I just came across this quote from John Piper, yes that John Piper, the one I used to engage with constantly here at this blog and other iterations of my blogging life. In this quote you will read something quite despicable; but it’s not foreign to the Reformed tradition. It’s what you get when you have a decretal conception of a God-world relation; i.e. a conception of God that sees him 
inter-linked to the world in a hierarchy of being, wherein he is Pure Being, and as such in order to keep him pristine he can only relate to the world, as Almighty, through a set of decrees that sovereignly order the world according to necessitarian and mechanical levers and handles of causation. In this conceiving of things God, in order for his ultimate sovereignty to be affirmed must be thought of as the author of all things; including the most heinous evils we could ever imagine. This is the type of God John Piper thinks from, and unfortunately he thinks this God for all who sit under his teaching. Take a look at this disturbing quote from him; you’ll find if you spend any time at all with Piper that quotes like this are common-place with him.
Disturbing right? This is what happens to your doctrine of divine providence when you have an underdeveloped or ontotheological (i.e. philosophically based) conception of Godself; you end up with a malformed notion of God that looks nothing like the God that has appeared in the face of Jesus Christ—indeed, as Thomas Torrance would say of Piper’s God, I’d imagine: ‘here we have a God behind the back of Jesus.’
I thought it might be instructive to share a bit from Cornelius van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink about the important role that the Trinity must take if we are going to responsibly and Christianly speak about God’s relation to the world (his providence) without falling into the deplorable error that Piper does in his misguided discussion of God. They write (we catch them midstream in a discussion about the same issue we are discussing):
Thus, for a long time the doctrine of providence remained detached from any proper biblical context. Even Adolf Hitler could appeal to it during the Second World War when he declared that, by providence, Germany was entering the era of the Third Reich. This is a deplorable example of how belief in providence, when isolated from its biblical context, can become a brutal ideology that plays into the hands of dictators and repressors. For such reasons, when reflecting on our faith today, we must emphatically articulate God’s providence in Trinitarian terms, from beginning to end. For all God’s acts ad extra—that is, directed toward creation—take place “from the Father through the Son in the Spirit” (Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium; NPNF 5:334). The common conviction that nothing happens accidentally, since everything is guided by a higher power, is not shared by all Christians and by many other spiritually inclined people. The doctrine of providence is no articulus mixtus, no “mixed” article that even non-Christians can to some extent understand and support. It has its own unique setting in the Christian faith—a setting of trust in the God whom we have learned to know in Jesus Christ and who, through his Spirit, shapes us to reflect his image. Only from this perspective can bold statements be made about the unlimited scope of God’s care. These statements never convey neutral information but are statements of faith.[1]
Kooi and Brink provide a proper framework through which Christians ought to think of God’s relation to the world (in his providential care) in and through; they rightfully identify what Piper fails to. Yes, Piper uses the language of God, but the conception of God he communicates, the informing theology he thinks God from, has more to do with a Stoic conception of God than it does with the God Self-revealed and exegeted for us in Jesus Christ (Jn 1.18). If we think of God’s providential care and relation to the world properly, as Christians, we do so thoroughly situated in the filial bond of the Father to the Son by the Holy Spirit; from the life we’ve been graciously invited into by the effervescent and effulgent life of God. It’s within this ‘space’ where we think about God’s interaction with the world; with us. If we approach God this way we don’t end up attributing the monstrous things that Piper has to God. We understand that God’s relation to the world is cruciform in shape, and we see God’s love demonstrated that way. We don’t think of God’s all-power in terms of the Actual Infinite or Pure Being God that Piper thinks from; we think of God’s power in terms of a God who humbled himself, became obedient to the point of death, as a man, that he might exalt humanity with and in his vicarious humanity that he assumed in the mediatorial and priestly humanity of Jesus Christ.
Piper has a doctrine of God at work in his understanding of providence and a God-world relation, it’s just that it’s a conception that is based on the god of the philosophers and not the God revealed in Jesus Christ. He means well, but his good intentions don’t make up for the despicable God he recounts for us in his understanding of God’s providence. He needs Jesus to evangelize his conception of God; if Piper had that we wouldn’t have to write up these types of posts.
[1] Cornelius van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 238-39.
*h/t. John Flett for spotting the Piper quote on Twitter. Truly, if you read Piper just for a minute you will realize that this quote isn’t cherry-picked from him, it in fact characterizes the demeanor of his theology.
Hi
I’m totally with you in finding Piper’s doctrine of God here difficult to take. Can you help me how to understand a better way of articulating God’s relation to evil. I have always found it hard to express when clearly and feel I get very muddled. Can you direct me to some good things to read.
Many Thanks
Joe H
Hi Joe,
Yes, there are things to read. Really the best way into this is to get a really good handle on who God is as Triune. I know theodicy is always a hot-topic, but for me the usually philosophical angles into trying to understand how God and evil can ever be in the same room never provide the type of genuinely Christian answers I think Christians should have. I hinted at all of this in the post in regard to thinking God in cruciform (from the cross) shape. But I’ll get back to you with some books I’d recommend to you with focus on developing a strong Trinitarian understanding of God. Once we have that we lose the kind of dilemmas that the so called problem of God/evil present us with. In other words, we don’t try and find a way through that morass through positing theories of causation etc that somehow get God off the hook. I think the cross, the Gospel actually is the greatest way for engaging with God/evil. But of course it requires more patience; it requires waiting on the Lord; walking by faith rather than sight and knowing that he’s already done what needs to be done to make all things new in the Son. His response to Job is also instructive in all of this; he doesn’t give a response. He doesn’t answer to our questions; he instead frames the questions. And on this issue he has framed it through the cross; that’s his answer to the evil in the world. And then we are to wait on him (Ps 27). But I’ll be back with some book recommends later.
Pingback: John Piper’s Conception of God (who ordains evil) Needs to Be Evangelized by Jesus — The Evangelical Calvinist | Talmidimblogging
Bobby, I think Jesus gave us some guidance on this in Luke 13:1-3, when he spoke about Pilate’s murder of th Galileans and those who died when the tower of Siloam fell on them. Instead of trying to explain these terrible events, he tells us to turn our hearts and minds to God, our only hope of life.
Jerome, yes, that’s the point of framing all of this within a filial bond and within the Triune relation of trust. We wait on God; we don’t hurry our way through trying to explain everything he does. That causes us to construct metaphysics and causations that end up distorting who he is.
Hi Bobby
Thanks so much for responding. I have been reading Job recently and was struck again by the way God answers Job. It’s almost frustrating as you read because I at least want a straightforward answer but that’s the problem of the miserable comforters and me too. Patience, waiting and pondering who God is seem to be what’s needed. I look forward to your recommended reading.
Many Thanks
Bobby, this was extremely helpful! I find when I read or hear these kinds of things from Piper et al., I have to climb over all my doubts I have about God’s goodness before I can even hear their message. It’s such a stumbling block for me, but I always chalk it up to my lack of understanding. So I read more of their material, hoping to find a loophole or something that can make that kind of God palatable, but I never find it. Like Joe, I’d like to know what you’d recommend to read re: this subject. I liked your response to Joe, especially, “and knowing that he’s already done what needs to be done to make all things new in the Son.” That helps “reboot” my spirit 😉 Eric
Thank you Joe and Eric!
Joe,
Yes, it is frustrating; I agree. That’s why I so often say (daily) Come Quickly, Jesus!. The book I’d recommend for getting a rich handle on God as Triune love is TF Torrance book The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. And then for issues orbiting around a theology of the cross and how I approach questions of God and evil from that vantage point (I have to apply the theology of the cross to that question so this book recommend doesn’t directly deal with the issue of theodicy, at least not in the usual apologetic or philosophical ways — ways I don’t follow personally at this point) I’d recommend either Alister McGrath’s Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough and/or Randal Zachman’s The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin.
https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Doctrine-Being-Persons-Cornerstones/dp/0567658074/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507765992&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+f+torrance+a+christian+doctrine+of+god
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=alister+mcgrath+theology+of+the+cross+luther
https://www.amazon.com/Assurance-Faith-Conscience-Theology-Martin/dp/0800625749/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507766215&sr=1-1&keywords=randall+zachman+calvin+luther+assurance
Again, you have to be creative, constructive, and imaginative to apply the theology you find in these books to your question more directly. But I find that that’s the best way to approach such things; from a confessional, Christian direction rather than trying to apply the categories of philosophy of religion to such questions. That’s much too abstract; we are Christians so we want to think Christianly about these things; we want to think as if the Triune God is the ground and grammar of all our epistemology, worship, and ethics. https://growrag.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/our-evangelical-calvinism-book-thesis-1-the-holy-trinity-is-the-absolute-ground-and-grammar-of-all-epistemology-theology-and-worship/
I hope those book recommends help you too, Eric.
Thanks for the book recommendation Bobby.
Bobby,
A great response and much needed corrective to a truly scary way of thinking about God. I’m not a Calvinist of any variety, and tend more in directions that most Calvinists would reject (Moltmann, Pinnock, Boyd, Oord). However, I do appreciate very much the writings of T.F. Torrance, and am glad that your group does so much to highlight his theology.
With your strong cruciform emphasis, I wonder if you have had a chance to read Greg Boyd’s ‘Crucifixion of the Warrior God.’ He says Moltmann is a primary influence for his views, but he clearly identifies Torrance as one he also draws upon for his cruciform centred hermeneutic. BTW, his book ‘Is God to Blame?’ is a full-fledged response to view’s like those expressed by Piper.
Bev,
I’ve read and listened to Boyd; I’m not a proponent of his open theist theology. I’m also not a fan of Moltmann, or that whole mood. We offer critique of Piper like theology, and more broadly, Federal theology from mostly historical theological directions. And yes TFT is a very important voice for us indeed. We aren’t your typical Calvinists; we don’t affirm Westminster styled theology. Nor do we affirm the kind of neo-Puritanism that Piper promotes. If you go to my categories in my sidebar here, and go to the category “critiquing classical Calvinism” a whole slew of posts will open up that will give you a further sense of where EC is coming from; or where I am coming from.
Bev,
And thank you.
Thanks Bobby. Mood is a useful word to apply to these various ways of seeing things. I guess we have different moods 🙂
Blessings,
Bev
Yes, Bev, I think the whole thing is quite moody. 😉