Context is everything. This is one of the fundamental lessons that you learn in seminary. Whether it is trying to determine how to translate a particular clause or understand someone's argument, you have to prioritize context. Consequently, I recognize that what I am about to say arises in response to a snippet of one of John Piper's sermons, which is making its rounds throughout social media. It is, technically speaking, "out of context." However, sometimes you do not need the whole context to respond. This is one of those instances. However, I must say that when you consider the context of Piper--that is this snippet in relationship to his other work--what appears to be erratic and fallacious statements are pacified...at least to some extent.
You can find the snippet of Piper's sermon here, but lets unpack it a little bit.
This snippet starts out by asking the audience to consider how many people truly strive to know God on an intimate level. The principle that he is emphasizing is that a true knowledge of God, personally and intimately, corresponds to the reduction of sin in one's life. He comes full circle and caps his point off with a pithy, but negative, statement about fighting graduate schools sins with a grammar school knowledge of God. In other words, you cannot expect gain the upper hand over sin if you carry with you a superficial knowledge of God. Yet he then offers another statement that, in turn, takes him in another direction. He offers a hypothetical question, and with his answer Piper discloses his conviction that more PhDs in theology commit adultery than average people. How can this be? Piper states that it is because they do not know God. He then quickly moves into a very animated and emotional rant about how reading theology does not translate to a personal and intimate knowledge of God, which essentially ends the clip.
On the one hand, I can certainly sympathize with the principle that a personal and intimate encounter with God directly corresponds with the reduction of sin's potency in one's life. Furthermore, I can get on board with the concept that reading theology, and lots of it, does not ensure that you will have the life-changing encounters with Christ necessary for a vibrant spiritual life. In fact, some of my recent posts have addressed this issue, albeit in directly and from different angles. Academics must remember the priorities of the kingdom as well as the joys involved with serving Christ. What makes me squirm a bit is his "left turn" that ultimately targets PhDs and, at least initially, leads to some suggestions that do more harm than good.
Why does he raise the PhD/adultery connection? If you look, he pauses before he introduces this connection through his hypothetical question. This suggests that there is something feeding this. Does he have some data that suggests an increased tendency of moral failings among academics? Does he know people personally that suffer from such failings? Or, is there something else? Unfortunately, it is difficult to tell. Nevertheless, an inevitable implication is that somehow graduate level education hinders one's ability to have a personal and intimate connection with God, and thus true knowledge of him. If this snippet is indicative of Piper's general position, then it irks me, particularly since it perpetuates a certain set of stereo-types that do intensify the rift between the academy and the pulpit.
But there is more to Piper, and I think that this may be the key to understanding what are otherwise erratic and frustrating comments. In his book Think, Piper offers elements of his personal journey, which includes his own transition from the academy to the pulpit. Furthermore, this book clearly emphasizes that following God requires intellect, balanced by personal encounters and intimacy, but intellect nonetheless. So, ultimately, context appears to be key yet again, and the context is Piper's work as a while. Despite the comments provided in this snippet, which come across baldly, I hesitate to call Piper a classic anti-intellectual.
So, I am going to fight some initial reactions and give the benefit of the doubt to Piper, that he is just trying to make a point by using a scenario that is rhetorically effective. [If you want to hammer home the point that reading about God does not ensure intimately connecting and personally knowing him, then use an academic (someone who makes a living on studying theology) as the perpetrator.] However, he could have made his point more efficiently. The reality is that there is a history of people in the church caricaturing academics as modern day Pharisees. I am not saying ground for this do not exist (for all stereotyping has some root in reality), but there comes a point when one's personal vendettas and/or experiences produce straw-men and thus become disingenuous. The little snippet that is making its way through social media certainly gives the impression that Piper has an ax to grind and is taking shots at PhDs across the board.
I will admit that initially, I was fired up about this clip. However, the more that I watched it and the more that I pondered it, I am not so frustrated. With Piper there is plenty to debate, particularly about what I believe to be his dangerous views on election/predestination. This example appears to be one where he would have avoided a lot of criticism if he just would have made his point more clearly.
You can find the snippet of Piper's sermon here, but lets unpack it a little bit.
This snippet starts out by asking the audience to consider how many people truly strive to know God on an intimate level. The principle that he is emphasizing is that a true knowledge of God, personally and intimately, corresponds to the reduction of sin in one's life. He comes full circle and caps his point off with a pithy, but negative, statement about fighting graduate schools sins with a grammar school knowledge of God. In other words, you cannot expect gain the upper hand over sin if you carry with you a superficial knowledge of God. Yet he then offers another statement that, in turn, takes him in another direction. He offers a hypothetical question, and with his answer Piper discloses his conviction that more PhDs in theology commit adultery than average people. How can this be? Piper states that it is because they do not know God. He then quickly moves into a very animated and emotional rant about how reading theology does not translate to a personal and intimate knowledge of God, which essentially ends the clip.
On the one hand, I can certainly sympathize with the principle that a personal and intimate encounter with God directly corresponds with the reduction of sin's potency in one's life. Furthermore, I can get on board with the concept that reading theology, and lots of it, does not ensure that you will have the life-changing encounters with Christ necessary for a vibrant spiritual life. In fact, some of my recent posts have addressed this issue, albeit in directly and from different angles. Academics must remember the priorities of the kingdom as well as the joys involved with serving Christ. What makes me squirm a bit is his "left turn" that ultimately targets PhDs and, at least initially, leads to some suggestions that do more harm than good.
Why does he raise the PhD/adultery connection? If you look, he pauses before he introduces this connection through his hypothetical question. This suggests that there is something feeding this. Does he have some data that suggests an increased tendency of moral failings among academics? Does he know people personally that suffer from such failings? Or, is there something else? Unfortunately, it is difficult to tell. Nevertheless, an inevitable implication is that somehow graduate level education hinders one's ability to have a personal and intimate connection with God, and thus true knowledge of him. If this snippet is indicative of Piper's general position, then it irks me, particularly since it perpetuates a certain set of stereo-types that do intensify the rift between the academy and the pulpit.
But there is more to Piper, and I think that this may be the key to understanding what are otherwise erratic and frustrating comments. In his book Think, Piper offers elements of his personal journey, which includes his own transition from the academy to the pulpit. Furthermore, this book clearly emphasizes that following God requires intellect, balanced by personal encounters and intimacy, but intellect nonetheless. So, ultimately, context appears to be key yet again, and the context is Piper's work as a while. Despite the comments provided in this snippet, which come across baldly, I hesitate to call Piper a classic anti-intellectual.
So, I am going to fight some initial reactions and give the benefit of the doubt to Piper, that he is just trying to make a point by using a scenario that is rhetorically effective. [If you want to hammer home the point that reading about God does not ensure intimately connecting and personally knowing him, then use an academic (someone who makes a living on studying theology) as the perpetrator.] However, he could have made his point more efficiently. The reality is that there is a history of people in the church caricaturing academics as modern day Pharisees. I am not saying ground for this do not exist (for all stereotyping has some root in reality), but there comes a point when one's personal vendettas and/or experiences produce straw-men and thus become disingenuous. The little snippet that is making its way through social media certainly gives the impression that Piper has an ax to grind and is taking shots at PhDs across the board.
I will admit that initially, I was fired up about this clip. However, the more that I watched it and the more that I pondered it, I am not so frustrated. With Piper there is plenty to debate, particularly about what I believe to be his dangerous views on election/predestination. This example appears to be one where he would have avoided a lot of criticism if he just would have made his point more clearly.
