desire to follow God wholeheartedly, and his desire to be pastorally responsible even with some of the things he believes that don’t immediately strike one as pastoral.
Hey Bobby,
One of my close friends, Scott Anderson, is the director of Desiring God Ministries, and I can tell you that Piper struggles with his notoriety. He doesn’t look at himself as a Moses figure, or at least tries not to. He is open to correction and does take it from people in his church, and has been known to go and ask forgiveness from people who work for him. He is not a perfect man, but I do respect him as a christian brother, though I don’t agree with him on a lot of things. I could tell you many stories about him that would make you respect him as a man.
I do think he comes across as if he is the pastor of the world, which bothers me.
I also know many people that are not willing to hear anything negative about him, and that troubles me as well.
That’s my two cents:-)
Hey Bobby
I believe that the only one especially anointed in the Spirit is Jesus who created all things and in whom all things consist.
I do not look at another person as anointed, your blog makes a good point why there is not a single person on this planet who can handle this; we all spend too much time thinking about ourselves in our own βI am notβ delusions. I also believe that people can come to participate in the βI amβ anointed ministry of Jesus with the wonderful gifts poured out upon mankind.
Baxter Kruger makes some astonishing statements in regards to the two quotes in a recent video. You can find this at http://www.gci.org
@Jon,
When you say ‘anointing’ what do you mean, and where in scripture do you find something like this in the normativizing ways that we see so many pentecostals and charismatics forwarding today?
@Ali,
You’re right; Piper is very transparent, and forth right about issues he struggles with etc. I am sure that that is part of his appeal and charisma.
@Steve,
You highlight a good point; often times it’s not the leader himself who is intentionally trying to project some sort of ‘Moses model’; instead it is those around him who impose that upon him. So this works both ways; this is the problem that needs addressing, on either end, folks, I think need to be willing to critically (and I just mean thoughtfully) engage whoever the ‘sit under’. I actually think it’s the lazy man’s way out to mindlessly sit under particular teachers; that way the teacher can do all the donkey work that the ‘student’ or ‘congregant’ should really be doing on their own. And yet, there is obviously a place for teacher/preachers in the body of Christ; and they ought to have a special respect, given the office they hold—but again, I see this tied into how far they reflect the Gospel or not. This is why I challenge Piper for example; I think he has some key points on the Gospel, wrong (as far as the most fundamental, that is his doctrine of God).
@John,
Thank you; I like the doctrine of vicariousness that underlies the thrust of your comment. What you’re saying definitely ties into the Protestant understanding of ‘The Priesthood of all Believers’. Nice. I’ll check out Kruger. And thank you for those links via email, as well … I think that was you π .
Blessings, all.
By the way, the picture in the post is of ‘Luther’s Pope’ Leo X. My usage of him was intentional, relative to the idea that maybe the Reformation ought to continue at certain levels … semper reformanda, sola scriptura, solus Christus!
By the way, by the way; I think God absolutely loves John Piper, as He does all of us! But, I humbly remark, I don’t think the LORD is happy with Piper’s understanding of Him as God for God—the cross clearly reveals otherwise, i.e. that God is pro nobis, for us in Christ. This is not to say that God needs us to be God, but he has chosen not to be God without us, in Christ! This is very very very significant and important distinction and nuance; nuance that is absent in Piper’s construal of things … and I think to the detriment who consider Piper, Moses.
Bobby, Charismatics usually use anointing to refer to special empowerment from the Holy Spirit. John uses it twice in such a way as to be inclusive for all believers.
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. 1 John 2:20
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. 1John 2:27
Both references are speaking of knowing the truth. I used the term to reference a charisma or gifting for their ministry. 1Cor. 12, Eph. 4. Rom. 12
Anointing is really another term for the presence and equipping of the Holy Spirit. So I firmly believe Piper is anointed by the Holy Spirit. His ministry is empowered by the Holy Spirit. That does not make him infallible.
So yeah, I got sloppy in my terminology, but it was late. π
We are all filled with and equipped by the Holy Spirit, ‘anointed by’ and empowered by that Spirit. Different gifts, different callings – one body, one Spirit, When the early church tried to say “I’m of Paul” or “I’m of Apollos,” Paul had a fit.
Celebrity is king in our culture, and it can easily rear its worldly head in the church.
Servanthood is king in God’s kingdom, the “Upside Down Kingdom” (Kraybill).
@Jon,
Thank you. I understand, how charismatics use it—in fact I think this is how Calvary Chapel uses it in a modified specially applied way toward their leadership.
We’re all sloppy; that’s why we’re on a blog right now π … it’s okay to be bloggy on a blog.
@Trin,
Amen; the great reversal!
Yes and no. While the pope has, in company with all the bishops, the Episcopal charism (thus the pope and bishops, insofar as the office is considered, are believed to be protected from error by the holy spirit). However, a catholic can always in principle disagree legitimately with the pope, or any other priest, so long as they are not, in so doing, disagreeing with the Church. The pope is not infallible in virtue of the papal office: the papal office is, on peculiar occasions, infallible in virtue of the nature of the Church. Thus the catechism says that all bishops are infallible in this sense.
However, though there is no special anointing for the pope (sacramentally, he’s just a priest), there is a sense in which there is an analogy of authority from Moses and Israel’s priesthood to the Catholic Church and her priesthood.
@Tyler,
Thanks. Yes, theolougemna is always an aspect of what has made the Church (even the Roman Catholic π ) what the Church is becoming. Disagreement didn’t turn out so well for Kung, but von Balthasar is an example of how creative Catholic genius can be amenable within the Catholic church.
Yes, I agree with you; this ultimately comes to an ecclesiological question and the esse of the concrete reality of the Church (of course we depart at this point!). Thank you for your Roman Catholic insight on this, Tyler.