John Piper, a Lying Traitor

August 6, 2008 8 Comments

John Piper’s article “Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage,” with comments by H. Seabrook

This article was posted on the Desiring God website. It is a perfect example of neo-Babelism in all of its fetid glory. My comments are interspersed, and underlines in Piper’s text are mine.

My aim today is to argue from Scripture and experience that interracial marriage is not only permitted by God but is a positive good in our day. That is, it is not just to be tolerated, but celebrated. This is extremely controversial since it is opposed by people from all sides.

What else do you know that is a “positive good” to be “celebrated” but is “opposed by people from all sides”?

Interracial marriage was against the law in 16 states in 1967 when the Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision struck down those laws. That is very fresh historically. I was a senior in college. Laws reflect deep convictions, and convictions don’t usually change when laws do.

What else do you know that was banned by law in 16 states only 38 years ago and is now being encouraged by a minister of the gospel? Is law merely a human convention? If not, should we not be alarmed when a change of conviction changes the law? These are extremely important questions to consider at the outset because they reveal the presuppositions of the neo-Babelists, the race traitors who are biological unitarians, the liberals who are trying to pervert God’s beautiful and diverse creation.

The first website that came up on my Google search for Martin Luther King and interracial marriage was the website of the Ku Klux Klan which still has this anachronistic quote today: “Interracial marriage is a violation of God’s Law and a communist ploy to weaken America.”

I’m surprised that it took over two whole paragraphs to mention the KKK. It should not matter to those in pursuit of truth whether the quote is anachronistic or who said it. The only thing that should matter is whether it is true.

Many African Americans believe interracial marriage erodes the solidarity of the African American community. Lawrence Otis Graham wrote that “interracial marriage undermines [African Americans’] ability to introduce our children to black role models who accept their racial identity with pride.”

So it turns out that there are sensible black people after all. But why wasn’t this paragraph placed before the previous one about the KKK? Is it because Piper wants to establish that self-respecting blacks are Klannish?

Some conservative whites oppose interracial marriage for a different reason. Syndicated columnist H. Millard wrote:

“…we are seeing the death of the American and his replacement with a non-European type who now has enough mass in our society to pervert European-American ways… White people…are going to have to struggle mightily to survive the Neo-Melting Pot and avoid being part of the one-size-fits-all human model. Call it what it is: Genocide and extinction of the white genotype.”

That’s exactly right. The “one-size-fits-all human model” is neo-Babelism. It is the attempt to absolutely unify mankind, not in the faith but in the flesh, which was not what God intended. He diversified mankind and set the boundaries of their habitations “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him” (Acts 17:26). It is a sin to willfully undo the clear divisions that God has imposed.

One letter I received from a white Christian man went like this:

As individuals, they are precious souls for whom Christ died and whom we are to love and seek to win. As a race, however, they are unique and different and have their own culture… I would never marry a black. Why? Because I believe God made the races, separated them and set the bounds of their habitation, Deuteronomy 32:8; Acts 17:26. He made them uniquely different and intended that these distinctions remain. God never intended the human race to become a mixed or mongrel race. So, while I am strongly opposed to segregation I favor separation that the uniqueness with which God made them is maintained.

This is very sensible. Segregation was not the first choice of Southerners. When there was political inequality, race relations were quite good. Segregation was intended to postpone the effects of the illegal 14th Amendment and prevent miscegenation, but some have argued persuasively against the unfairness of pretending that the races were equal when they really were not. The problem with “separate but equal” is that the races were neither separate nor equal.

To these opposing views I would add my own experience. I was a southern teenage racist (by almost any definition), and, since I am a sinner still, I do not doubt that elements of it remain in me, to my dismay. For these lingering attitudes and actions I repent. Racism is a very difficult reality to define. The Bethlehem staff have been working on it for months.

Should a man not be expected to clearly define that which he is calling sinful? How seriously should we take anyone who has spent months trying to define such a pervasive phenomenon?

We are presently most closely committed to the definition given last summer at the Presbyterian Church in America annual meeting: “Racism is an explicit or implicit belief or practice that qualitatively distinguishes or values one race over other races.”

See my comments on the PCA pastoral letter here. As I said then, at least the PCA tried to define the word, which is more than can be expected of most people. However, if Piper admits that racism is a nebulous concept, it makes no sense to define it with a nebulous word like “value.” Ask ten people to define “American values” and you’ll get twenty definitions. We affirm that all races are equally precious in God’s eyes, but if we all make a qualitative distinction when it comes to our own families, and if we do the same with our extended families, at what point can it be proved that any further qualititative distinctions become sinful? We are told that we are drawing a line of favor at race, but the other side draws the very same line at their own families. Not surprisingly, we all (to some degree) prefer our own kind and desire to see those who fall within our concentric circles of loyalty flourish.

That is what I mean when I say I was a racist growing up in Greenville, South Carolina. My attitudes and actions were demeaning and disrespectful toward non-whites. And right at the heart of those attitudes was opposition to interracial marriage.

My mother, who washed my mouth out with soap once for saying, “Shut up!” to my sister, would have washed my mouth out with gasoline if she knew how foul my mouth was racially. She was under God the seed of my salvation in more ways than one. When our church voted not to admit blacks in 1963, when I was 17, my mother ushered the black guests at my sister’s wedding right into the main sanctuary herself because the ushers wouldn’t do it. I was on my way to redemption.

Might it be proper to explain why a church would vote in this way? Could there be a reason other than sheer hatefulness? Could the reason in fact be that these baptists were trying to prevent miscegenation, which has been shameful for all of human history, up until our generation?

In 1967 Noël and I attended the Urbana Missions Conference. I was a senior at Wheaton. There we heard Warren Webster, former missionary to Pakistan, answer a student’s question: What if your daughter falls in love with a Pakistani while you’re on the mission field and wants to marry him? With great forcefulness he said: “The Bible would say, Better a Christian Pakistani than a godless white American!” The impact on us was profound.

Is this what Abraham said when he sent his slave to search for a wife for Isaac? He specifically restricted the search to kith and kin despite the fact that his relatives were pagans.

Four years later I wrote a paper for Lewis Smedes in an ethics class at seminary called “The Ethics of Interracial Marriage.” For me that was a biblical settling of the matter, and I have not gone back from what I saw there. The Bible does not oppose or forbid interracial marriages.

In fact, the Bible places even tighter restrictions on marriage. For instance, according to Lev. 22:12-13, a priest’s daughter was punished for marrying anyone other than a priest. The Levite was told specifically to “take a virgin of his own people as wife” (21:14). The case of the daughters of Zelophehad in Number 36 leads to this decree: “Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe. So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.” Without this rule, the twelve tribes would not have remained twelve distinct tribes for long, despite the fact that they all shared the same religion.

And there are circumstances which together with biblical principles make interracial marriage in many cases a positive good.

Name just one.

Now I am a pastor at Bethlehem. One quick walk through the pictorial directory that came out last year gives me a rough count of 203 non-Anglos pictured in the book.

This is the most important sentence of the entire article. No multiracial church will ever become a monoracial church. In the near future, pastors will face increasing pressure to explicitly distance themselves from the folkways of their ancestors.

I am sure I missed some. And I am sure the definition of Anglo is so vague someone will be bothered that I even tried to count. But the point is this: Dozens and dozens of them are children and teenagers and single young men and women. This means very simply that we as a church need a clear place to stand on interracial marriage. Church is the most natural and proper place to find a spouse. And they will find each other across racial lines.

They will abandon millennia of heritage and wed themselves to an alien people. Why would anyone do this unless he is ashamed of how God created him? Is it any wonder that so many have lost faith? They don’t know who they are.

That is what I would like to give. First, we will make four textual observations and then some concluding implications for our experience.

1. All Races Have One Ancestor in the Image of God, and All Humans Are in God’s Image

The Bible portrays the human race as coming from one pair of human ancestors who were created in God’s image unlike all the animals and that this image of God is passed on to all humans. Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Again in Genesis 5:1-3, “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image.” In other words, the magnificent image of God goes on from generation to generation.

It was necessary for all men to come from one blood because Adam was the federal head of all men, and in Adam all men died.

Then Paul makes the sweeping statement in Acts 17:26, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.”

Why do neo-Babelists never quote the second half of this verse? They never even call it Acts 17:26a. They never even put an ellipsis after the word “earth.”

In other words, Adam, who was created in God’s image, is the father of all human beings in all ethnic groups. Therefore all of them are dignified above the animals in this absolutely unique and glorious way: humans are created in the image of God. With all the beautiful, God-designed ethnic and cultural diversity in the world, that truth is paramount. That truth is decisive in setting priorities for how we respect and relate to each other.

Agreed, and we absolutely agree that there is “beautiful, God-designed ethnic and cultural diversity in the world.” We distrust anyone who prefers global uniformity to diversity. The irony is that we, and not the neo-Babelists, are called racists. We love the races and want to preserve them.

2. The Bible Forbids Intermarriage Between Unbeliever and Believer, But Not Between Races

The Bible forbids intermarriage between believer and unbeliever but not between members of different ethnic groups.

We have already established that it most certainly does.

1 Corinthians 7:39, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” “Whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” One biblical restriction on the man she marries: he must be in the Lord. He must be a believer in Jesus Christ.

This is not exactly what “only in the Lord” means. It means “according to the will of the Lord,” which neither proves nor disproves the point that we should celebrate race-mixing.

This was the main point of the Old Testament warnings about marrying those among the pagan nations. The point was not to protect racial purity. The point was to protect religious purity. For example, Deuteronomy 7:3-4:

You shall not intermarry with [the nations]; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you.

Why do neo-Babelists always ignore Ezra and Nehemiah, who forced Jews returning from exile to divorce their foreign wives and send away their mongrel children? If we interpret such passages as Ezra 10 to condemn only inter-religious marriage, we will be unable to explain God’s apparent change of heart in 1 Cor. 7:10-16. Ezra tells the people to divorce their unbelieving wives. Paul tells us not to divorce unbelieving wives. This is a contradiction unless Ezra protested race-mixing.

The issue is not color mixing, or customs mixing, or clan identity. The issue is: will there be one common allegiance to the true God in this marriage or will there be divided affections? The prohibition in God’s word is not against interracial marriage, but against marriage between the true Israel, the church (from every people, tribe, and nation) and those who are not part of the true Israel, the church. That is, the Bible prohibits marriage between those who believe in Christ (the Messiah) and those who don’t (see 2 Corinthians 6:14).

This is exactly what we would expect if the great ground of our identity is not our ethnic differences but our common humanity in the image of God and especially our new humanity in Christ. That leads to the third biblical observation.

3. In Christ Our Oneness Is Profound and Transforms Racial and Social Differences from Barriers to Blessings

In Christ ethnic and social differences cease to be obstacles to deep, personal, intimate fellowship.

Agreed, but to live in unity, it must be a scriptural unity, not unity as the world defines it, which is simply togetherness. The greatest example of togetherness in history was the Tower of Babel. Christ said that He did not come to bring this kind of peace but a sword. “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you” (John 14:27). There are many members in one body, many races in one world, and this is why the peace of Christ is called the peace that passes understanding. In Christ alone we may have common purpose. Our Triune God desires worship that befits His character. He decreed distinctions among mankind, and then He told us to be unified, even as the three distinct Persons of the Trinity are unified. The neo-Babelist denies the distinctions that God Himself imposed and seeks to undo them in the name of love. This is evil. We ask that he be consistent enough to call for one universal language and an end to national borders. The separation at Babel makes absolute unification impossible, and this minimizes the effects of our sin on a large scale. (The shedding of blood has increased in proportion to the growth of nation-state empires, and this is especially true of those empires that are dominated and supported by Christians.)

Colossians 3:9-11, “You have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”

This verse and its sister verse, Galatians 3:28, were written in a particular context: that the Gentiles are justified by faith, not by becoming Jews. The Jews, in other words, are not the supreme race. No race can claim exclusive right to salvation. But today, lying pastors have used these verses to suggest that race is meaningless. As Doug Wilson wrote recently, “[I]n Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female, white or black (Galatians 3:28).” See Dr. Rumburg’s essay for a brilliant refutation.

This does not mean that every minority culture gets swallowed up by the majority culture in the name of unity.

Of course this is the end result of your malicious meddling. How can you possibly deny it when you have plainly stated that interracial marriage is “a positive good” to be “celebrated”?

God does not obliterate all ethnic and cultural differences in Christ. He redeems them and refines them and enriches them in the togetherness of his kingdom. The final image of heaven is “every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 7:9; 5:9).

The “final image of heaven” is not one race of the Christians of the world. The Bible tells us that there will be multiple nations in earth and in heaven. In Greek, this word “nation” is ethnos, which Strong’s Concordance defines as “a race (as of the same habit), i.e., a tribe.” There are nations in the earth, according to Psalm 102: “The nations will fear the name of the LORD, all the kings of the earth will revere your glory.” There are nations in heaven, according to Revelation 21: “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it… The glory and honor of the nations [plural] will be brought into it.” These two passages sound the same.

God values the differences that reflect more fully his glory in man.

The point of Colossians 3:11 is not that cultural, ethnic, and racial differences have no significance; they do.

Then your definition of “racism,” borrowed from the PCA, needs a great deal of work.

The point is that that they are no barrier to profound, personal, intimate fellowship.

Agreed, but we also have a duty to protect the integrity of our own people. “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8).

Singing alto is different from singing bass. It’s a significant difference. But that difference is no barrier to being in the choir. It’s an asset.

When Christ is all and in all, differences take an important but subordinate place to fellowship—and, I will argue, marriage.

4. Criticizing One Interracial Marriage Was Severely Disciplined by God

The fourth observation is that Moses, a Jew, apparently married a black African and was approved by God. Numbers 12:1, “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.” Cushite means a woman from Cush, a region south of Ethiopia, and known for their black skin. We know this because of Jeremiah 13:23, “Can the Ethiopian [the very same Hebrew word translated “Cushite” in Numbers 12:1] change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” So attention is drawn to the difference of the skin of the Cushite people.

Augustine and Calvin denied this interpretation. There is nothing prior to Numbers 12 about the death of Zipporah, and so we must assume that this chapter refers to her. Zipporah was a Midianite, and her people were related to the Hebrews through Abraham’s wife Keturah. The Midianites lived in the land of Cush, which is modern-day Ethiopia. The 1599 Geneva Bible agrees: “Zipporah, Moses’ wife, was a Midianite, and because Midian bordered on Ethiopia, it is sometimes referred to in the scriptures by this name.” As Matthew Henry writes, the sedition of Miriam and Aaron was “because of Zipporah, whom on this occasion they called, in scorn, an Ethiopian woman, and who, they insinuated, had too great an influence upon Moses in the choice of these seventy elders.”

J. Daniel Hays writes in his book, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), that Cush “is used regularly to refer to the area south of Egypt, and above the cataracts on the Nile, where a Black African civilization flourished for over two thousand years. Thus it is quite clear that Moses marries a Black African woman” (p. 71).

It is not clear at all. The Egyptians of today are not related to the ancient Egyptians, and Iraqis of today are not related to the ancient Persians. If I move to South Africa, that doesn’t make me an African.

What is most significant about this context is that God does not get angry at Moses; he gets angry at Miriam for criticizing Moses. The criticism has to do with Moses’s marriage and Moses’s authority. The most explicit statement relates to the marriage: “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.”

Then consider this possibility. In God’s anger at Miriam, Moses’s sister, God says in effect, “You like being light-skinned Miriam? I’ll make you light-skinned.” Numbers 12:10: “When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow.”

God says not a critical word against Moses for marrying a black, Cushite woman. But when Miriam criticizes God’s chosen leader for this marriage God strikes her skin with white leprosy. If you ever thought black was a biblical symbol for uncleanness, be careful; a worse white uncleanness could come upon you.

Those are my four biblical observations. 1) All races have one ancestor in the image of God and all humans are in God’s image. 2) The Bible forbids intermarriage between unbeliever and believer, but not between races. 3) In Christ our oneness is profound and transforms racial and social differences from barriers to blessings. 4) Criticizing one interracial marriage was severely disciplined by God.

Now some closing implications for our experience.

Opposition to interracial marriage is one of the deepest roots of racial distance, disrespect, and hostility. Show me one place in the world where interracial or interethnic marriage is frowned upon and yet the two groups still have equal respect and honor and opportunity. I don’t think it exists.

Show me one family in the world that treats all other children as equal to its own yet respects and honors its own. I don’t think it exists.

It won’t happen. Why? Because the supposed specter of interracial marriage demands that barrier after barrier must be put up to keep young people from knowing each other and falling in love. They can’t fellowship in church youth groups. They can’t go to the same schools. They can’t belong to the same clubs. They can’t live in the same neighborhoods. Everybody knows deep down what is at stake here. Intermarriage is at stake.

Nationalism demands that barrier after barrier must be put up to keep Mexicans from mixing with Americans. What am I saying? How anachronistic of me. The neo-Babelist hates national borders.

And as long as we disapprove of it, we will be pushing our children, and therefore ourselves, away from each other. The effect of that is not harmony, not respect, and not equality of opportunity.

Do Mexicans have equality of opportunity with Americans? Does a border between us connote disrespect?

Where racial intermarriage is disapproved, the culture with money and power will always dominate and always oppress. They will see to it that those who will not make desirable spouses stay in their place and do not have access to what they have access to. If your kids don’t make desirable spouses, you don’t make desirable neighbors.

This is extremely cynical, but it hints at why Piper’s church once voted to exclude blacks. They did not want to risk having their children marry blacks. At the same time, I’ll bet my last penny that their outreach to blacks would have shamed most “tolerant” Christians today.

And here is a great and sad irony. The very situation of separation and suspicion and distrust and dislike that is brought about (among other things) by the fear of intermarriage, is used to justify the opposition to intermarriage. “It will make life hard for the couple and hard for the kids (they’ll be called half-breeds).” Catch 22. It’s like the army being defeated because there aren’t enough troops, and the troops won’t sign up because the army’s being defeated. Oppose interracial marriage, and you will help create a situation of racial disrespect. And then, since there is a situation of disrespect, it will be prudent to oppose interracial marriage.

In reality, the only disrespect is for contemptible race traitors like Piper. We kinists have far more respect for the self-respecting black man he mentions at the start of this article, and we would like to ally ourselves with such a one.

Here is where Christ makes the difference. Christ does not call us to a prudent life, but to a God-centered, Christ-exalting, justice-advancing, counter-cultural, risk-taking life of love and courage. Will it be harder to be married to another race, and will it be harder for the kids? Maybe. Maybe not. But since when is that the way a Christian thinks? Life is hard. And the more you love the harder it gets.

Please don’t speak to me of love if, in your zeal to mix races, you create a climate of violence that puts your own children at risk. As Jared Taylor says, all around the world, a mixture of race, religion, language, tribe, or culture is at the heart of every sustained blood-letting. That’s an indisputable fact.

It’s hard to take a child to the mission field. The risks are huge. It’s hard to take a child and move into a mixed neighborhood where he may be teased or ridiculed.

Not only is it hard, it’s damned foolish, and most people have the sense to avoid it. A Rice University study found that in nearly 95% of American churches, one racial or ethnic group makes up more than four-fifths of the congregation. Though similar feelings in whites is considered “racist,” the study found that blacks consider their own churches to be “bastions of strength” for the black community.

It’s hard to help a child be a Christian in a secular world where his beliefs are mocked. It’s hard to bring children up with standards: “you will not dress like that, and you will not be out that late.” It’s hard to raise children when dad or mom dies or divorces. And that’s a real risk in any marriage. Whoever said that marrying and having children was to be trouble free? It’s one of the hardest things in the world. It just happens to be right and rewarding.

And tomorrow the house could burn down, but such disasters are largely avoidable. One good way to avoid it is to refrain from playing with fire.

Christians are people who move toward need and truth and justice, not toward comfort and security. Life is hard. But God is good. And Christ is strong to help.

There is so much more to say about the challenges and blessings of interracial marriage. But we are out of time. I hope to write more. Suffice it to say now by way of practical conclusion: at Bethlehem we will not underestimate the challenges of interracial marriage or transracial adoption (they go closely together). We will celebrate the beauty, and we will embrace the burden.

Is this anything like “embracing the curse“? Expect to see far more of this hatred of diversity in the future. The face of the empire is changing into something ugly and mongrel, and few churches will have the courage to be “anachronistic” if it makes them unpopular and affects their income. God help us.

Both will be good for us and good for the world and good for the glory of God.

Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook
News

8 Responses to “John Piper, a Lying Traitor”

  1. confed November 22, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    Admin,

    Seabrook links to two articles that are now dead. Do you know where I can find those pieces?

    One is his response to the PCA’s racism doc, and the other is Dr. Rumburg’s essay on Gal 3:28.

    Thanks much!

    Confed

  2. admin November 22, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    Sorry, one should be fixed now and the other remedied shortly.

  3. admin November 22, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    Listen to the following clips to see why Piper is the quintessential lying preacher.

    http://media.desiringgod.org/audio/q_and_a/4380_how_can_a_pastor_minister_to_a_congregation_of_illegal_immigrants.mp3

    http://www.desiringgod.org/media/audio/q_and_a/2658_what_should_we_do_about_illegal_immigration.mp3

    Especially that last one where he compares violating laws designed to protect a nation on multiple levels to parking in the wrong zone while you run into a store.

    This is the kind of stuff that makes our blood boil. He isn’t coming right out and saying it, but he clearly believes that laws for racial and national protection are immoral, because he believes in neither race nor nation.

    Let me be very clear: This is the last man in the world to tell you anything about the Christian faith, because he doesn’t understand the Bible.

    If you’re a masochist and enjoy listening to lying, race-mixing preachers use a lot of words without saying anything, here’s another one for you:

    http://www.desiringgod.org/media/audio/q_and_a/2442_the_foundation_for_racial_reconciliation.mp3

  4. Confed November 22, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    Wow. Piper has a demon.

    First clip comments: So which is it, God is pleased if you obey authority, or, The solution isn’t necessarily deportation? A double-minded man.

    Second: He says he doesn’t have a solution to the immigration problem, but he wants them to both honor the law and dishonor the law by giving mercy to the immigrants. So either he thinks our law is a TRUE law, and thus inviolable, or he thinks it’s not a true law, and thus modifiable. But if it’s not a true law, why give it honor? And if it is true, why change it for the sake of mercy? When did mercy and law ever oppose each other? Typical whore pastor.

    Pastor Piper, it really IS as simple as shipping 20 million back to Mexico. Don’t bring honor to a law that you don’t think is simple (or permissible) to obey. I’m glad you ended by telling us that you are not sure if your solution will work, but that is the direction your “heart” leads toward.

    Third: Oh, what made you angry? What did you learn from your discussion with a black man? That blacks are learning a white epistemology that destroys moral backbone. That blacks are abandoning the ideals of the plagiarizing, Marxist, and adulterous MLK. That it takes tremendous moral courage to oppose miscegenation, for it is relativistic, and pluralistic.

    That civil rights progress is made along the lines of “doctrine” and “truth”, even though Piper does not cite the doctrine or truth relevant to affirming integration.
    Funny how he made reference to the foundation that protects us from family an societal destruction.

    We think integration brings in such ruin; he thinks, somehow in spite of the evidence around us, that integration saves us from it. Not only is he theologically blind, but he’s physically blind.

    If we can just get to “a unity of truth”, which to him is an abstraction just as are knives, drugs, fornication, bridge graffiti. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God removes his sovereign separation of the nations and sovereignly orchestrated differences in the races.

  5. admin November 22, 2009 at 10:36 pm

    I couldn’t have said it better than that, Confed.

    All the weasel words, like feeling his heart and “a unity of truth,” make me sick. They are so effeminate that they could come out of Oprah’s mouth just as easily.

  6. Wheeler MacPherson November 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    One notable thing about Piper (and those of his ilk) – when he’s denouncing “racism” or the very idea of race, borders, etc., his voice takes on an enraged, disgusted, appalled tone that eclipses his verbal disapproval of any other sin. If you listen to him mention murder, rape, idolatry, blasphemy, etc. in a sermon, you’ll notice that his voice doesn’t change into the aural horror show that it does when he denounces any resistance to neo-Babelism. Sinclair Ferguson is another one that pulls this stunt. Such “preachers” are compelled to go out of their way to prove how “evil” or “heretical” racial distinctions are.

    And Piper has gone so far as to adopt a little Negro. Others, like R.C. Sproul’s son, have done likewise. Very respectable, very “nice” people like David Alan Black routinely encourage gullible White Christians to adopt little Africans (because after all, the Africans aren’t going to do it!) and by default, to ignore the beautiful White orphans in South Africa or Appalachia. I’ve said it before and I’ll continue saying it: the need to be liked is the fatal disease of our people.

    Piper reeks of the need to be liked. It’s an ungodly stench.

  7. admin November 23, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    You’re exactly right, Wheeeler. Whatever label can be given to this madness, it’s not Christianity, and it would have horrified our righteous forefathers.

  8. confed November 24, 2009 at 2:02 am

    Good points, Wheeler.

    The sad thing is, he teaches his congregation to sell out for nothing but TRUTH, which entails solid biblical argument in the face of of the best rebuttals.

    But he’s a clever orator who knows that most Christian pussies are suckers for rhetoric and don’t distinguish proof from persuasion.

    He’s a speaker, not a logician or authoritative proclaimer. That’s precisely why he emotes into the mic.

Leave a Reply

 characters available

Switch to our mobile site