# John Piper's "The Innkeeper"



## Matthew Willard Lankford

I'm wondering what others think of John Piper's fictitious story "The Innkeeper". Many people people are sharing a video of Piper's reading of the work and embracing it as a new holiday tradition. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of critical reviews and critiques of the work. I won't share the video recording here as the book contains violations of the Second Commandment (which should be no surprise, since Piper said  "God broke the Second Commandment when he became incarnate"), but here is the text. However, the written portion of the work is also disturbing to me, in that God says He puts His words in our mouths (Isaiah 59:21) and that we are to have His word in our hearts (Deuteronomy 6:6-9; 11:18-20; Psalm 119:11, Colossians 3:16). Why would anyone dare do the opposite (i.e why would we attribute our words to the Lord and represent Him doing things in a fictitious story)? God tells us not to add to His word (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Galatians 1:9-10; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Revelation 22:19).


----------



## timmopussycat

We can't blame Piper for any misuse of his writing any more than we can blame any other author for a use of their work which is not the author's intent, a principle which though first applied by Peter to Paul's writings (2 Peter 3:16) has a certain measure of general applicability.

If Piper presented his meditation as factual that would be adding to God's word and that is something which God's word condemns. But instead of doing that, Piper is explicitly doing something else. In his Preface he notes that "Perhaps the innkeeper paid dearly to house the Son of God. Should it not be costly to penetrate and portray this pain?" But why do this at all? The dedication "To Rollin and all who ever lost a child" points to what Piper is doing with his poem: i.e., presenting a message, consistent with the rest of the bible, that addresses the questions that arise after such a loss. See What's the Story Behind Your Poem, "The Innkeeper"? - Desiring God


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

> But why do this at all?



Good question. God's word is sufficient. And shouldn't His word be sufficient to those who have ever lost a child? It seems rather audacious to publish fictitious ideas and speculations that portray the Lord doing and saying things that He may never have done; I would think one could address the questions that arise after the loss of a child without inventing a fictitious Christ. Why "penetrate and portray this pain [of the Innkeeper]"? The Lord has been pleased to conceal this matter and it was never revealed to us by the the Holy Spirit (our Comforter and Counselor). 



> He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD."


 (Job 1:21)


----------



## Marrow Man

The Scripture never mentions an "innkeeper," so what is the need to make one up?


----------



## Tim

Matthew Willard Lankford said:


> Why would anyone dare do the opposite (i.e why would we attribute our words to the Lord and represent Him doing things in a fictitious story)? God tells us not to add to His word (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Galatians 1:9-10; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Revelation 22:19).



You are right to be concerned. It is blasphemy.


----------



## Tim

timmopussycat said:


> If Piper presented his meditation as factual that would be adding to God's word and that is something which God's word condemns. But instead of doing that, Piper is explicitly doing something else.



Isn't that what the author of "The Shack" did as well?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

That is one of the things that has always bothered me about "Advent". Why the need to create so many unbiblical stories, characters, etc? Is Scripture not sufficient for the Incarnation?


----------



## Marrow Man

It's not just during "Advent" for which these stories are invented. Many years ago, I attended a church (visiting while out of town) where the pastor always preached a first-person narrative sermon on "Easter Sunday." So he would start the sermon and not say who he was, and you were supposed to figure out who he was by the end of the sermon (the "reveal"). Well, he had been at that church for about 18 years, so you start to run out of characters like Peter and Mary Magdalene after a while. Then you REALLY start reaching. So the "sermon" I heard was about the "innkeeper" (once again, Scripture never mentions an innkeeper; the idea of an "inn" in Bethlehem is even debatable). The story was so fanciful that in order to make it about the crucifixion, etc., the pastor made the innkeeper out to be the same person who rented the Upper Room to the disciples and Jesus. Complete fantasy, and a terrible sermon to boot.


----------



## DeniseM

Wow, this really saddens me. The first time I heard of Piper's poem was yesterday at church. I didn't know about Piper's disregard of the second commandment. It seems like we live in a day of "pick and choose" your commandments.


----------



## a mere housewife

I wonder if Piper's statement represented above about Christ breaking the second commandment reflects a different (& not a Reformed) view of the extent of the command as to Jesus' humanity, rather than a view that this command of God can simply be discarded? 

As a childless woman I have drawn incredible comfort from the birth of Christ, the child to which all the promises point us, and who is given to all of us. I can well imagine that those mourning the loss of a child would find great comfort in that promise of hope to mourning Rachel which accompanies the prophecy of her desolation, in connection with the incarnation of Christ. I haven't read the poem but from the description in this thread I would disagree with how Piper executed that. Yet that he was trying to apply this comfort to such a loss seems to speak well of his understanding of the resounding depth of Christ as our consolation.


----------



## irresistible_grace

Claiming to be wise, they became fools*and*exchanged the glory of*the immortal God for images resembling mortal man... *they exchanged the truth about God for*a lie.*


----------



## irresistible_grace

Tim said:


> Matthew Willard Lankford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone dare do the opposite (i.e why would we attribute our words to the Lord and represent Him doing things in a fictitious story)? God tells us not to add to His word (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Galatians 1:9-10; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Revelation 22:19).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be concerned. It is blasphemy.
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

Marrow Man said:


> The story was so fanciful that in order to make it about the crucifixion, etc., the pastor made the innkeeper out to be the same person who rented the Upper Room to the disciples and Jesus. Complete fantasy, and a terrible sermon to boot.



Wow. I need to get out more.


----------



## Zach

I think we should be a little more charitable to Dr. Piper. He has done much to promote the glory of Christ and even if we disagree with his views on the Second Commandment (I don't think he has ever professed to be Confessionally Reformed) there is still much to be commended about his work and ministry. 

Heidi, thanks for your post.


----------



## J. Dean

I guess, without reading the actual story, it's a bit difficult and unfair for me to pass judgment on it. Is Piper passing this off as what he think actually happened?


----------



## irresistible_grace

I read the poem and stand behind my comment.
As a "historical fiction" this poem not only lacks fidelity, it is a blatant violation of the first three commandments... read the poem before you defend Dr. John Piper.


----------



## Jeff Burns

Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a _little bit_ more charitable to a *brother *in Christ?


----------



## Tim

Jeff Burns said:


> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a little bit more charitable to a brother in Christ?



Okay, then. How would you suggest we discuss such practices/actions in a charitable manner? If we believe something is blasphemous, how should we refer to that practice? If I paint a picture of Christ, is it uncharitable to state that it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment?


----------



## a mere housewife

I think at least we should guard against the charge that a brother or sister's motives were to break or disregard these commands in question where we can have no evidence of such, and indeed have much reason to think the contrary. I cannot help but think that Mr. Piper is not less, but only more scrupulous about trying not to blaspheme his Lord in any way than I am (though I certainly wish to be growing always more and more).

The end of all the commandments is love. As those who believe that the image of the God we love with all our hearts is not to be represented by anything made by us, but is bestowed with special dignity on our fellow men -- and is to be found most especially in our brothers and sisters in Christ -- it seems we should be only more careful in addressing these issues to do so in love and honor of one another, to practice and show our belief.


----------



## Zach

Jeff Burns said:


> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a _little bit_ more charitable to a *brother *in Christ?





a mere housewife said:


> I think at least we should guard against the charge that a brother or sister's motives were to break or disregard these commands in question where we can have no evidence of such, and indeed have much reason to think the contrary. I cannot help but think that Mr. Piper is not less, but only more scrupulous about trying not to blaspheme his Lord in any way than I am (though I certainly wish to be growing always more and more).
> 
> The end of all the commandments is love. As those who believe that the image of the God we love with all our hearts is not to be represented by anything made by us, but is bestowed with special dignity on our fellow men -- and is to be found most especially in our brothers and sisters in Christ -- it seems we should be only more careful in addressing these issues to do so in love and honor of one another, to practice and show our belief.


----------



## thbslawson

Tim said:


> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a little bit more charitable to a brother in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then. How would you suggest we discuss such practices/actions in a charitable manner? If we believe something is blasphemous, how should we refer to that practice? If I paint a picture of Christ, is it uncharitable to state that it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment?
Click to expand...


How you say? I'll give you an example. How about we do it with the same charity with which we defend those puritans who vehemently defended slavery and promoted racism. Not trying to railroad the discussion here, but it seems we're only willing to forgive, charitably deal with or overlook the sins of another brother, living or deceased, when his overall theology better fits our own.


----------



## J. Dean

Tim said:


> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a little bit more charitable to a brother in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then. How would you suggest we discuss such practices/actions in a charitable manner? If we believe something is blasphemous, how should we refer to that practice? If I paint a picture of Christ, is it uncharitable to state that it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment?
Click to expand...


Has Piper affirmed a Reformed/Puritan interpretation of the 2nd Commandment in his writings or sermons?


----------



## J. Dean

Zach said:


> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a _little bit_ more charitable to a *brother *in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think at least we should guard against the charge that a brother or sister's motives were to break or disregard these commands in question where we can have no evidence of such, and indeed have much reason to think the contrary. I cannot help but think that Mr. Piper is not less, but only more scrupulous about trying not to blaspheme his Lord in any way than I am (though I certainly wish to be growing always more and more).
> 
> The end of all the commandments is love. As those who believe that the image of the God we love with all our hearts is not to be represented by anything made by us, but is bestowed with special dignity on our fellow men -- and is to be found most especially in our brothers and sisters in Christ -- it seems we should be only more careful in addressing these issues to do so in love and honor of one another, to practice and show our belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Seconded. I have some issues with Piper as well, in particular concerning his doctrine of material stewardship as articulated in his book _Desiring God_. But I'm also not going to call him a heretic because he holds an erroneous view on one area.


----------



## Tim

The OP asked what people thought about the story. I replied that I thought it was blasphemous [to write fiction about Jesus]. Others offered similar comments on the story. It is a simple assessment of a public act done by a public figure.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

So because some American Puritans didn't attack slavery with ferociousness of John Brown it is ok for John Piper to write unbiblical and anti-biblical stories on the Incarnation?

Paul rebuked Peter to his face publically, someone who did some pretty important things for the Church.


----------



## Tim

J. Dean said:


> But I'm also not going to call him a heretic because he holds an erroneous view on one area.



And the good thing is that nobody else in this thread has called Piper a heretic either.


----------



## py3ak

thbslawson said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a little bit more charitable to a brother in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then. How would you suggest we discuss such practices/actions in a charitable manner? If we believe something is blasphemous, how should we refer to that practice? If I paint a picture of Christ, is it uncharitable to state that it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How you say? I'll give you an example. How about we do it with the same charity with which we defend those puritans who vehemently defended slavery and promoted racism. Not trying to railroad the discussion here, but it seems we're only willing to forgive, charitably deal with or overlook the sins of another brother, living or deceased, when his overall theology better fits our own.
Click to expand...


Thomas, unless you can show at least one instance of a Puritan Board member (or at least a figure widely admired by Puritan Board members) defending a puritan who in turn vehemently defended slavery and promoted racism, this remark doesn't serve as a helpful illustration at all. 

Identifying something for what it is, is not a lack of charity. Needlessly exposing a fault may well arise from a lack of charity; but when we are speaking something that is published and circulated with the author's permission, it can hardly be thought of as "exposing" - that has already been done. I do not believe it is a lack of charity towards Dabney for me to say that while there is certainly some value and profit to be found in his works, his racism is disgusting and reprehensible. In the same way, the fact that John Piper can be a very insightful and electrifying exegete who has the courage to make warranted applications that many seem to shrink from, does not mean that any aberrant view or wrong practice he espouses cannot be given its proper label. Sin doesn't lose its sinful character just because it's committed by a Christian.

The epistle of Jude might be instructive in this whole connection. It is the baddies who speak evil of dignities, while the goodies will not bring a railing accusation even against the devil. But that does not mean pretending a spade is something else: wandering stars, twice-dead, clouds without water, spots in our feasts of charity - these are all terms the same author who would not have us despise dominion even in our forms of speech is quite comfortable applying to false teachers. I suspect that we are simultaneously too nice and too malicious: there should be more vigor and color in what we say, and at the same time a more fervent charity should inform our tone and choice of words.


----------



## thbslawson

py3ak said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a little bit more charitable to a brother in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then. How would you suggest we discuss such practices/actions in a charitable manner? If we believe something is blasphemous, how should we refer to that practice? If I paint a picture of Christ, is it uncharitable to state that it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How you say? I'll give you an example. How about we do it with the same charity with which we defend those puritans who vehemently defended slavery and promoted racism. Not trying to railroad the discussion here, but it seems we're only willing to forgive, charitably deal with or overlook the sins of another brother, living or deceased, when his overall theology better fits our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas, unless you can show at least one instance of a Puritan Board member (or at least a figure widely admired by Puritan Board members) defending a puritan who in turn vehemently defended slavery and promoted racism, this remark doesn't serve as a helpful illustration at all.
> 
> Identifying something for what it is, is not a lack of charity. Needlessly exposing a fault may well arise from a lack of charity; but when we are speaking something that is published and circulated with the author's permission, it can hardly be thought of as "exposing" - that has already been done. I do not believe it is a lack of charity towards Dabney for me to say that while there is certainly some value and profit to be found in his works, his racism is disgusting and reprehensible. In the same way, the fact that John Piper can be a very insightful and electrifying exegete who has the courage to make warranted applications that many seem to shrink from, does not mean that any aberrant view or wrong practice he espouses cannot be given its proper label. Sin doesn't lose its sinful character just because it's committed by a Christian.
> 
> The epistle of Jude might be instructive in this whole connection. It is the baddies who speak evil of dignities, while the goodies will not bring a railing accusation even against the devil. But that does not mean pretending a spade is something else: wandering stars, twice-dead, clouds without water, spots in our feasts of charity - these are all terms the same author who would not have us despise dominion even in our forms of speech is quite comfortable applying to false teachers. I suspect that we are simultaneously too nice and too malicious: there should be more vigor and color in what we say, and at the same time a more fervent charity should inform our tone and choice of words.
Click to expand...


Ruben, there was recently a discussion about this...

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/should-we-condemn-puritans-racist-76118/

I want to be careful not to get off subject, but I still feel my illustration was appropriate. The subject of the above linked discussion had to do with the racist views of some Puritans, and there were many that held them. Now it is not uncommon that when this subject is broached in Reformed circles that the responses of confessional people are...

"The best of men are men at best. I hold the Puritans as precious for those things they did right."
"I think being racist means hating a group of ppl, and I have a hard time believing that the Puritans hated any group of ppl."
"Has anyone in the debate bothered to define the term 'racist'?"
"Were the puritans any more racist than any one else in English society?"

All of those above quotes are taken directly from the linked thread, and as I read those remarks I see a clear levels of charitable defense being given. 

While his name was not mentioned in the above thread, and while he was not necessarily of the Puritan era, R.L. Dabney often receives a very charitable apologetic in Reformed circles.

Now my point is this: When the Puritans are accused of a grievous sin the general response tends to be "No one is sinless...they were men at best...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater..." In Piper's case here the response has been "Idolatry! Blasphemy!" Why does Piper, a man who has been blessed by God to the blessing of so many others, not get the same level of charity?


----------



## timmopussycat

J. Dean said:


> I guess, without reading the actual story, it's a bit difficult and unfair for me to pass judgment on it. Is Piper passing this off as what he think actually happened?



No, he is not. See the Desiring God website summary (The*Innkeeper by*John Piper - Desiring God) which accurately summarized the book' narrative: 

"Only two weeks from his crucifixion, Jesus has stopped in Bethlehem. He has returned to visit someone important—the innkeeper who made a place for Mary and Joseph the night he was born. But His greater purpose in coming is to pay a debt. What did it cost to house the Son of God?
Through this imaginative poem, John Piper shares a tale of what might have been – the story of an innkeeper whose life was forever altered by the arrival of the Son of God.
Ponder the sacrifice that was made that night. Celebrate Christ’s birth and the power of His resurrection. Rejoice in the life and light He brings to all. And encounter the hope His life gives you for today – and for eternity."

Note the words "imaginative poem" and "what might have been." the summary tells us what Piper is about: he is not claiming his poem as fact.
A pdf copy of the book is available at that site. If viewed on computer the pictures are such that certain faces are impossible to see clearly.


----------



## timmopussycat

Marrow Man said:


> So the "sermon" I heard was about the "innkeeper" (once again, Scripture never mentions an innkeeper; the idea of an "inn" in Bethlehem is even debatable). The story was so fanciful that in order to make it about the crucifixion, etc., the pastor made the innkeeper out to be the same person who rented the Upper Room to the disciples and Jesus. Complete fantasy, and a terrible sermon to boot.



The pastor you heard has misread the poem. In Piper's poem, the innkeeper remains in Bethlehem and does not rent the Upper room.


----------



## timmopussycat

Tim said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Piper presented his meditation as factual that would be adding to God's word and that is something which God's word condemns. But instead of doing that, Piper is explicitly doing something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what the author of "The Shack" did as well?
Click to expand...


I haven't read "The Shack so don't know. But I don't think so: many arguments against "The Shack" point out that its message is inconsistent with biblical theology. The fundamental message of Piper's poem, that Christ's resurrection is our fundamental hope when we consider the loss of children, is not.


----------



## timmopussycat

Tim said:


> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a little bit more charitable to a brother in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then. How would you suggest we discuss such practices/actions in a charitable manner? If we believe something is blasphemous, how should we refer to that practice? If I paint a picture of Christ, is it uncharitable to state that it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment?
Click to expand...


For starters, by not applying to such a brother terms that the bible specifically applies to sinners not yet saved.


----------



## timmopussycat

thbslawson said:


> . . . there was recently a discussion about this...
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/should-we-condemn-puritans-racist-76118/
> 
> I want to be careful not to get off subject, but I still feel my illustration was appropriate. The subject of the above linked discussion had to do with the racist views of some Puritans, and there were many that held them. Now it is not uncommon that when this subject is broached in Reformed circles that the responses of confessional people are...
> 
> "The best of men are men at best. I hold the Puritans as precious for those things they did right."
> "I think being racist means hating a group of ppl, and I have a hard time believing that the Puritans hated any group of ppl."
> "Has anyone in the debate bothered to define the term 'racist'?"
> "Were the puritans any more racist than any one else in English society?"
> 
> All of those above quotes are taken directly from the linked thread, and as I read those remarks I see a clear levels of charitable defense being given.
> 
> While his name was not mentioned in the above thread, and while he was not necessarily of the Puritan era, R.L. Dabney often receives a very charitable apologetic in Reformed circles.
> 
> Now my point is this: When the Puritans are accused of a grievous sin the general response tends to be "No one is sinless...they were men at best...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater..." In Piper's case here the response has been "Idolatry! Blasphemy!" Why does Piper, a man who has been blessed by God to the blessing of so many others, not get the same level of charity?



The answer is simple. There is a near universal human tendency, that may affect every ideologically or religiously committed person, to see those "like us" in the best of lights and those "not like us" without that blessing. Because Piper is an evangelical Baptist with a reformed soteriology, those Reformed who are more self-consciously confessional might easily find themselves using a different standard when they assess his work than they would use in assessing someone like, say Gillespie.


----------



## py3ak

thbslawson said:


> Ruben, there was recently a discussion about this...
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/should-we-condemn-puritans-racist-76118/
> 
> I want to be careful not to get off subject, but I still feel my illustration was appropriate. The subject of the above linked discussion had to do with the racist views of some Puritans, and there were many that held them. Now it is not uncommon that when this subject is broached in Reformed circles that the responses of confessional people are...
> 
> "The best of men are men at best. I hold the Puritans as precious for those things they did right."
> "I think being racist means hating a group of ppl, and I have a hard time believing that the Puritans hated any group of ppl."
> "Has anyone in the debate bothered to define the term 'racist'?"
> "Were the puritans any more racist than any one else in English society?"
> 
> All of those above quotes are taken directly from the linked thread, and as I read those remarks I see a clear levels of charitable defense being given.
> 
> While his name was not mentioned in the above thread, and while he was not necessarily of the Puritan era, R.L. Dabney often receives a very charitable apologetic in Reformed circles.
> 
> Now my point is this: When the Puritans are accused of a grievous sin the general response tends to be "No one is sinless...they were men at best...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater..." In Piper's case here the response has been "Idolatry! Blasphemy!" Why does Piper, a man who has been blessed by God to the blessing of so many others, not get the same level of charity?



Thomas, there is certainly one, and perhaps there are two, missing features that make the illustration inapt:
1. The charge of racism has been made, but the substantiation offered is tenuous. You say above "there were many that held them." But who has actually given us names and quotes or anecdotes that reveal this pervasive racism? In my own reading of the Puritans I have not come across racism; but as my own reading is limited, I am quite willing to look up references or read quotes from those who have. Nonetheless, until the charge is substantiated, there is no reason to accept it. Whereas in this case there doesn't appear to be a difference concerning what Piper has done: he has published a book which imagines events in the life of Christ we have no reason to believe occurred, and in publishing them has joined with pictures which violate the 2nd Commandment. 
2. I didn't see anyone defending the Puritans for their supposed racism, as though it were a good quality. If your point is that because Piper has done good we can cut him some slack for what he has done wrong, of course, this consideration is irrelevant, but I include it because I'm not sure if that is necessarily included in your idea of a charitable defense.

Given that this is the Puritan Board, there should be no reason to expect disagreement with identifying an image of Christ as a 2nd Commandment violation, and therefore, a species of idolatry. I don't know that the question of stating things that Christ could have or might have or would have said has been hashed out so thoroughly or defined so clearly. Thomas Goodwin was much affected by a sermon in which the preacher introduced a sort of dramatic dialogue between God and his people; Benjamin Grosvenor put words in Christ's mouth as part of a sermon. And I doubt that those are the only two instances that could be collected. Which is not to say the practice is right, but it is of more frequent occurrence in our own tradition than pictorial depictions of Christ. The place for imaginatively filling in backstory is probably something of a separate discussion. In other words, there may well be points where criticism and defense could result in an informative discussion. That "The Innkeeper's Story" contains one kind of violations of the 2nd Commandment does not seem to be disputed: whether it also contains another variety of violations of the 2nd Commandment and violations of the 3rd is a reasonable question to bring up.



timmopussycat said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the "sermon" I heard was about the "innkeeper" (once again, Scripture never mentions an innkeeper; the idea of an "inn" in Bethlehem is even debatable). The story was so fanciful that in order to make it about the crucifixion, etc., the pastor made the innkeeper out to be the same person who rented the Upper Room to the disciples and Jesus. Complete fantasy, and a terrible sermon to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pastor you heard has misread the poem. In Piper's poem, the innkeeper remains in Bethlehem and does not rent the Upper room.
Click to expand...


Actually, you have misread Tim. He did not state or imply that the pastor he references was familiar with Piper's work.


----------



## Marrow Man

timmopussycat said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the "sermon" I heard was about the "innkeeper" (once again, Scripture never mentions an innkeeper; the idea of an "inn" in Bethlehem is even debatable). The story was so fanciful that in order to make it about the crucifixion, etc., the pastor made the innkeeper out to be the same person who rented the Upper Room to the disciples and Jesus. Complete fantasy, and a terrible sermon to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pastor you heard has misread the poem. In Piper's poem, the innkeeper remains in Bethlehem and does not rent the Upper room.
Click to expand...


You misread my post. I was talking about an incident that happened years ago (in response to a comment by Backwoods Presbyterian) and not speaking of Piper's poem being read. I was giving an example of another fanciful narrative about a person who is never mentioned in Scripture and may not have ever even existed.


----------



## thbslawson

py3ak said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ruben, there was recently a discussion about this...
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/should-we-condemn-puritans-racist-76118/
> 
> I want to be careful not to get off subject, but I still feel my illustration was appropriate. The subject of the above linked discussion had to do with the racist views of some Puritans, and there were many that held them. Now it is not uncommon that when this subject is broached in Reformed circles that the responses of confessional people are...
> 
> "The best of men are men at best. I hold the Puritans as precious for those things they did right."
> "I think being racist means hating a group of ppl, and I have a hard time believing that the Puritans hated any group of ppl."
> "Has anyone in the debate bothered to define the term 'racist'?"
> "Were the puritans any more racist than any one else in English society?"
> 
> All of those above quotes are taken directly from the linked thread, and as I read those remarks I see a clear levels of charitable defense being given.
> 
> While his name was not mentioned in the above thread, and while he was not necessarily of the Puritan era, R.L. Dabney often receives a very charitable apologetic in Reformed circles.
> 
> Now my point is this: When the Puritans are accused of a grievous sin the general response tends to be "No one is sinless...they were men at best...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater..." In Piper's case here the response has been "Idolatry! Blasphemy!" Why does Piper, a man who has been blessed by God to the blessing of so many others, not get the same level of charity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas, there is certainly one, and perhaps there are two, missing features that make the illustration inapt:
> 1. The charge of racism has been made, but the substantiation offered is tenuous. You say above "there were many that held them." But who has actually given us names and quotes or anecdotes that reveal this pervasive racism? In my own reading of the Puritans I have not come across racism; but as my own reading is limited, I am quite willing to look up references or read quotes from those who have. Nonetheless, until the charge is substantiated, there is no reason to accept it. Whereas in this case there doesn't appear to be a difference concerning what Piper has done: he has published a book which imagines events in the life of Christ we have no reason to believe occurred, and in publishing them has joined with pictures which violate the 2nd Commandment.
> 2. I didn't see anyone defending the Puritans for their supposed racism, as though it were a good quality. If your point is that because Piper has done good we can cut him some slack for what he has done wrong, of course, this consideration is irrelevant, but I include it because I'm not sure if that is necessarily included in your idea of a charitable defense.
Click to expand...


1. I not going to debate the racism of the Puritans. That has been done elsewhere, and there is ample historical evidence to give the accusation sound basis. My point was not to debate this again, but to point out that they get "slack" or dealt with more graciously by the Reformed community, even to the point of questioning the evidence that some of them were racist.

2. I'm not saying that what Piper did was right.

3. I never said anyone defended the Puritans "for their supposed racism". I said they get treated differently on the subject and are treated more graciously in light of their errors.

4. Never said that we should cut Piper some slack because of all the good he's done. We should deal graciously and lovingly with him because he's..

A. A brother in Christ
B. Loves the Lord
C. Is an elder in God's church


----------



## py3ak

thbslawson said:


> 1. I not going to debate the racism of the Puritans. That has been done elsewhere, and there is ample historical evidence to give the accusation sound basis. My point was not to debate this again, but to point out that they get "slack" or dealt with more graciously by the Reformed community, even to the point of questioning the evidence that some of them were racist.



That "ample historical evidence" should be fairly easy to link to or reference without any need to engage in debate. If that can't be done, then "questioning the evidence" is not simply the charitable, but the reasonable thing to do. Without that, the illustration really does fail, because if I can make a generalization without evidence about the Puritans, I can do the same thing about Piper, etc. "Deal with Piper the same way you deal with the racist Puritans" at this point simply sounds like saying, "Accept what other people say about Piper whether they document the charges or not." That's not something I'm prepared to do quite yet.



thbslawson said:


> 2. I'm not saying that what Piper did was right.



OK.



thbslawson said:


> 3. I never said anyone defended the Puritans "for their supposed racism". I said they get treated differently on the subject and are treated more graciously in light of their errors.



Perhaps you mean "in spite of their errors"? Or that their errors are treated more graciously?



thbslawson said:


> 4. Never said that we should cut Piper some slack because of all the good he's done. We should deal graciously and lovingly with him because he's..
> 
> A. A brother in Christ
> B. Loves the Lord
> C. Is an elder in God's church



Does "deal" include reproving for errors? I would assume so, since you won't say he is right. So how about a concrete illustration on how to do that charitably and graciously? A general call for charity is never out of place; but if it contains few specifics it is difficult to evaluate it against the Biblical standard set in Galatians 2 & 6, or in Jude, to mention only a few places. What would you say to Piper? Or perhaps you could provide a document that models gracious disagreement, or sets out some guidelines. I thought that James Durham was a little too mild towards Richard Baxter.


----------



## irresistible_grace

Jeff Burns said:


> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a _little bit_ more charitable to a *brother *in Christ?



I can only speak for myself. I do not have a problem with extending charity, however, no man is above reproof (not even myself). I did not call Dr. Piper "one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie" rather in this poem he has "exchanged the *truth* about God for*a lie" ... Dr. Piper has created a fictional Jesus who was a debtor to an armless man who makes light of the 10 commandments (joking as concerns his love for his dog). This fictional Jesus, whom Dr. Piper calls "The Lord" is a debtor to this man that supposedly lost everything because he provided a place for the Messiah to be born more than 30 years ago. The Messiah who wouldn't stick around long enough to help out. A Lord who didn't know he was in the company of a child of God until the innkeeper said something about God being the owner of the inn. I could go on but I won't (and probably shouldn't have responded at all because I was frustrated at the time by several comments made by people who said they didn't even read the poem & other comments that implied that those who believe Dr. Piper violates the second commandment in this poem did so without reading the poem and/or were simply being uncharitable). Read the poem for yourself before you accuse those who have as being UNcharitable 

The poem takes the name of God in vain & creates "A Christ" that is not found in Scripture. Why? Because of some *"gift of candle three!"*


----------



## thbslawson

py3ak said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I not going to debate the racism of the Puritans. That has been done elsewhere, and there is ample historical evidence to give the accusation sound basis. My point was not to debate this again, but to point out that they get "slack" or dealt with more graciously by the Reformed community, even to the point of questioning the evidence that some of them were racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That "ample historical evidence" should be fairly easy to link to or reference without any need to engage in debate. If that can't be done, then "questioning the evidence" is not simply the charitable, but the reasonable thing to do. Without that, the illustration really does fail, because if I can make a generalization without evidence about the Puritans, I can do the same thing about Piper, etc. "Deal with Piper the same way you deal with the racist Puritans" at this point simply sounds like saying, "Accept what other people say about Piper whether they document the charges or not." That's not something I'm prepared to do quite yet.
> 
> 
> 
> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I'm not saying that what Piper did was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I never said anyone defended the Puritans "for their supposed racism". I said they get treated differently on the subject and are treated more graciously in light of their errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you mean "in spite of their errors"? Or that their errors are treated more graciously?
> 
> 
> 
> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Never said that we should cut Piper some slack because of all the good he's done. We should deal graciously and lovingly with him because he's..
> 
> A. A brother in Christ
> B. Loves the Lord
> C. Is an elder in God's church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does "deal" include reproving for errors? I would assume so, since you won't say he is right. So how about a concrete illustration on how to do that charitably and graciously? A general call for charity is never out of place; but if it contains few specifics it is difficult to evaluate it against the Biblical standard set in Galatians 2 & 6, or in Jude, to mention only a few places. What would you say to Piper? Or perhaps you could provide a document that models gracious disagreement, or sets out some guidelines. I thought that James Durham was a little too mild towards Richard Baxter.
Click to expand...


There are some fine examples above from Zack, Jeff Burns and "A Mere Housewife" of how to deal charitably. As far as a concrete example, I gave one, referencing how the Puritans were dealt with in light of their sins. Or perhaps we should examine our own hearts on this board before we start throwing out charges of blasphemy and idolatry so easily. Or above all, see what the word says...

_"Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers,"_ 1 Timothy 5:1

I'm sure someone can explain to me what that verse doesn't really mean what I think it says or doesn't apply in this situation 

Or perhaps a well-crafted letter filled with grace and charity lovingly written to Dr. Piper? 

There are some in Reformed circles who are all too eager to pounce on a brother at the first sign of error, as if they almost enjoy it. At the end of the day it's more obnoxious than edifying.


----------



## greenbaggins

I guess I do not find Piper's poem quite as objectionable as some here have. Any pictorial representation of Jesus is definitely a violation of the second commandment. It seems that most of us agree with that. However, what Piper is doing here in principle is not fundamentally different from what C.S. Lewis did in the Chronicles of Narnia. I was actually more bothered by the factual difficulties in terms of what the whole birth scene looked like. If one reads this book by Kenneth Bailey, a very different picture emerges. I advise people, in fact, to read that book, as it will shake up a lot of very traditional, but erroneous conceptions about what happened at the birth of Christ (and he addresses other passages in equally interesting ways).


----------



## timmopussycat

irresistible_grace said:


> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... In this one thread, Piper has been called a blasphemer, an idolator, a fool, and one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie... Perhaps we ought to try to be just a _little bit_ more charitable to a *brother *in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only speak for myself. I do not have problem extending charity, however, no man is above reproof. I did not call Dr. Piper "one who exchanges the glory of God for a lie" rather in this poem he has "exchanged the *truth* about God for*a lie" ... Dr. Piper has created a fictional Jesus who was a debtor to an armless man who loves a dog more than the 10 commandments. This fictional Jesus, whom he calls "The Lord" is a debtor to a man that supposedly lost everything because he provided a place for the Messiah to be born more than 30 years ago. The Messiah who wouldn't stick around long enough to help out. A Lord who didn't know he was in the company of one of God's elect until after this Child of God said something to confirm it for him by something he said about God being the owner of the inn. I could go on but I won't. Read the poem for yourself before you accuse those who have as being UNcharitable
Click to expand...


I *have* read the poem for myself, and while I don't accuse you of being uncharitable, the factual errors in your quoted reply make it appear that you have not read the poem with due care. Reading without due care is unfortunately too easy, as this thread illustrates, I do it myself from time to time.

The extent of our Lord's knowledge while in the flesh is debated among theologians: can we be certain from the bible that Our Lord knew all his elect before he met them? Certainly he sometimes seems ignorant of details until informed: He says "Who touched me?" for example. That God in His divinity is debtor to no man I agree. But whether Jesus, in his humanity, would have felt indebted to the one who gave his parents housing that night is another question. The bible depicts him as being truly human and a truly human man in that situation might well have felt indebted. The innkeeper does not love the dog more than the decalogue, his "joking" comment to his neighbours is "There's nothing in the decalogue that says a man can't love a dog." "The Messiah who wouldn't stick around long enough to help out" is not a statement predicated of God by the poem, but rather it is the perception of the innkeeper before he is presented with the biblical solution that is the poem's ultimate message.


----------



## py3ak

thbslawson said:


> There are some fine examples above from Zack, Jeff Burns and "A Mere Housewife" of how to deal charitably. As far as a concrete example, I gave one, referencing how the Puritans were dealt with in light of their sins. Or perhaps we should examine our own hearts on this board before we start throwing out charges of blasphemy and idolatry so easily. Or above all, see what the word says...



If you're not willing to provide substantiation, you should drop the Puritan example. It seems rather to undermine the point you wish to make. There is a wide difference between a case that has not been demonstrated and a fact that is not in dispute. Or again, while a call to examine our hearts is rarely misplaced, how do you know that hasn't been done? How do you know that the charges were made "so easily" and not after careful consideration?



thbslawson said:


> _"Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers,"_ 1 Timothy 5:1
> 
> I'm sure someone can explain to me what that verse doesn't really mean what I think it says or doesn't apply in this situation



Brother, what does it say of your view of others on the Board that you think they would want to eliminate this verse from consideration?



thbslawson said:


> Or perhaps a well-crafted letter filled with grace and charity lovingly written to Dr. Piper?
> 
> There are some in Reformed circles who are all too eager to pounce on a brother at the first sign of error, as if they almost enjoy it. At the end of the day it's more obnoxious than edifying.



Perhaps a well-crafted post filled with grace and charity lovingly posted on the board would help these brethren to be more edifying and less obnoxious; but it would seem necessary, in order to be able to do it well, to examine one's own heart first so as to be sure that the brethren are not being hastily lumped together, or themselves easily accused of being obnoxious....


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

> However, what Piper is doing here in principle is not fundamentally different from what C.S. Lewis did in the Chronicles of Narnia.



Not to get off topic, but good point. It is interesting to note that Lewis said he had been having strange dreams about lions when began writing the work and also said that "Aslan is a divine figure." And Lewis even went so far as to say that when a child "thinks he is loving Aslan, he is really loving Jesus: and perhaps loving Him more than he ever did before." See page 438 of _C.S. Lewis: A Complete Guide to His Life & Works_ By Walter Hooper. It is not okay to love and worship God through any false image made to represent Him. The sufficient image of God is Christ, revealed in the Scriptures. The Golden Lion is nothing more than another idol and a rather _beastly_ one at that.


----------



## py3ak

Matthew Willard Lankford said:


> However, what Piper is doing here in principle is not fundamentally different from what C.S. Lewis did in the Chronicles of Narnia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to get off topic, but good point. It is interesting to note that Lewis said he had been having strange dreams about lions when began writing the work and also said that "Aslan is a divine figure." And Lewis even went so far as to say that when a child "thinks he is loving Aslan, he is really loving Jesus: and perhaps loving Him more than he ever did before." See page 438 of _C.S. Lewis: A Complete Guide to His Life & Works_ By Walter Hooper. It is not okay to love and worship God through any false image made to represent Him. The sufficient image of God is Christ, revealed in the Scriptures. The Golden Lion is nothing more than another idol and a rather _beastly_ one at that.
Click to expand...


I was just thinking that I quite disagreed with Lane's remark about the tactics being essentially the same. A topic for another thread, no doubt.


----------



## Tim

So, are we allowed to discuss the issue again?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I don't like reading poems or stories – or seeing movies – "re-enacting" Biblical scenes, as they put images into my mind that are not congruous with the unadulterated images that simply arise from the Biblical text. I think I recall another of Piper's "Bible story" poems that, after a few lines, I just put away. I had this same objection to the movie on King David's life (didn't see it), and on Anne Rice's novels on Jesus (I did read the first one, and found it highly objectionable). Now I did not find Francis Thompson's poem, _The Hound of Heaven_, objectionable (although he has the Lord speaking), neither the wonderful hymn, "How Firm A Foundation", which does the same. I tried to do this myself in the piece, http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/kkk-all-others-their-kind-22837/, with some caveats. There is a line that should not be crossed, though I'm not sure how how to formulate it at the moment.

Now I really like some of Piper's stuff – I think the most I have listened to are his biographical lectures on various Christian preachers / pastors – and, being a poet myself, love poetry. But this kind of stuff I avoid. When _I_ write on Biblical material, I seek not to detract by adding. An example:


A PEASANT GIRL'S STORY​_-near the Sea of Galilee, A.D. 28_​
I was milking my mistress' cow
Thursday morning
and the first light of dawn
was touching the mountains behind me.
The milk streamed into my jar,
I could hear the birds fly past
and sing,
as I waited for the dark sea below
to be filled like a bowl
with glorious sunlight.

Then from the mountain
where the pine trees roof you in
with shade and sweet odor,
I heard from the big rocks above
a voice.
Yes, all the way down here I heard it.
I looked across the sea
and my hand was motionless
on the cow's teat.
It seemed I was sitting in eternity.
It was that voice.
If God had a Son here on the earth
calling Him
about our suffering,
that would explain what I heard.
Half an hour I sat here trembling
as this living creation was bathed
by something
in that voice on the mountain.

When it stopped
I knew past the silence
that something....
something eternal and terrible
was going on
among these quiet hills.

​


----------



## py3ak

Tim said:


> So, are we allowed to discuss the issue again?



Tim you were never prohibited or discouraged from discussing the issue. All that was requested was that we be mindful of Dr. Piper's status as our brother in Christ and as an officer of Christ's church and to let that influence how we speak about him. Incorrect principles are to be rejected, and correct principles to be commended;but with regard to brothers, we are to receive one another to the glory of God.


----------



## Tim

py3ak said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are we allowed to discuss the issue again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim you were never prohibited or discouraged from discussing the issue. All that was requested was that we be mindful of Dr. Piper's status as our brother in Christ and as an officer of Christ's church and to let that influence how we speak about him. Incorrect principles are to be rejected, and correct principles to be commended;but with regard to brothers, we are to receive one another to the glory of God.
Click to expand...


Yes, indeed. My comment was intended to be light-hearted. I am okay with everything.


----------



## py3ak

That's a very sweeping state of okayness! Enjoy it while it lasts.


----------



## thbslawson

py3ak said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some fine examples above from Zack, Jeff Burns and "A Mere Housewife" of how to deal charitably. As far as a concrete example, I gave one, referencing how the Puritans were dealt with in light of their sins. Or perhaps we should examine our own hearts on this board before we start throwing out charges of blasphemy and idolatry so easily. Or above all, see what the word says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not willing to provide substantiation, you should drop the Puritan example. It seems rather to undermine the point you wish to make. There is a wide difference between a case that has not been demonstrated and a fact that is not in dispute. Or again, while a call to examine our hearts is rarely misplaced, how do you know that hasn't been done? How do you know that the charges were made "so easily" and not after careful consideration?
Click to expand...


Precious Puritans (Pt 1) | joethorn.net
How much evidence do you want? Do I need to write a paper?

Also, I never said anyone _didn't_ examine his or her own heart. You simply asked me what a proper response would be, so I told you.



py3ak said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers,"_ 1 Timothy 5:1
> 
> I'm sure someone can explain to me what that verse doesn't really mean what I think it says or doesn't apply in this situation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, what does it say of your view of others on the Board that you think they would want to eliminate this verse from consideration?
Click to expand...


Subtle humor my friend, hence the smiley. I'll put two next time.



py3ak said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps a well-crafted letter filled with grace and charity lovingly written to Dr. Piper?
> 
> There are some in Reformed circles who are all too eager to pounce on a brother at the first sign of error, as if they almost enjoy it. At the end of the day it's more obnoxious than edifying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a well-crafted post filled with grace and charity lovingly posted on the board would help these brethren to be more edifying and less obnoxious; but it would seem necessary, in order to be able to do it well, to examine one's own heart first so as to be sure that the brethren are not being hastily lumped together, or themselves easily accused of being obnoxious....
Click to expand...


Not interested in getting into a mudslinging match. Now I'm being accused of being ungracious because I've said that some were being ungracious to Dr. Piper. The arguments are getting circular here. 

There's a difference between saying *someone* is obnoxious and that certain people occasionally *say things* that are obnoxious. Of course I'm fully aware that I do obnoxious things too, so it would probably be best not to assume that I haven't examined my own heart. There _are_ some obnoxious tendencies that can raise their heads in reformed circles from time to time, and one of those is the quickness to jump on another brother.

You asked how one should respond, and I gave you some examples. 

Going to tap out on this discussion.


----------



## py3ak

Thomas, I'm apparently having some difficulty being as clear as I would like. It was not my intention to accuse you of being ungracious, and I apologize for the failure to properly acknowledge your points and set out my own replies with sufficient context. I share your lack of interest in a mudslinging match, and regret the failures in communication that made it seem like one.

For the record, we do need to be gracious to Dr. Piper for the reasons you mention. I am interested to hear what can guide us in determining whether words or remarks are gracious or ungracious, because obviously people have different levels of tolerance, and Scripture has examples of language that many would find offensive, with an unrelenting insistence on kindness in our speech. Possibly the subjects of that offensive language and the objects of the exhortations to kindness can be distinguished; possibly it may be the case that vigorous language is not always inconsistent with charity or respect. But if someone believes that the approach adopted in "The Innkeeper" is in violation of the first three commandments, I see no reason why they could not argue that point; though their practical case would be helped by manifesting a careful reading of the poem. I have started another thread that seeks to explore the theoretical foundations for that point of view.

My point was fairly simple: calls for charity are better received if those being called to charity can _see_ that they themselves are being treated charitably. And that emerged from the choice of our defense of Puritans in spite of their sins with regard to matters of slavery and race. I thought it was an illustration unlikely to help you make your case, and so far I can't retract that opinion.

I read the link you posted, and couldn't help thinking it would have been more helpful if more precise references had been included: we have a mention of Stephen Williams, Roger Newton, Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan Ashley, Samuel Willard, and Cotton Mather. But unfortunately, in most of those cases, insufficient bibliographic information is presented for one to check out what was said. When you add in to the difficulty raised for verification the deficiencies in the argument itself (including irrelevant points of data, generalization on the basis of individualized evidence, and argument by implication), it seems the point still stands: from Stephen Williams to William Perkins, the conclusion does not necessarily follow.


----------



## MW

Matthew Willard Lankford said:


> The Golden Lion is nothing more than another idol and a rather _beastly_ one at that.



Thankyou for drawing attention to this. Lewis simply is not a suitable example.


----------

