Tag Archives: John Piper

Do You Hate Your Enemies Enough To Love Them?

A VERY QUICK THOUGHT EXPERIMENT USING RIGHT WING CONTRARIANISM

In the latest edition of What Nonsense Is NeoCalvinism Preaching today, an employee for John Piper’s Desiring God, referring to Piper’s works, Do You Love Your Enemies Enough to Hate Them?| Desiring God, wants Christians to believe Jesus told us to hate our enemies. A hate, which in turn, will enable Christians to adopt a Crusader theocratic mentality to enact violence upon those we disagree. HATE IN THE NAME OF LOVE YALL. Enter Mr. Parnell:

“And when Jesus said “love,” we should be clear that he didn’t mean hollow good will, or some bland benevolence, or a flakey niceness that hopes our enemies stop being so cruel. Jesus never talks about love that way.”

Good will? Benevolence? Flakey niceness? “Surely now goodness and mercy will FOLLOW me all the days of my life” or “Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you”; the concept of forgiveness means nothing but fire insurance? Oh Parnell probably just means any worldview that endorses nonviolence over bloodshed, and any man (literally) who isn’t a Just War Crusader is probably lacking in the area of masculinity. Did I get that right? Wanna know how many times Mr. Parnell quotes Jesus in his post? ABSOLUTELY ZERO! That’s right! Let’s talk about how Jesus discussed love without actually referring to the Gospels. Makes sense to me.

The one passage from John 5 that the author refers to is concerning the resurrection of the dead, and was completely irrelevant to the subject of Jesus “teaching hate.”

Parnell continues:

“Evil belittles God’s holiness and evidences that his name is not hallowed. We hate evil because it is wrong. But on the other hand, if this hatred is part of loving our enemies, we must hate the evil of our enemies because of what the evil means for them.”

If evil “belittles” God’s holiness, what an absolute puny god you must believe in.

HULK smash PUNY DETERMINIST GOD-LOKI!!

HULK smash PUNY DETERMINIST GOD-LOKI!!

Parnell’s theology (NeoCalvinism) is a god that remains distant, aloof, far above us, with a holiness that stresses separation rather than acts of goodness and redemption. What Piper and other NeoCalvinists are trying to do is to co-opt a set of harmful words usually geared toward the LGBTQIA community, and also apply them to radical Muslims. In both instances, they fail and will continue to fail. Love the sinner but hate the sinner is not only an unbiblical concept, but within the context of NeoCalvinist theology and its view of Total Depravity, it is incredibly harmful. Total Depravity is the extreme version of Augustine’s concept of Original Sin. If we are born inherently sinful, and that sinfulness is (as Original Sin argues) is passed down BIOLOGICALLY, then there is no separation between the sin and the sinner. Since then human fallenness is a natural phenomenon, a person who hates the sin also hates the sinner in Original Sin logic.

Now, not only does Jesus actually talk about what enemy-love looks like, the earliest followers of Christ like the apostle Paul did too. Let’s take a glance, shall we!

Jesus: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:43-48 NIV)

I know Calvinists love Romans a lot, except for that 12th chapter thing. Ethics just gets in the way of everything. Here’s the apostle Paul, as recorded by his secretary, “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] says the Lord” (verse 19). Say it isn’t so! Pauline Christianity also means really trusting in YHWH’s justice rather than our own. Looks like Paul takes his cues from Judaism rather than pagan practices. The living, sacrificial love that Piper and NeoCalvinists completely get wrong is not about calling evil good, (warmongering, violence versus Muslims as a necessary evil to bring about “the Gory Glory of God,” but it is overcoming evil with good. It is engaging the defeated powers of death with the awesome, life-giving peacemaking of Christ Jesus. “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head”

Well, now, that’s awkward. Seems like the apostle Paul is saying we are hoping for our enemies’ wellbeing.

Lastly, let us never forget that God does not die for His enemies (the ungodly as Romans 5:6 says) in Calvinism; since the Elect are predestined, they were chosen to be God’s friends since the beginning of time. So God in Christ cannot exhibit love for his enemies in the least, especially since the reprobate have not a chance in hell of getting into heaven (it’s been foreordained, folks!). Enemy-love as defined by Christ and the Good News gets redefined as worldly acts of needless retributive violence in PiperCalvinism.

God loves the righteous and the unrighteous. I mean, if Romans 3 is understood to be saying that we are all sinners, the logic of “love the sinner, hate the sin” turns on itself. I love myself but I also hate myself, and yet there is not one Bible passage that tells us that we lose the Image of God in us during or after “the Fall”? Even in the context of Matthew 5 (verse 22), Jesus condemns his followers if they rely on namecalling (distorting the Image of God in others)to the pit of Hell. Jesus seems pretty intent on us loving others, yes in a BENEVOLENT, HOPEFUL manner. It really shouldn’t come as a surprise that NeoCalvinists would prefer to affirm a god as hateful rather than any form of divine benevolence. They’ve held that error for well over five centuries, and they can keep it!

John Piper Doesn't Want Us to Read Doug Wilson's Black And Tan Anymore

SOOOOOOO STAHP IT YOU GUYS!!!!! JUST STAHP IT!!!!!! DON’T LET THE TRUTH OR FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF CALLING OUT “PALEOCONFEDERATE” BIGOTRY!

I just find it so funny that it was just last year Wilson invited everyone to get a free pdf copy of his book, and decide for themselves, but now, Pastor John Piper is urging (more likely his white evangelical followers) people to STAHP reading Black And Tan, , formerly known as “Slavery As It Was.” The original title proves that John Piper lied on the video linked to protect Doug Wilson.  The book was not about abortion, only mentions abortion once; it’s a defense of the Confederacy, and the enslavement of African bodies, a defense justified by Wilson’s biblical hermeneutic and his version of Calvinist theology (what Piper refers to as “The Gospel“).

 

Okay, John Piper, and Doug Wilson, I thank you for the invitation. I am going to re-read Black And Tan all over again, and live-tweet, and live-tumblr, and blog on every single line that’s racist [hint: the entire book], and I am not gonna be merciful or kind in the hopes of persuading Wilson’s followers; whoever endorses this man, yes this means you, Christianity Today, is too far gone to begin with, too emotionally invested to for “holy confrontation.”

It’ may not be this month, but I am re-reading Black and Tan, and making it an event.

 

#sorrynotsorry.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hugo Schwyzer, Cheap Grace, and Narratives of "Redemption"

Redemption (Angel novel)

Redemption (Angel novel) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Oftentimes, I feel unbearably guilty about posting on issues dealing with the Culture Wars or what’s referred to as “Identity Politics.” Should someone as myself invested in the discipline of Church History take an interest in “worldly” things? I struggle to reconcile these interests from time to time, but I try to take theological approach to inter-sectionality, or how we as a society govern ourselves and others according to race, sex, and class. This is something that I learned from my mentors, from Womanist theology and ethics, as well as post-colonial theory.

I am guilty of remaining silent, about how predators roam free and victims’ and their experience with abuse goes unheard. There is something deeply twisted about the way our culture understands redemption. At its core, it is a theological claim that is heretical as it is privatized. Dietrich Bonhoeffer articulated perfectly what USians understand as “redemption:” He referred to is as cheap grace in his The Cost Of Discipleship:

““Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” “

Redemption, in other words, requires that a person is, #1, willing to freely turn away from evil, and #2, willing to sub-ordinate themselves to a liberated community. Cheap grace means meaningless apologies, the “I’m sorries” said over and over to victims as perpetrators roam free without accountability. Cheap grace is when a celebrity makes a racial slur and they are sent to “racial-sensitivity counseling” all the while having the stigma of being a bigot for the rest of their career. But again, there’s no taking responsibility, it’s more like, oooooops, I’m sorry I got caught. Redemption in USian media culture, which is thoroughly idolatrous in its glorification of capitalism, means that I get to save myself on my own terms, without regard for the victims of my behavior or for welfare of my neighbor.

This is why I am so sick of hearing “I’m sorry.” “I’m sorry” are two words born out of privilege; you briefly acknowledge your victims have suffered, and then go back to your abusive behavior. Today, I was at a local restaurant. I was the only other person in line, but the person in front of me was paying with all coins. Looked at me with my bored look, and softly whispered, “I’m sorry.” How about instead of “I’m sorry,” how about a “thank you for being patient!” See the difference. The difference is my agency is acknowledged, and it’s not about you (the apologizer and your experience). That’s the problem with derailers who want to make this about Hugo and about mental disability. It’s not, it simply isn’t. This is about human agency and privilege. I would love for the students I work with who have mental disabilities to be able to earn a PhD and to “earn” a voice as influential as a Hugo Schwyzer. Again, this all boils down to particularity.

Whether it is Sovereign Grace Ministries protecting child abuse, KKKristianity Yesterday (Christianity Today) & John Piper & The Gossip KKKoalition defending confederate bigot Douglas Wilson, or Relevant Magazine, Christian conferences, and white feminist media all who gave Hugh Schwyzer a platform, USian Christianity as well as its Civil Religion has Cheap Grace as one of its favor doctrines right along side White Supremacy.

Right now, the Women of Color, that risked themselves to confront and engage Hugo Schwyzer’s abusive ways, SEEM to be the enemies of him, opposed to his “redemption.” And that they should; “redemption” purchased with the Almighty Dollar is the very definition of cheap grace. This is more than about Professor Feminist (who, btw, has a PhD in Medieval Church History). This is more than about Paleoconfederate Racists. This is more than about Pastors Gone Wild. This is about how apathetic our culture is to the vulnerable. I mean, for crying out loud, the current government shutdown is probably one of the blatant examples of this ill-compassion.

English: CJ Mahaney, founder of Sovereign Grac...

English: CJ Mahaney, founder of Sovereign Grace Ministries (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a way, “redemption” as it is conceived in the 21st century USian neoliberal context, always functions as a code for “sympathy for the devil.” This soteriology is harmful to both the victim and the abuser. The victim is isolated and ridiculed, and her story is ignored. The abuser is also not given the community he needs to learn that he is in need of repentance, and therefore becomes neglectful of the responsibility which he needs to own up to. Salvation in this light is short lived, paid for with the tears of the oppressed. The best friends that persons like Hugo Schwyzer have right now are “his enemies.” My commitment to Christianity, and to the teachings of Jesus, allow me to see these labels of “allies” and “enemies/opponents” as fluid, because Christ taught that we should love both. In particular as our example (but he is not alone), Hugo’s quest to regain his influence after losing it (because he deserves it right? he already apologized, what more does he need to do?) by joining probably more religious blogging circles— he already has/not gonna link is an unhealthy quest given the state that he admits he is in as mentally ill. The last thing he needs to do is to make a “comeback” all on his own. So things can go back to the way things were. No, my friend, repentance means that things will never be the same. Apologies in our cultural religion of cheap grace allows for such, but not the freedom that is given by our Liberator Christ Jesus.

Relevant Magazine

Relevant Magazine (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For those who are entralled with power, they *will continue to disregard* the plea of the victim, as churches as white feminist media have time and again chosen to do. We must come to learn to lend our ear to those on the bottom, to let those on the margins, the abused, the rape victims, the culturally despised “savages,” to uplift the powerless, and to reject cheap grace, and “I’m sorry.”

 

*Sentence has been editted to address problematic ableist language.*

Enhanced by Zemanta