Peter Masters on John Piper

My Take:

I've read other things coming out of this church, although I'm not sure it is Masters who authored them. It is clear from these other things that Metropolitan Baptist Temple has an issue with Calvinism and they are looking to discredit any Calvinist. One specific criticism I've read from them was a direct assault on the Together for the Gospel (T4G) conferences. Masters doesn't like that Piper, MacArthur, Duncan, Dever, Mohler, and Mahaney. He especially doesn't like that Baptists cooperate with the likes of Sovereign Grace Ministries precisely because Sovereign Grace does not hold to a strict cessationist view of the spiritual gifts.

The article critical of T4G was much more concerned with so-called historical baptist distinctives and was therefore very critical of a partnership in cooperation with Presbyterians and non-cessationists, even though this cooperation was for encouraging the spread of the Gospel. It stuck in their craw that baptists were cooperating with paedo-baptists (like Ligon Duncan) and non-cessationist (like Mahaney).

Unfortunately, their view elevates second-order and third-order issues to that of a first order.

Master's article critical of Piper is a bit different, however. Masters clearly doesn't "get" Piper. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I have many (if not all) of Piper's books and I think he's right on.

His seminal work--Desiring God--is not easy. While I was a seminary student, I took it upon myself to read Desiring God and I had to stop in the middle and re-read it. After the second time through I got it!

Piper uses the word Hedonism (which Masters doesn't like) to articulate that we Christians are to seek their Joy in God alone. Masters discussed "duty" and Piper does the same thing. However, Piper talks about things that should be done (duties) being a joy. He give the example of a husband bringing his wife flowers. It should be the case that a husband will bring his wife flowers out of joy, not duty, even though he knows it is something he should do.

Piper's Christian Hedonism is a concentrated effort to lay up treasures in Heaven, keeping one's eyes firmly fixed on eternity while living, working, and worshiping in the world.

Master's fatal flaw is that he would have us see the Christian as dutiful drudgery--kind of like Monty Python's picture of the faithful monks walking around in a circle, chanting Latin, and whacking themselves on the head with a board.

Masters probably would have us give up our vices without any thought to what we should replace them with. For example: Let's say someone is an alcoholic, Masters would probably say "Just don't drink; it's your duty not to drink." Piper would say, "Don't drink; don't seek your joy in a bottle. Seek Christ--become a Christ-a-holic!"

In other words, Masters would gladly tell you what you should not do and he'd stop there. While Piper, on the other hand, would tell you what you shouldn't do but he'd also give you what you should do--joyfully seek your joy in Christ.

Piper brings out the necessity of the Christian life to be a joyous life, joyfully looking forward to heaven. Masters would have us believe drudgery is our duty.

Their visions are quite different and Piper's is easier and more closely aligned with the biblical big-picture.

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. I very highly recommend Piper's Desiring God. Even if you wind up not agreeing, it is certainly worth the read.

 

Nope...just you, you see we are all waiting for you to tell us what to think.

 

I just finished John Piper's book on "Desiring God". I have some disagreements with other things Piper has written, but I think he has many good points in this book. Too many Baptist churches (IMO) have put too little emphsis on enjoying God as part of our Christian walk, but have overly emphsized our obligations to Christ. There needs to be a balance in our Christain life, and Piper put more emphasis on delighting in our relationship with God to provide more balance.

For instance, Masters says the following:

"We obey God because it is our duty, and, of course, because we love Him. We obey Him because He hates sin, and because it destroys and harms those around us. We obey Him because He is the One Who knows all things, and is infinitely wise. We serve Him and seek the spiritual good of others out of indebtedness and out of compassion. We must be multi-track in our pursuit of godliness, and not simplify the method of the Word."

Note the emphasis Masters puts on our obligations to Christ and does not mention (other than we love Him) anything about our personal relationship with Christ. Unfortunatly, Masters represents the narrow Gospel that is presented in some Baptist churches.

Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love the Lord thy God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Too many times we interpret this to mean (as Masters seems to do) the greatest commandment is to obey the Lord thy God with all your..... Obey means obedience and obligation, while love implies fellowship and delight.

I don't think Piper intended to neglect our obligation to obey the Lord, but emphasized the importance of delighting in the Lord because it is neglected in so many churches.

 

Aaron,

I was speaking in generalities, as evidenced by my not posting specific quotes. The quotes you posed (above) illustrates what was trying to say, perhaps ineffectively. I think Piper is right that delighting in God is the central point of the Christian life. From delight all other obedience and duty flow.

This is why I characterize Master's approach as drudgery--it puts duty first and joy is an add-on. As I stated, Joy is foremost and obedience and duty flow from that.

Duty, typically, is doing something one does not necessarily want to do. Piper's idea (and I think scripture's idea) is that Christians are to joyfully do what God commands and joyfully reject what He forbids. To do so, we need to desire different things than our fallen natures desire. Piper's idea is that we redirect our natural, fallen, hedonistic tendencies away from the things of the flesh and the things of this world and place them in God Himself.

Piper will even go so far to say that we are not to place our joy in the gifts of God, but in God Himself.

Again, generally speaking, the thrust of Master's article retreats into duty and drudgery where as Piper preaches a joyful "duty."

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Actually, it is not a caricature.

Masters writes:

A fully-orbed view of the Law and the prohibitions and commands therein shows that the "thou shalts" and the "thou shalt nots" are for our own good.

An example of this is Steve McNair. He claimed to be a Christian but was killed by his girlfriend/mistress. He had a wife and kids at home and, assuming he was a Christian (which his actions do not confirm), he was committing adultery. God did not give us the 10 commandments--especially the one about adultery--to rob us of our joy. God knows that His design--one man and one woman for life--is the best for us. Don't you think McNair should have rejected the temporary, perhaps exciting "joy" of an affair for the long-term joy of wife and family? Of course he should have.

Piper's "scheme" is one where we do what God has called us to do and we don't do what scripture forbids, but we do it out of Joy, primarily. Notice, that in Piper's scheme (although it does elevate joy), all the so-called "duties" are still there. The motivation for them is different. Joy becomes the great motivator--like the husband who knows it is his duty to demonstrate love to his wife (cards, flowers, etc.) but does these things out of a heart of Joy, not because it is his duty.

For further clarification, read "Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial" by John Piper

Also, Masters seems to discount the command to "lay up treasures in heaven." Now, since that is a command, it is not self-serving in the strictest sense, although Masters would probably say it is. Piper attributes this to a Kantian, not a biblical, understanding of morality. In other words, Kant would say that if you do something for someone else and think of your benefit from such action, both the actions are devoid of morality or reward. The Bible does not agree with Kant. Read Piper on "Christian Hedonism."

Finally, Aaron, it is not a caricature; it is a true general characterization of what Masters is saying. It is clear that you don't necessarily agree with Piper, which is fine. But, Master's article is one that, at times, takes aim at Piper himself. Masters states that he is "an unsafe shepherd."

This paragraph quoted above is, truly, a caricature, for anyone who knows Piper (personally or through his writings) knows that this is absolutely wrong. Perhaps comparing Piper's writings (of which there are many and they are available for free at DesiringGod.org) with the critique will show you or anyone else that Masters' article misses to boat.

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. I can no longer take the time to write on this topic. If necessary, I will post links and let Piper talk for himself.

 

It's Metropolitan Tabernacle, not Metropolitan Baptist Temple.

Don't you know that Masters is a strong Calvinist?

Don't you realize that Joel Beeke is a good friend and frequent speaker at Master's church? Beeke is certainly paedo-baptistic.

 

I can only give a few responses to the article.

First, it seems that Masters takes "joy" for "happiness" and then faults Piper for having a system that tries to push happiness onto things that cannot produce it. I haven't read Piper's works in years, but I thought he delineated between self-motivated, emotionally-based happiness from joy. I think this point becomes obvious when Masters goes through NT teachings, such as the Beatitudes and Hebrews 12.

Second, I think Masters is having Piper's Christian hedonism do more in Piper's theology than is warranted. From what I recall, Piper's big idea is that God's will for Christians is not only what is right, but it is also what is best for us as humans-what is best for us should bring us joy even when times are tough in our fallen world. This is mainly a response to the common claim that doing what is right will make you miserable. Such an insight, by design, cannot serve as a robust theology of sanctification, but it can give a helpful reminder that gives shape to such theology. I doubt Piper thinks this insight substitutes for teaching the full counsel of God on sanctification. My suspicion is that his writings and sermons would reflect this.

Third, this insight is much older than C. S. Lewis, including the western mystics on one hand and Christian theologians, philosophers, and ethicists who incorporated some of Platonism and Aristoteleanism on the other hand. I've heard some good critiques of this insight (Jeffrey Stout comes to mind here), but I wouldn't number Masters's article among them. Even if he is accurately portraying Piper, his arguments are mostly of the slippery slope and guilt by association nature. To some extent they may be accurate of what can or has become the case, but pinning it on Piper would be hard to demonstrate, making such arguments of little value.

I'm curious if Masters's views on this have changed in the last six years.
Thanks for the link Aaron.

 

Rippon,

Frankly, I chose my words poorly. I should have been way more careful to fence my comments about Calvinism. The other article I referred to called out the participants of T4G for their cooperation with each other. All the participants are Calvinists, yet it seems Masters (or someone else at that church, as I'm not sure Masters wrote it) has an issue with cooperation with non-cessationists, etc.

Had I been more careful, which I certainly was not, I should have made sure to talk about discrediting Calvinist cooperation, not the strict separation the article seems to demand.

Thank you for correcting me on both the name of the church and my poorly chosen words.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Masters is indeed a strong Calvinist and holds to the LBC of 1689. He preaches on Calvinism opening and supports the grace doctrines.

Masters takes issue with some preachers such as piper that do not follow the the Regulatory Principle of worship. He has at least one book on the subject that shows why he feels this should be followed.

I guess it goes beyond just following the RPofW, for Master would also say you should not fellowship with those that go to the extreme as in SGM. I feel Masters is lead in this area by the "downgrade controversy" of the past. In other words Masters fears that contemporary worship will lead to something that will repeat the downgrade controversy.

Masters has been hard on Piper and others like him that draw no line in the sand with worship style.

I feel as if Masters sees Pipers words as far as hedonism as only added to the problem.

I'm not sure I agree, but I understand his point.