John Piper's "The Innkeeper"

[timmopussycat]

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?

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]

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?

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

 

[timmopussycat]

. . . 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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Marrow Man]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

OK.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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

OK.

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?

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.

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]

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

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]

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?

"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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.

"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?

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

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....

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]

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.