The day after a Cat 5 tornado devastated parts of Oklahoma, former pastor John Piper tweeted this verse from the Book of Job, which he has since removed from his feed:
I wouldn’t have thought anything of this except Piper has a history of making insensitive, ill-timed, and, frankly, ghoulish comments hot on the heals of national tragedy based on his understanding of the sovereignty of God—a view which requires God to be the architect of tsunamis, tornados…and bridge collapses. Scot McKnight calls this view the “meticulous” sovereignty of God.
I’m reposting this post that I wrote Sept 20, 2007 after the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse and after Piper made similarly insensitive, ill-timed, ghoulish comments. I reject Piper’s and other Reformers’ view of God’s sovereignty, and I especially reject the manner in which they wield that doctrine in the midst of suffering and tragedy.
UPDATE 2: I’ve since posted a more exhaustive article on a Christian response to Evil.
UPDATE: This post stems from one I wrote last week called, “Where Was God In Minneapolis?” for those wondering my own response as an alternative to Piper’s.
I like many Americans am still fixed on the events from a week ago in Minneapolis. I am especially interested in how the Christian community responds, because we all know it has a soiled track record on responding well to pain and tragedy and hopeless world events.
Let’s have a little review: a few days after 9/11 a certain Evangelical leader blamed this tragedy on gays and feminists; after Hurricane Katrina, some other prominent Christian leaders said God wiped out New Orleans as judgment for their sins, mostly because of Burbon Street shenanigans and abortionists; and yet others swear the catastrophe in Iraq is an omen (well, I guess Christians don’t call them omens, but rather “signs of the times”) of the immanent return of Jesus and impending Seven Years of Tribulation, complete with the 666, Armageddon, and all.
Now John Piper, another Christian leader has written an interesting analysis of the spiritual implications of the Minneapolis, Minnesota bridge collapse for that community. I guess it makes sense since his church, Bethlehem Baptist church, is within sight of the bridge and his Desiring God offices are within a mile. His response is both pastoral and theological, with a bit of a theological tilt sans pastoral sensitivity.
I respect John Piper and know of plenty of people who have been ministered to by his books. I appreciate his heart for people and commitment to Jesus and seeing people restored to relationship to God through Jesus’ life and death. So I am not a hater and do not have a bone to pick with Pastor Piper.
But one of his latest blog posts entitled “Putting My Daughter To Bed Two Hours After The Bridge Collapse,” on desiringgod.org really has me confused. And in light of a previous post, I believe he’s wrong in his response and analysis. (How’s that for nice click bait!)
So I am going to quote some from his post, highlight what I think is interesting, and then respond. I really do not want to be like some people on the internet who think it’s their mission from the Almighty to be watchbloggers of the blogsphere and keep the fires burning long enough to burn all the Christian neardowells on the internet. No, my point is not to string up Piper, but (hopefully) to offer a thoughtful response. I really hope it comes across as the later and not the former.
Here is some of what he wrote that caught my eye and some comments:
Tonight for our family devotions our appointed reading was Luke 13:1-9. It was not my choice. This is surely no coincidence. O that all of the Twin Cities, in shock at this major calamity, would hear what Jesus has to say about it from Luke 13:1-5. People came to Jesus with heart-wrenching news about the slaughter of worshipers by Pilate.
Jesus implies that those who brought him this news thought he would say that those who died, deserved to die, and that those who didn’t die did not deserve to die. That is not what he said. He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don’t repent, we too will perish. This is a stunning response. It only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God.”
I find it very odd that Piper would think there was some special message for the Twin Cities through Luke 13:1-9. When I read this I thought, “This is what God want’s to say to Minneapolis? If Jesus was walking around the twisted metal jutting from the ends of the bridge, wading into the Mississippi around the the chunks of concrete, and moving through the throngs of injured THIS is what he would say in the midst of this gut wrenching scene? Are you kidding me?
I’m sure there are other passages to point toward, but John 11 is so instructive. Lazarus, “the one [Jesus] loved” was sick. Jesus didn’t go immediately, because he knew this future moment would be a glorifying moment for him and his Father. But when he later went to Lazarus’ house, he was met by Martha who was beside her self and angry Jesus had not come sooner. And when he left her and entered the village, Jesus was met by Mary. John writes, “When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.”
And then he wept.
When Jesus encountered the scene of emotional chaos, saw the emotionally fragile state of Mary and felt the lament of Lazarus’ friends over his death, Jesus’ soul was overcome by the moment and in a very authentically human response Jesus cried. He had no words when he stepped into the confusion of the moment. Instead he simply sat with Mary and the Jews and joined in their weeping.
And I can’t help to think Jesus would have responded in the same way, not with a lecture or scroll full of words about sin and instructions on Minnesotans eternal destiny, but rather with the raw human response of tears and embrace.
The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.
The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that we are sinners and need to repent? God’s message in the collapse of the bridge over the Mississippi River is that He is merciful, we are sinners, and there is still time to turn toward Jesus to be saved, or burn? Now I do not disagree with any of this theology, but to say that the meaning and message inherent in this tragedy is salvific is just silly and wretched.
I believe the story of Job has a similarly wretched encounter with people who wanted to label the reason for Jobs life tragedy. Several “friends” tried to blame Job by claiming he was living in sin and was being punished by God. Job responded by unmasking these idiots for who they were: miserable comforters!
Why must we preach to Minneapolis in this time? Why can’t we just sit with them in their grief, hold them, cry with them, and listen to their stories? Why must we insist on slapping The Passion all over this and insist that unless the Twin City repents God will keep sending more messages through more collapsing infrustructure until they get the hint that he’s ticked at their screwed-up-ness?
…you and I know that God did not do anything wrong. God always does whated is wise. And you and I know that God could have held up that bridge with one hand.” Talitha said, “With his pinky.” “Yes,” I said, “with his pinky. Which means that God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills.”
[His daughter] Talitha said, “Maybe he let it fall because he wanted all the people of Minneapolis to fear him.” “Yes, Talitha,” I said, “I am sure that is one of the reasons God let the bridge fall.”
Sorry Piper, but that doesn’t jive. You mean to tell me that you would say to the mother who accidentally ran over her 5-year-old son as she moved her minivan to a different location outside her home, killing the boy, was willed by the purposeful “pinky” of God in all infinite wisdom?
While I support God’s sovereignty and his full participation in the human story, the tragedy of a mother backing over her son is no more directed by God than the collapse of a bridge that results in seven deaths and over seventy injured. God participates in reality as Immanuel, the God-with-us-God, not as Master Chess player. I am thankful that Jesus is the complete expression of the character of God, rather than Zeus, and I’m disappointed that Piper seems to respond with the later.
I could go on, but I think I’ll stop. Again, I don’t mean to rip on Piper and I hope this post is more about the typical response by evangelicals and the broader Christian community to tragedy than it is about one man who does love Jesus and is trying his best to be a Pastor.
Now what do you think? Do you agree with John Piper? Is his response appropriate or more along the lines of the “miserable comforters” that Job had to put up with? How about me? Am I right to lament the Christian communities response to tragedy?
Jeremy,
Never been to your blog before, but I find your post to be somewhat interesting to say the least.
First I will say that it sounds as if in one sense you believe in God’s sovereignty and in another sense you do not.
God talks about bringing about calamity, God allows things to happen all the time, yes even the tragic things in this world and why? So that he may bring men and women to himself.
Answer me this what good is it to sit around and love on the people of Minneapolis if in fact we do not show them the ultimate love and that is the gospel? If in fact we love on them and they go on their merry way yet we do not share in presenting them the gospel so that they may look at their life in light of their own mortality.
God in the bible was consistent, He desired to be their God and so often they refused so he allowed calamity and sometimes tragedy to take place. This is through out the bible and yet in man’s purpose it seems as just a happening stance of life yet in God’s eyes He sees the whole picture. God saw with Joseph that him being sold into slavery and put in jail even though men meant it for evil God exalted those circumstances for Good. Was it God who allowed those things to happen to Joseph? Or was it all one big happen chance? and just ended up the right way?
Jeremy,
Excellent post and your spirit of honest and pointed inquiry rather than merely “slamming” Piper et al comes through.
Jason’s idea that God “uses” (but theologically Jason has to mean “planned” and “decreed”) deep human tragedy and grief to pragmatically (manipulatively?) point to our need for salvation is biblically questionable at best and pastorally horrific (at worst). Your appeal to rethink the scenario of the mother who backed over her son because God “willed” it has to be answered. The assumption in that view is that salvation is about righting Genesis 3 rather than restoring us to Genesis 1-2.
Jeremy,
btw I liked your questions to “Internet Monk” about his view of predestination and providence. IM’s quotes of the Reformed Baptist catechism seemed strange to me
I desired to respond to you Jeremy not after I read your response to J. Piper. I wanted to post this thought for you and your readers after I read your testimony. You seem to be a young man whose desire is to be used by God in the lives of His people and world. To this end, I submit the following thoughts to you as you continue working on thinking clearly, speaking carefully/charitably and living consistently in the midst of pain.
When we encounter the horrors of living in a Fallen world and sit down to ponder its pain and perplexity, we have one of two ways to go. We can lean upon our own understanding (i.e. limitless sources) or we can lean upon God’s understanding (i.e. one source; namely the Bible).
Reading your post in the aftermath of the bridge collapse you mentioned that you received clarity from an episode of Scrubs. Your point seemed to be pointing not to the content of the counselor but to his timing. That is, I read you to say that in the immediate aftermath of calamity we help nobody by simply quoting a verse. If this is your point, it is well taken. Compassion for people is the context in which counsel for people can occur.
But you appear to have gone further in your thinking over how to help people in a Fallen world. This counsel came out in your response to J. Piper. It seems as though you took exception not only with Piper’s timing but with his teaching.
Whether or not it proves wise for Piper to say what he said in writing within two hours of calamity could be called into question. But your post provides little to the topic of how to help people amid pain.
Here are seven reasons why I do not think you were helpful.
1. Leaving people with the notion that insights come from Scrubs and not Scripture is not helpful.
2. Leaving people with the notion that coarse talk is the way to disagree with others is not helpful.
3. Leaving people with the notion that God is not meticulously overseeing life is not helpful.
4. Leaving people with the notion that people in need need people rather than God is not helpful.
5. Leaving people with the notion that you can agree fully with someone’s theology and then say “it is wretched” is not helpful.
6. Leaving people with the notion that Scripture is “bull #**#” is not helpful.
7. Leaving people with the notion that love is something less than stripping us of all self-reliance in order to become God-reliant so that we can enjoy God forevermore is not helpful.
Jeremy, in your post you gave people Jeremy. They do not need you. The Bible says that Christ died on the cross…to bring us to God. How did your post help do this?
Instead of your post, let us together look more like the Apostle Paul who said “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God…we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead”.
If we are to think and talk and act like 2Corinthians 1, we will need a fresh view of the God of all mercies and Father of all comfort. And we will see Him when we observe not Scrubs but Scripture.
A brother’s keeper under the Big Brother who keeps us,
Dan
Hi Pastor Dan!
Thanks for your response…and correction. Though I personally do not have problems with “cursing” in general, your point on using the term “bull shit” (since changed even before this comment) in response to another brother was neither prudent nor proper. Thanks for reminding me of the words I use as I converse with the thoughts of others, whether in person or post!
Now to clarify and interact a bit:
You wrote: We can lean upon our own understanding (i.e. limitless sources) or we can lean upon God’s understanding (i.e. one source; namely the Bible).
I wholly agree, though please remember that we come to leaning upon God’s understanding through human constructs. That’s really the reason of this post: to deconstruct a view of God that’s deterministic and propose a more openly theistic understanding of God’s relationship to the world. But I hope you do not think we can simply CLEANLY lean on God’s understanding…
In regards to my use of Scrubs: the point was to do a bit of cultural analysis I (I could have used LOST or X-Files just as well) to both reveal the cultures reaction to Christian “counsel” while deconstructing both the timing AND content.
You wrote: It seems as though you took exception not only with Piper’s timing but with his teaching. Whether or not it proves wise for Piper to say what he said in writing within two hours of calamity could be called into question. But your post provides little to the topic of how to help people amid pain.
Right on both counts! I do take issue with the timing and content, and I did provide little to the topic of how to help people, which I hope to rectify in a near-future post. Though, my main understanding of that response is both Jesusly (new word) and Jobian (another new word!), which I did mention in my post.
Now to my seven sins 🙂 Again, I thank you for reminding me of the somewhat coarsness in my response through the use of “cursing”. I’m confused, though, why you would say I was pointing people to Scrubs rather than Scripture, when I pretty clearly pointed to John 11 as a way to respond to tragedy in the Way of Jesus. And that’s the thing: my whole understanding of response to tragedy is incarnational, not homiletical (more on that soon). Also, it isn’t that I do not believe God is involved in reality, in which I clearly said he was a full participator, it’s that this deterministic notion of God is exactly what I find very unhelpful and to quote my post “silly and wretched”, and that’s probably a theological difference that I hope you can respect (though perhaps the labeling not so much). And I guess finally, I would never want anyone to think I think people need people over and against Jesus and the Father. YHWH is our shield, rock, and fortress and we are more than conquerors because of Jesus, not because of ourselves (and certainly not Jeremy!). But I would take issue with the either or: God is the God-with-us-God both because of Jesus and the Church, the community in which He incarnates himself. So I would say the world needs us and Jesus, but for different reasons.
But one thing you didn’t mention in your response is anything to do with the substance of my post 🙂 So because you’re a Pastor who has far more experience in this area of counseling and grief than me, and novus•lumen is meant to be a conversation, I’m gonna throw one at you: what do you say to the mother who ran over her son?
Anyway, I hope that I do not sound defensive in my response, though I’ve been told plenty in my life that my responses often sound reactive! I really appreciated your comments because it gave some correction and forced me to think through this even more, though I wish you would have interacted more with meat of what I was saying…
I hope you’ll come back and share more from your heart as a pastor in Ohio. Which, by the way, is funny because I went to Cedarville University and worked for Senator DeWine. Ohio is great!
Enjoy your night and thanks again Brother Dan,
-jeremy
Hi Jason!
Thanks for dropping by and providing a bit of sharpening 🙂
I guess by sovereign I mean more participatory rather than deterministic. This is something that I have begun to emerge into more over the last year, really. I find the writings of Eugene Peterson, Scot McKnight, and LeRon Shults to be very instructive in regards to understanding God and His involvement in reality.
I do see what you’re saying in some ways about allowing calamity to happen, but to say He does it to “bring men and women to himself” is confusing. What do you mean by this?
Regarding your second point about what good is to sit around loving people: my response is what more is there! Are we not called to be Jesus to the world around us? To love and restore and comfort and grieve and fully participate in the human experience within people’s stories as Jesus did? And according to Jesus, the gospel is about the Kingdom of Heaven, which is much broader and thicker and more lucious than simply reminding people they are screw-up and screwed without Jesus (though I agree all of that is true…).
And regarding God’s involvement in the world I do not deny. I fully agree that God was present in Joseph’s story as he has been in my tragedy, and in the stories of those who plunged 60 ft into the Mississippi. I also believe that God allows time to move as it wills. But where I struggle is with saying God leveled that bridge on purpose and with purpose. Or in the story of the San Francisco mother: do you think God wanted her to run over her son?
Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts. For me this wrestling is very new, so it’s good to do so in community, whether in present or virtual community!
enjoy your evening and your new adventure in blogging (as I see from you newly launched urbanreformer.com site…)
-jeremy
Thanks for this post and the stimulating discussion.
Hi Jeremy. I read your post on the “friendly” atheist blog (perhaps here is a better place to add my thoughts) I hope this does not create too much of a tangent to your original discussion.
(the post I respond to is here:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/08/04/incorrect-explanation-23749-for-the-bridge-collapse/)
I agree with your point that Christians should grieve with the grieving, and I agree that Jesus would grieve too.
I understand the sense of distaste people have when it seems that people are callously politicising tragedy: that they are using it for their own agendas. The sin is in saying “I hope you learn your lesson” when someone breaks their leg, instead of calling a doctor. Without grief and sympathy, such a response is callous. But having heard John Piper teach, I think it is unfair to accuse him of lacking either. Here is a man who grieves for the sin of the world on a regular basis. He mourns the lost, the suffering keenly. But you would be forgiven for not realising that from his written response to this tragedy.
With Siloam, Jesus was being asked “did God do this in special judgement of these people?” and Jesus said no. He was ANNOYED that people would immediately take tragedy to mean God’s final judgement on certain people. It was nothing to do with them being any worse than the rest of us. But this is what you should realise when you are confronted with this kind of horrific thing: you may be taken equally suddenly, equally violently, and in no proportion to your perceived “goodness”.
I agreed with Piper in the above.
I think the problem is the line “I am sure that is one of the reasons that God let the bridge fall”. It seems like a callous thing to say, as though God stood idly by. Or worse, he did it to vent his anger. (in truth, if it were the latter, the earth would have melted!) Remember it was his daughter who said this, and it was for the father to respond!
The falling bridge is one of many million unfortunate chance/human error occurences, all of which God has “let” happen. Why does he let these happen at all?
That God wishes mankind to respond to his power (by “fearing” him) is one of many complex (they are of God, after all) reasons. If it were his only reason, it would make him a cruel god indeed. We know, however, that one cannot understand the extent of God’s grace without understanding the extent of the wrath which it supercedes. Therefore we are allowed glimpses of God’s wrath, in the same way we use a pinhole camera to look at the sun’s eclipse without burning our retinas.
Some reject the Christian god because they only see his wrath. Others reject him because they only hear about grace, yet do not understand the value of it.
How should a Christian respond to a bridge collapsing? Fear God, but marvel that today he has spared us. Show gratitude that should it happen to us, that he has spared us a million times worse, and offered us a billion times more.
And of course, we should grieve that for some, time ran out. We should grieve for the lost as Jesus did. But that is the key phrase: “as Jesus did”.
Some people going to a funeral will mourn because they won’t see a friend any more when they visit their local. Others, because they have no spouse to support and comfort them. Still others because a life’s work will be in ruins.Valid mourning, but limited in its scope.
Did Jesus mourn this way? Or was he so concerned with eternity, heaven and hell, that his mourning had an immense depth? He knew exactly what was at stake and dealt with people accordingly.
But equally, he could sympathise. “You have lost a lover that you knew for 30 years. God has lost one that he knew before time began. Let us weep together”. So when Jesus grieved over his friends and followers, he showed God’s grief over the lost. Human grief is but an echo of divine grief. When we grieve with others, we should grieve with God.
God knew that he was able to sustain that bridge with one little finger. That he would withhold his protection in this way shows that He knows how to work things for the greater good. If there were no potential for greater good, no lesson to be learned, that would make God the most unfit parent imaginable. So we must search for ways to turn tragedy to glory.
I think this is what Piper is doing. His daughter saw the grieving in her father’s eyes. She knew the silence of the house. She felt the drawing together of the family even closer. (and how many would respond in such a genuine way?) She could see the lesson already. I believe in John Piper’s house that night, the tragedy had already started to become less tragic: it was already turning to glory.
Jeremy,
As a chronic pain sufferer for 12 years and a spiritual director for many people who have suffered greater than I, my primary need is to know that God is in control of everything that happens to me. It does not comfort me (or anyone I have counseled) to hear that God is all loving, but he just didn’t know what was going to happen to me, that he will be with me (doing what?), that he’s “emergent” and “relational”, responding to things in the world like a nanny with 6 kids running rampant in the house. What kind of God will comfort a woman who ran over her child? (Or a person who lost a loved one in Minneapolis for that matter.) A God who does not blame her. A God who knew before all creation that this terrible tragedy would happen. A God who “ran over” his own self (Father and Son are one God) through evil men (Acts 4:23-30) and that greatest of all evils led to the redemption of the world.
Certainly we are in need of great pastoral wisdom as we counsel with empathy, self-giving love, listening, listening, listening, only speaking when the person asks for our counsel, etc.
The problems I have with the openness of God view are two-fold — (1) it does not square with the Bible’s overall narrative. I am not a Calvinist, but I am commited to the God of the Bible as he revealed himself through salvation history in Israel and the church. We have to do major gymnastics around Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, and Paul to come up with a view that God does not know the end from the beginning. Salvation history and our knowledge of God may be emergent, but God in the Trinity is not emergent. (2) while the openness of God position attempts to rescue God from being the cause of evil, it ultimately has to lop off huge parts of God in order to rescue him. The parts that are left are not adequate to hold a hurricane in his hands, redeem AIDS in Africa, put up with materialistic, self-centered, adolescent American culture and somehow work through it, etc. If God is not in control of every wing beat of a gnat in a distant geological age, he’s not much of a God. The straw man view that the only alternative to the openness of God is a deterministic, cruel, “Zeus”-like figure shows a lack of willingness to read the Fathers of the Church and the Scriptures with openness, i.e. making sense of Romans 9-11, Ephesians 1-4, especially John 11.
One of the things I love about John 11, one of its greatest comforts to me and to all the suffering saints I have ministered to is V. 4-6. “This sickness will not END in “, but it will go through . The sickness will be for the glory of God, “so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” This is not placed in tension with v. 5-6! “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So, when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.” God’s glory and Jesus’ love for them were not in tension, they allign in Jesus letting Lazarus die, the sisters grieve and feel abandoned by Jesus. v.6 has Greek “Ws ouv” (Os oun) which every first year Greek student will translate as “Therefore”. Therefore, bc he loved God’s glory and his friends, he stayed and let Lazarus die. God’s glory was shown in Jesus’ love for the sisters, his theological dialog with women, his raising Lazarus from the to preview his own resurrection for the disciples, to show that suffering, illness, and are not meaningless, they are not the end. God uses suffering and tragedy to enlarge our view of himself, to show his glory to us, to enter into our broken hearts, and therefore, to love us more deeply than just holding our hand through suffering as an impotent though empathetic Immanuel figure. He is Immanuel, he also happens to be the ancient of days.
May God lead you and free you from all reactive readings of Scripture, all theological pre-suppositions, and all hipsters who sneer at those who view Scripture differently than “us” (whether they are stuck in modernism or Russian Orthodoxy). I have found my greatest theological insights by listening empathetically to people whose viewpoints troubled my own. May this blessing be yours as well.
Mark!!
I stand (or maybe it’s sit!) in awe of your response…what grace and conviction! Your comment left me with much to think about.
I think my favorite part of all was this (though you certainly laid down much meat beforehand!): “May God lead you and free you from all reactive readings of Scripture, all theological pre-suppositions, and all hipsters who sneer at those who view Scripture differently than “us” (whether they are stuck in modernism or Russian Orthodoxy). I have found my greatest theological insights by listening empathetically to people whose viewpoints troubled my own. May this blessing be yours as well.”
I, too, long to shed presuppositions as I approach God’s holy words in an effort to understand his truth more deeply and richly. While I wouldn’t say your viewpoint troubled me, it made me excited that this blog is (selfishly!) accomplishing for me what I hoped would happen: finding great, stirring theological insight! You, my brother, in one fell swoop did that for me in this post, a post I penned 6 weeks ago!
Wow…thanks for taking the time to write what you did. Blessings, brother and hopefully I’ll hear more of your story sometime…
-jeremy
ps-One question popped up in my mind at the end: who do you listen too when you need a good, troubling viewpoint? In other words, you talked about finding your greatest theological insight when you listened to viewpoints not of your own. Who are those people? For my own sake 🙂
reason I along appointment this. I’m minded preoccupy the world.