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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[KMK]

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]

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]

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 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]

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?

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]

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?

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

 

[J. Dean]

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 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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.