John Piper: line by line deconstruction

John Piper is an esteemed Christian theologian, especially by those in evangelical circles. He founded the organization and website Desiring God. He is a contributor to The Gospel Coalition. I think North Creek Church, a local church which informed much of the theology I was taught in high school, treats him more or less in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church treats the Virgin Mary.

He is also literally the worst.

He recently gave this abhorrent talk. Fortunately, it had been transcribed so I didn't have to suffer through hearing someone actually say the words aloud. There were so many points of contention that I thought it merited a post for me to organize my thoughts on the content.

Here we go.

"If you know God, and his greatness, and his wrath, holiness, justice, wrath, grace, you will tremble in his presence."

Okay, so I actually did press play to hear this to see if "wrath" was really said twice, or if that was just a typo. Nope, he really said it twice, the second instance a mere three words apart from the first within the same list. Maybe he just accidentally re-read a line of his sermon notes, but that's being gracious. More likely, it wasn't a mistake, and it communicates something about his underlying view of who God is.

"Mainly, I’m talking to dads, and the moms who have to play Dad the best you can: get other men around you, who can help you do it."

Translation: Ladies, you don't know how to raise your own children. Find a man--literally, my only criterion is that this person must be a man--to teach kids to live in perpetual fear. It'll be great, I swear.

"Dads, help your children tremble with joy in the presence of God. I have one means to suggest for how to do it. Fathers, be the kind of father that your children delight to fear."

"Tremble with joy." That statement by itself maybe could be stretched to mean "help your children be so in love with God that they tremble with joy and excitement to be in his presence." Except that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about trembling with fear. Which, believe it or not Mr. Piper, cannot coincide with joy. Just as "delight to fear" is also an oxymoron. There is a verse in your holy book that says "There is no fear in love. But perfect love casts out fear". What do you do with that one?

"I am God to my children until they know better."

Um, what? This kind of thinking got all kinds of people in the Bible into trouble. Like the King of Babylon (or Satan/Lucifer, depending on how you interpret that passage), the King of Tyre, the Pharaoh of Egypt, James and John, and this dude here.

"If they only fear you and there’s no delight in it, it’s wrong and dysfunctional. If they only delight in you and there’s no fear in it, it’s wrong and dysfunctional. In both cases, you have made it very difficult for them to embrace the true God."

As if parenthood isn't already hard enough by itself, you now have to ride this ridiculously fine line. Somehow, this is all I can think of:

"That’s a high calling, which means, there must be wrath and there must be compassion. The children must learn it."

Hey dads, you've just gotten a free pass to have your frustration with your kids be totally unchecked. Feel free to act on your anger and frustration; in fact, you are compelled to act upon them. That's definitely not going to mess up your kids' mental health at all. (Special note: this isn't the first article that I've read by Mr. Piper in which he legitimizes and encourages cultivating anxiety in your children.)

"Why? Because that’s the way God is. Hebrews 12:6: 'The Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.'"

Manipulating this verse in this way is quite triggering for me. It's the exact justification my Christian fraternity gave me for its abusive actions. The counterargument is simple: you're substituting "earthly fathers" (or "the fraternity") for "The Lord". That's kind of blasphemous. Although, apparently the implication of substituting yourself for "The Lord" isn't clear to Mr. Piper. See three points ago.

"That’s why little babies have fat bottoms."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL WHAT THE FUCK

No, but seriously, what the fuck!?

So Mr. Piper is an expert in the evolutionary processes that have made the human buttocks develop in the fashion that it does. And evidently, corporal punishment applied to the buttocks is the evolutionary function of babies' extra body fat. Assuming this is true, it begs the question: why not apply corporal punishment to a baby's lower legs? Or to their cheeks? Or to the backs of their necks? You know, other places where babies have large stores of fat.

Implicit in this statement is that the buttocks is where and how you should discipline your child.

"You also read in the Bible Ephesians 6:4: 'Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.' Do you hear that phrase? 'Bring them up in the discipline of the Lord.' This is not yours, this is God's. You are playing God here. 'You are representing me there,' God says. 'So, bring them up in my discipline, in such a way that they don’t get angry, but delight in your discipline.'"

There's a disproportionate focus on the "discipline" aspect of the verse, rather than the "do not provoke your children to anger".

"Fathers are to represent God so that children will come to believe in hell and heaven and Christ through Dad."

Just going to point out that "hell" was listed before "heaven". And that the danger of hellfire was listed before the mention of Christ/grace.

"So, I think we want our children to delight to fear us. In a store--where of course if you spank them, you’ll get arrested--our eyes should be able to do it. Your eyes are like lightning ready to strike."

Make sure that your kids develop a negative Pavlovian response to your mere gaze. That's really healthy for a parent-child relationship.

And, of course, nevermind that underlying that statement is the idea that it is a shame that we can't spank our kids in public.

"I want them to say, 'Daddy, disobeying you is a fearful thing, and I am thankful that it is. But oh, what a sanctuary you are to me. How I love to live in the light of your strength and joy.'"

Twisted, twisted, twisted. Also, who the fuck talks like that?



I originally also had a retort to the final sentence of the article, but I can't remember what it is now. Oh well. I think I've covered all of my instinctive reactions that I had when I first read the article.

John Piper is insane, I know that. So why am I picking a fight with him? Because people in the church revere his evil statements, and religion grants him a blanket of protection for his destructive ideology. Until madmen are universally recognized as such, it is essential to explain to their adherents why they are madmen.

White gays are the worst.

Right, so fairly recently, an incident at Toledo Pride occurred which made its rounds on the internet a couple weeks ago.

Ok, so maybe it was only a part of the internet that I see, but whatever.

The story goes like this: a black guy starts talking to a white guy on Grindr who is in an open relationship. At some point, the white guy's boyfriend takes his boyfriend's phone and tells the black guy...

You know what, I'll just let the barrage of Grindr messages speak for itself.

"Even if we were looking for a threesome, we would never hookup with someone like you… we don’t like dark skin, or dark burn culture. We are classy like America. We don’t twerk and do stupid shit that fat black people do. We are civilised people. Please don’t bring your burn culture into ours its already good thanks. Blacks are too dark and have ruined beauty for us queers. Take ur fried chicken and fatty foods elsewhere away from us. You nigers…you can’t even get a nice job. You all are so poor. Can’t even afford a new car. Black people have black skin and is nasty and discussing and unappealing. Stop talking to us whites. We don’t want dark or burnt skinned friends or sex partners… Blacks are unattractive and ugly to even look at… Like you don’t deserve to have the attention of a white man…. I don’t want my clean big dick in some dark boy pussy or black skinned mouth. I would feel ashamed and disgusted."

Source: PinkNews

So, the gay community has a problem with racism. What else is new?

I figured common sense would lead anyone to condemn this racist treatment. But no. Instead, this guy decides to voice his opinion on the matter.

Here's my summary of the article: Well, black guys are racist too!

Okay, maybe, but that doesn't mean that the above Grindr message was remotely okay. Nowhere was there any condemnation of the message. Instead, the writer seems to blame black men who are only into white guys for the message.

Yes, rigid sexual preferences that neither allow for exceptions nor are open to change ("I only date white guys" or "I only date uncut") should indeed be denounced. But they should be denounced on all sides, including the white asshole who authored the message above. Why is it that black men who pursue only white guys are critiqued, whereas white men who pursue only white guys are not, even though both have been socialized to automatically view white as desirable?

All I wanted was for the author of the response article to express disapproval for the author of the Grindr messages. Instead, the burden of fixing internalized racism falls on black men, rather than on those who have substantially more power and representation in the gay community.

And, I know I'm treading dangerous waters, as the guy who wrote that article is black, but you don't get to call black men out for racially biased sexual preferences and also call them "coons" in the same breath. Just, no.