Responding to John Piper
A giant of the faith writes on church, the state, and the purpose of the Kingdom.
There are great men among us who have devoted their entire lives to Jesus, and sharing the hope found in Him. John Piper is one of those men. His book, Desiring God, helped break me from the gnostic stranglehold of pure moralistic dutyism that often informed orthopraxy debates of my youth. His illustration of delivering a rose has stuck with me as though I read it yesterday.
Long story short, I am thankful for John Piper.
However, his latest essay, ‘My Kingdom Is Not of This World’, published yesterday at this writing, caused me enough pause that I have to decided to write this reaction. I realize am treading in dangerous waters, and we shall see if my waders are up to the task.
Piper begins by saying that “Jesus Christ, the absolutely supreme Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the universe, intends to accomplish his saving purposes in the world without reliance on the powers of civil government to teach, defend, or spread the Christian religion as such.”
This is a pretty old school understanding of the Two Kingdoms view of Church and State, hit right down the middle of the fairway. It is always important to get the first shot of the golf game right, and Piper does so. Okay. I’ll go ahead and comment that most versions of 2K theology leave me wanting, and I would go so far to say that modern Radical Two Kingdom theology is problematic at best both exegetically and historically. So, there are my cards on the table, but Piper hasn’t really gone there in this opening statement. Let’s continue:
“Followers of Christ should not use the sword of civil government to enact, enforce, or spread any idea or behavior as explicitly Christian — as part of the Christian religion as such.”
Well, we have a problem here, but possibly it is one of confusion. “Any idea” could be any moral view of life, property, sexuality…or even the presupposition of the existence of transcendent Law itself. Can the State not promote or embody these things? “As such”, the refraining modifier here, seems to be a hedge saying “it’s all okay as long as we don’t go down that nasty establishment road which seems to bind the conscience”. But he doesn’t explicitly say THAT, he just says “as such”. But let’s be gracious and continue.
“It is critical to understand what I mean by the phrases “explicitly Christian” and “the Christian religion as such.” The state may indeed teach, defend, and spread ideas and behaviors that Christians support — and support for explicitly Christian reasons (and that non-Christians may support for different reasons). But that is not the same as the state’s taking on the role of advocacy for the Christian faith as such. It’s the latter, not the former, that the New Testament opposes.”
I actually like the first half of this paragraph. It deals with the obvious tension I mentioned. It is the second half that raises questions.
Piper seems to be saying that ideas that Christians support can be supported by the government as long as those ideas are distinct from the person of Yahweh or His Son, Jesus the Christ. But the whole point of Scripture is that all ideas that are true emanate from God as good gifts. Are we asking the State to exist in a Platonic ether that the Bible itself denies? And if so, what is the guardrail that keeps the State from venturing into ideas of Law that are explicitly ungodly?
Piper seems to be seeing the main focus of his argument in the next section evangelism.
“The civil government may rightly pass laws that make the spread of the Christian faith (and other faiths) easier (for example, laws protecting free speech and free assembly).”
As a Christian pastor, putting “other faiths” on equal footing with The Faith seems problematic, and intellectually dishonest. If the One Faith is true, why the public square pluralism? The question is, does Jesus simply want a place at the table at the Party of the Marketplace of Ideas? Or, does Jesus demand that it is His Table. If Piper is getting at the idea, common in some Lutheran circles, that “the State’s main function is peace and protection so the Gospel can propagate”, I think we can live with that. But we also, as Christians, have been given a peek behind the curtain, and know that Jesus is the Prince of Peace. So, if peace is the goal, submission to Christ seems the straight line to Peaceville.
Piper says that his prohibitionary attitude is Scripture driven: “The New Testament opposes Christians looking to the state to teach, defend, or spread ideas or behaviors as explicitly Christian. The sword is not to be the agent of the Christian religion as such — that is, as a religion.” I don’t see this in the New Testament. I, instead, see Rome actively protecting the nascent Church with the sword at every turn. Scripture ends its narrative before Rome goes from guard dog to rabid dog, but consider than Paul appeals to Caesar, and rests upon his citizenship, that his mission may continue.
The argument against arguments from the Old Testament always refer in some way to the “special case” of Israel’s theocratic rule sanctioned by God. So, David, as King, being the reformer of the priesthood, gets swept under the rug. The swords and justified killing of the pagan participators by the Levites when called into action is filed in that same “special case” folder, so that we don’t have to deal with it. But this honestly hits me the same way that the argument “Jesus is a spiritual King” does. Israel wasn’t a real state. Jesus isn’t a real king. Let me ask you, does modern day Israel, a state with no ties to the Jewish cultus other than geography, have the right to promote Judaism? Answer carefully.
If I continue at this rate, my reaction/response will be longer than Piper’s, which is of considerable length. So I’ll be admittedly selective in my reading. Continuing:
“…since immorality and illegality are not the same”. This is simply false. All legality is civically codified morality. Piper is wrong, and he’s painfully wrong here. All law expresses a view of right and wrong, good and evil, of expressed wisdom of collected experience.
What Piper means to say, is that sins are not the same as crimes. And this is certainly correct, or we would all be criminal. And we see this from the Old Covenant cultus.
In the Torah, we have all the laws and prohibitions and then the sacrificial system which deals with drawing near to a holy God. But this sacrificial system “as such” doesn’t deal with intentional and high-handed breaking of the these laws and prohibitions. It deals, mainly, with ceremonial uncleanness and sins of omission and wandering and “mistakes”, as it were.
There was no sacrifice for the intentional sin. Let me repeat, the blood of bulls and goats could never remove this. Only through faithful confession and repentance could high-handed sin be dealt with, bringing it down in status to a level that the sacrificial cultus could handle. For the Law was only for the faithful. The unfaithful were, de facto, criminals.
So the distinction isn’t between illegality and immorality, for the Bible knows no such distinction. The distinction is between sins, or imperfection, and criminality, which is actively pursuing that which is wrong. It isn’t a matter of the statute, it is a matter of will.
Piper missing this point is, frankly, disappointing from a man of his stature. I think it is borne of a loyalty to a certain unbiblical mode of enlightenment thinking, but that is admittedly me trying to ascertain his heart, an activity our Bible warns us not to do.
Let us look now at the arguments from Scripture that Piper lays out:
1. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.
The response here is simple: Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world does not mean it does not exist in this world. It means that it isn’t from, created by, or sustained by the Old Covenant creation or the stoicheia (the “elementary principles”). No, Jesus’ Kingdom is of the New Creation that would be more fully realized in 70AD and consummated at His return.
Piper is most probably of the purely futurist view of the Kingdom in any realized sense. I disagree.
2. Christ’s kingdom is invisible and spiritual in nature.
“Spiritual” seems to mean “not material” or “not real”. Again, I disagree, or the elements of the Supper, the tithes collected, the church buildings, or the people, would not be material either. Neither would the discipline.
This is a gnostic view, sprinkled with Enlightenment dualism. Locke and Rousseau were smart. They were also, in these matters, wrong.
3. Followers of Christ are sojourners and exiles on earth.
The preamble of the Great Commission means that this exilic reality was to be temporary and to fade over time.
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”
If Matthew 28 is at 30AD, you could expect by 350AD for the “nations” to look a lot different. And in the known world of that day, they all did. And no longer were Christians “exiles”, except by unfaithful exception.
4. Christians wield spiritual weapons, not earthly ones
Luke 22:36 “ He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
We are not to live by the sword; our ultimate trust is in Christ. But don’t confuse trust and use.
5. The kingdom was taken from a nation and given to the church.
I like Piper’s arguments in this section which I invite you to read. I don’t agree with any of them, but his polemic is sharper. The nation of Israel is of one glory, that of the Old Covenant, and the Kingdom of God is of a greater glory, now not administered by spirit angels but the human angels/messengers of the Churches. The New Covenant, existing through the Kingdom and in its Embassies the Churches is of a greater glory, filling the earth and all the nations of men.
The argument of a purely “spiritual” Kingdom is one of lessor glory, not greater.
I am running out of space, and time. Piper makes some more arguments, mostly relying on the idea that we have to let the world be the world, and Christ will win on the last day. I agree, Christ will put all to rights, and you cannot expect apples from orange trees. So, let’s plant more apple trees - a sentiment with which Piper would surely agree. I also agree that Triumphalism and Utopianism are fools errands. Christians can, and should, however, as vocal representatives of true Truth, should advocate for that which will bless believer and unbeliever alike, whether that unbeliever thinks it will or not. Love, true agape love, exacts demands.
I’ll close with this verse, from a passage that has great application with how we deal with “the world”.
“But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”
If we approach the world, including how it is governed, from a place that is not wholly faithful to Christ, that is sinful. We Christians know we have a banner over us, and that of love. But just because it is a loving banner it is a banner nonetheless. A banner which marked off the soldiers of the One True God, with Him as our Champion. The language of all of Scripture is in the language of state, of warfare, of belonging, and of borders (transgressions).
John Piper is a devoted man of God who has blessed me greatly. I write these words knowing his place in the Kingdom will very most likely far outrank mine. Perhaps, though, we can continually press on to that mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, and it is with that attitude I write.
In closing, I will leave you with this one question: is a law that produces no change in behavior a law at all? Does not that which changes behavior reveal the true sovereign?