If the title alone doesn't cause you to look elsewhere for intellectual stimulation, then allow me opine further, in order to share several thoughts about a recent online exchange between two men that I respect tremendously. In an August 2009 blog entry, Pastor Greg Boyd criticized Pastor John Piper’s own online declaration (both links are below), related to the tornado that struck the Minneapolis Convention Center and the nearby Central Lutheran Church at the precise moment that the ELCA Churchwide Assembly was scheduled to begin debating controversial measures (the ELCA later approved those measures, which allow churches to perform sex unions and hire non-celibate, homosexual clergy). For Piper, God ordained the tornado as a means of judgment upon the ELCA, because of that institution’s endorsement of a sinful behavior. Though Boyd shares Piper’s traditional views of sexuality, he disagreed with Piper’s meteorological analysis and prophetic interpretation. Boyd pointed to other tornadoes that struck the metro at the same time, and to tornado-prone states like Oklahoma, rejecting the idea that tornadic activity discernibly points to Divine judgment. Boyd further declared that if God were to judge His people in such ways, He wouldn't leave out the many suburban churches who fail to adequately assist the poor, nor would he spare such places as sex-slave houses.
At this point I became confused. Boyd seems to assert that congregations who fall short in their charge to help the poor (for Boyd, many churches “condone, if not Christianize, greed and apathy toward the poor”) are as if not more deserving of judgment than a denomination that formally affirms same-gender intercourse (the latter, according to traditionalists, constitutes a formal endorsement of sin). This is a troubling comparison, which reeks of the same judgmentalism of which Boyd accuses Piper. While all of us fall short in serving the poor, I'm aware of no church that has formally declared a policy of ignoring, harming, or trampling the poor. Quite the opposite. I’ve worked in a handful of congregations over the past decade, and each has tried to help the poor while struggling to pay their own bills, and every one of them would confess to falling short and would ask for God’s forgiving guidance in the future. To compare every congregation's ongoing struggle to love the poor with a denomination officially rejecting thousands of years of orthodox, biblical teaching, is a saddening mischaracterization that utterly distorts the issue.
Further, in making his case, Boyd cites the number of times in which poverty is mentioned in the bible, which apparently should lead us to prioritize that issue over and against homosexuality, which is “only” condemned in a half dozen biblical passages. To this I say: beware of quantity hermeneutics, or the method of biblical interpretation that boils everything down to raw numbers. The idea that one should afford more value to biblical words of concepts just because they are often repeated is difficult to absorb. The word “Trinity,” for example, appears nowhere in the bible, while the word “shoes” appears 21 times. Am I to assume that my smelly sneakers (don’t get my daughter started on that) are at least 21 times more important than the Trinity? And the word “Savior” is mentioned only 37 times in the bible, while the name “Saul” appears 391 times. Which would you say is more important? Further, Jesus’ crucifixion is given very little space in the overall length of the gospels, but few would disagree that the brief story of Jesus on the cross is the most important story in scripture, around which every other passage takes its proper place.And while homosexual activity is specifically condemned “only” 5 times throughout the Old and New Testament, heterosexual marriage is affirmed constantly, repeatedly used as a powerful metaphor for the Kingdom of God and for God’s covenantal relationship with His people. To me, this means that God's affirmation of marriage and sexuality—and His boundaries around them—are a central biblical theme of significant importance.
Come to think of it, I would expect a biblically-minded leader like Boyd to more clearly articulate his concerns about the ELCA's treatment of sexuality. In his blog entry, he merely remarks that homosexuality “should not be affirmed as God’s ideal,” saying nothing about the ELCA’s decision itself or the impact it will have on the wider Body of Christ. For if the ELCA's new teaching (which passed by a single vote at the assembly) amounts to the rejection of essential biblical principles, which have been foundational in and beyond the church for thousands of years, then that teaching points to a paradigm shift in which no biblical ideal is safe from critical revision, including the many verses dealing with poverty. Moreover, Boyd ignores the connection between poverty and the breakdown of marriage, as the misuse of sex and the deterioration of the family structure directly correlate to serious social problems, such as crime, chemical abuse, violence, and yes, poverty.
Boyd really lost me in his discussion of Mark 4:41, a passage cited by Piper, in which Jesus silences the wind and sea. Boyd asserts, contrary to Piper, that the Greek word for "silence" (which can mean 'to muzzle') refutes the idea that God is in complete control of severe storms. For Boyd, since Jesus "sometimes" uses this word when confronting demons, it means that "some life-threatening storms have a demonic purpose behind them that resists God's good purposes." But this theory is packed full of problems. First, the word for "silence" is used by Jesus in Mark 1:25 and Luke 4:35 to cast out demons. That's it. The other five biblical references of this word have nothing to do with demons. They include a "speachless" man (Matt 22:12), Jesus' "silencing" of the Sadducees (Matt 22:34), Jesus' calming the storm here in Mark 4:39, the literal, "muzzling" an ox (I Tim 5:18), and the "silencing" of ignorant talk (I Peter 2:15). How Boyd is able to assemble these references into a theory for demonic storm-control is beyond me. Further, while Boyd rejects Piper's assertion that God might send a particular life-threatening storm, Boyd seems more than comfortable with the devil doing so. Would Boyd have us believe that God does not or cannot send such storms, while the devil can and does? If so, can he point us to a biblical passage in which Satan, and not God, causes (as God does with the Exodus plagues) or approves (as God does in Job) such cosmic signs and calamities?
As a side note, I'm a born and raised Lutheran, and I appreciate Luther's tendency in this area. He saw both Satan and God as capable of causing cosmic events, but he constantly rejected speculation. Luther refused to identify the nature and will of God beyond that which He revealed in the Cross of Jesus. At its core, Lutheran theology rejects speculation about God's will outside of Christ's redeptive act, as well as the formulation of obscure theories for the demonic.
I was also intrigued by both pastors’ analysis of Luke 13:4-5. As Boyd notes, Piper seems to forget that Jesus was telling this story in part to reject the confident speculation about God's will in times of tragedy. On the other hand, while Boyd acknowledges Jesus' call for repentance in this passage, Boyd eliminates the possibility that this call may extend beyond the individual, to a group or even a denomination, and that God may call His people to repentance through other Christians. Boyd essentially boils the passage down to the popular yet simplistic bumper sticker "don't judge," which has so paralyzed the church in recent years. Does Boyd intend to assert that personal repentance is the only application of this and other passages dealing with sin and repentance? Does he honestly believe that the only plausible response to the unfaithfulness or false teachings that one might encounter in the Body of Christ is private confession? Does he not see the countless examples in scripture in which Christians are called to humbly identify and boldly deal with unfaithfulness in the Christian flock? Though Boyd rightly calls us to join Paul the Apostle in seeing ourselves as the ‘worst of sinners,’ he ignores the amount of ink that Paul himself devoted to calling others to repent from false teaching or sinful behavior. I’ve heard Greg Boyd preach, and he’s excellent. And I assure you, he does far more in the pulpit than acknowledge his own failures and call himself to personal repentance. And obviously, the same is true with his blog!
Repentance must start with the individual, but since I don't live in a phone booth, it cannot end there. Yes, each of us must humbly take note of the undefined calamity around us, and because of it be driven to the Son of God in repentance. But we also must lovingly call our fellow Christians to repent when we see them stumbling. Ironically, Boyd quotes Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:4 (in which Jesus rebukes those who point to the speck in another person’s eye without noticing the plank in their own eye), but Boyd completely misses verse 5: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Jesus expects His followers to both reject Sin in their own lives, and to lovingly and humbly call one another to do the same (just as Boyd does with the issue of poverty). To reject one in favor of the other is to selectively interpret God’s Word.
I would part ways with Piper on this point: Unless he is directly relaying a prophetic Word from God, he goes a step too far in asserting with presumed certainty that God issued the tornado to judge the ELCA Assembly. I dare not declare any Divine purpose in nature that God has not declared Himself or through an appointed messenger. However, Boyd is wrong to reject the possibility that God may in fact have been speaking through this storm. If Boyd claims to value that which is repeated often in scripture, he should take careful notice of the regularity in which God judges His people through natural phenomena. Few of us possess the prophetic gifts and wisdom to declare God's will in everyday events with certainty, but all of us should stand aside and humbly ask what God might be doing, and then prayerfully go to God's Word for guidance. Ironically, in declaring that God was NOT speaking through the tornado, Boyd commits the same error for which he accuses Piper, which is to stand above worldly events and dictate the activity (or inactivity) of God.
One final issue should be dealt with on this subject. I’m concerned that important justice themes like “poverty” are too often used a sort of trump card, a rhetorical device and discussion-stopper, rather than a topic of prayerful importance. If we are to fully acknowledge and honor the poor, we shouldn't insert that subject into other conversations as a means of striking guilt into our opponents or cutting off an otherwise healthy dialogue. Poverty issues are of critical importance to our nation and church, deserving of our respect and attention. However, the topic of “poverty” shouldn't prevent other important discussions. In fact, Jesus forbids it. In Matthew 26:11, the disciples ridicule a woman for anointing Jesus with expensive oil, arguing that she should have sold the oil and given it to the poor instead. But Jesus says, “Why are you bothering this woman. She has done a beautiful thing to me.” For Jesus, there are avenues of fidelity in addition to caring for the poor, which have their proper place in the Christian life. Jesus goes on, “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”
The ongoing reality of poverty shouldn't trivialize discussions about faithfulness to God in other critical areas, including marriage and sexuality. Jesus reminds us that we will always have the poor among us, and He commands us to care for them; but he also gave us the Great Commission, called us to reject sin, and reminds us to place no agenda or activity above worshipping God with our lives and bodies. The ever-present reality of poverty should never be used to downplay other aspects of Christian discipleship, nor should it prompt us to become apathetic in the face of false teaching. On the one hand, Jesus expects and commands us to help the poor among us; on the other, he expects us to be faithful to His Word. We are not given the authority to choose one over the other.
John Piper's blog:
Greg Boyd's blog:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great! Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDelete