Hello Mr. Piper!
Or is it Dr. Piper? (Haha! That sounds like a soda name.)
I’m not sure what I’m supposed to call you, sir; however, I know you’re a smart guy and often eat people like me for the Lord’s Supper. The rumor is you have a PHD in God. And I know for a fact that I’ve never known anybody who knows more about pestilence than you, John. But whatever your degree, it’s not a secret that YOU’RE BRILLIANT. Everybody talks about it. Joshua Harris pretty much squeals like a girl when he mentions you on his blog. And Mark Driscoll seems to like you better than he likes his jockstrap. And he really likes his jockstrap.
Seriously, John, to some people, your brilliance is the sixth point of Calvinism–TULIPP!
It’s no secret that I disagree with your theology, and more importantly, how you EXPRESS your theology, but I respect you as a well-studied individual who could run circles around me in a game of Puritan trivia.
Sure, I think you’re the grumpiest Christian since Jonathan Edwards, but your knowledge of the Apostle Paul is astounding.
If you were my Grandpa, I’d need narcotics and a stuffed animal. But John, you write your own books, and I admire that.
But John, on Saturday, you took a semi-dramatic turn toward crazy. It all started with the following Tweet:
Is anyone really addicted to porn? Put a blow torch in their face; they will turn off the computer. IF they believe its real.
Now, John, that right there is not a smart Tweet. It’s mean, cryptic, and written as though you believe it’s inspired by the Holy Spirit–ALL key signs that it’s your Tweet–but it’s missing that braininess I’ve come to expect from you. Where’s the biblical reference that you usually include? Sure, the Bible verse you set beside your Tweets is often taken out of context or at least, shoved into your context, but at least it screams you and your theology. We miss that when it’s absent, John.
Now, if that Tweet had come from somebody like Glen Beck or Bill O’Reilly, most people would probably giggle and wait for the truth to get released on TMZ.com. But it’s you, John–the Optimus Prime of the Christformers–TMZ.com doesn’t care about you. Only America’s ELECT care about you, and they are waiting for an answer. Well, some of them are waiting for an answer, the ones who have been predestined before the foundations of the earth to be waiting for an answer. They can’t help that they’re waiting for your answer, John. It’s not their choice.
So, come on, stop being the Holy Riddler: TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN!
Do you have a secret you need to share? Don’t be afraid to tell us–we’re Americans: WE LOVE SECRETS. Have you become a welder? Have you been Googling for pictures of Levi Johnston? Did Jesus appear to you as an Arminian? Or God-forbid, a Jew?!
Whatever it is, John, you can tell us.
Is your Tweet a real question? I mean, are you truly wondering if people are addicted to porn? Is that really what you’re asking?
THE ANSWER IS YES, JOHN. PEOPLE ARE ADDICTED TO PORN.
I realize you’re The John Piper, but you aren’t the only person on the planet. Just because you don’t have an addiction to porn doesn’t mean that others–MANY OTHERS–aren’t spending hours upon hours sitting in front of their laptops, looking at images, and pleasuring themselves.
Can I ask you a question, John? Are you really curious to know what would happen if you put a blowtorch in a porn addict’s face? Or is this blowtorch thing a fetish? A hobby? Is it a hazing practice that the men on your staff have to endure prior to being hired?
All day long on Saturday people asked you to explain yourself. Of course, you didn’t answer anybody on Twitter–that’s too close to “community” for somebody like you. Then, on Sunday, you offered this Tweet:
Elder porn. “Have you seen what the elders of Israel are doing in the dark, each in his room of pictures?” Ezekiel 8:12.
What?! Who is Elder Porn? Are you suggesting these Israeli elders were masturbating in this dark room of pictures? How could they see the pictures if the room was dark? We just don’t understand, John. And we want to–we really want to. Your quirky mean-spiritedness is usually so self-explanatory.
Listen, John, I’m not judging you; I’m actually looking out for you. As much as I hate your spiritual philosophies, I definitely wouldn’t want you to become as loopy as “Limited Atonement”–you know, the one point that even Calvinists don’t understand.
I hope to hear from you soon, John–you know, if it’s been predestined.
Matthew
PS: Please don’t have me killed. I’m a nice guy, really. And a part of God’s glory, too–just like AA members, gay people, and you, John! Yep, somehow you’re a part of God’s glory, too. It’s called grace. You should try it sometime.
Viagra is for the treatment of inability to get or keep an erection and similar states when erection is of low quality. When you buy remedies like cialis from canada you should know about cialis online canada. It may have a lot of brands, but only one ATC Code. Erectile disfunction, defined as the persistent impossibility to maintain a satisfactory erection, affects an estimated 15 to 30 millions men in the America alone. Sexual soundness is an substantial part of a man’s life, no matter his age etc.
I really don’t understand the flames coming John Piper’s way. I’m a former porn addict and I understood his meaning right away.
dude, CJ Mahaney is going to kick your a
Who is CJ Mahaney?
I hope there are some answers soon. cause honestly- these piper tweets- I do not get. Usually I can at least see his perspective- even if I don’t agree. this time not so much.
where’s the grace? Where’s the love and transformation? is there grace for some and blowtorches and cryptic posts for others?
I think you managed to ask the questions we all want to know- in your own MPT way- well said- and waiting to hear a response.
aslo- that was rambly. oopsy.
If all this time that crazy stuff in Ezekiel was about porn, then no wonder it hasn’t made sense. Except for the one verse about donkey genitals.
Jason,
I appreciate your comment. I also dont understand the fury going at Piper for his comment. I guess when people take fighting sin seriously, other get upset.
MPT,
As a guy who really respects you and enjoys your writing, I find this post disappointing. Your comments like, “thats too close to “community” for someone like you” and others that I could quote come off quite arrogantly. Piper believes, preaches, and practices community, just not the exact same way you do. Does that make him wrong?
You blame Piper for mean-spiritedness, but this post as as mean spirited as anything I have read from you and more mean-spirited than anything I have read or heard of Pipers. Piper never attacks peoples character, he just addresses the theological issue. You went beyond Pipers theology, his comments on porn, and you attacked his character. It is disappointing.
as a former addict to porn for 7 years, i was definitely taken back by Piper’s tweet. if it were as easy as he seems to think, i wouldn’t have been addicted at all. in fact, he made me feel pretty idiotic and lower about my past—a past that has been redeemed time and time again by a gracious and loving Savior. i don’t need an explanation, but would like an explanation… not only for myself but for the 100s of women i email and talk to who are in the middle of the same battle i used to be in. thankfully, i never really followed Piper and his theology. the only reason i know about his tweet at all is because it was retweeted so many times. it is a sad, sad day when i see a pastor (and student of God’s word) as respected as Piper… throw around something so damaging to the Christian community. even Driscoll knows better than that.
well-written post, Matthew.
I don’t get it either. And, were you calling him an anti-Semite? Confused.
@Melanie… NO, I do not think he’s anti-Semite…
Just reading between the lines, I’m picking up a subtle hint that you might not be thoroughly Reformed. Could it be?
Scarier, and more confusing, than Piper’s tweet is the number of his followers who Re-Tweeted and affirmed it. People are a trip.
Oh, great post by the way 🙂
Ok, Crystal’s comment is really leaving me confused.
His comment seemed clear to me…to someone addicted to porn the computer in front of them is like having a blow torch in front of their face. The danger to themselves is just as real with the pictures as it would be to their physical body with a blow torch in their face.
The addict just has to believe it’s as dangerous or they won’t run from the porn as they would if someone was sticking a blow torch in their face.
Why is that worthy of scorn? I wish someone had stuck a blow torch in my face 10 or 15 years ago before porn caused all the damage in my life it did because of my addiction.
Atleast you posted these with a loving spirit…not really. I think you need to give Piper an apology. It amazes me how hateful this post is.
Thanks Matthew! THANK YOU!
Jason,
That was very well put. The tweet was not.
HAHAHAHAHA! That’s awesome. I love how you always manage to write what I’m thinking 🙂
I don’t have a beef with J.P. but I’m definitely not into his theology.
I would be very interested in hearing his reply… that is, if I can actually understand his reply!
the tweet sucked a bit but to answer it with a healthy dose of sarcasm is probably not the best way to address whatever Piper meant
I love your perspective on things MPT but i don’t get this one……..
Good attempt at blogicide…but I don’t think it’ll do the trick for you 😉
Personally, I read his tweet (well…his RT through others) as a slam against people who take a ‘non fundamentalist’ interpretation of hell.
I didn’t necessarily read it as saying that people weren’t addicted to porn, but that those who are addicted to porn wouldn’t be if they really believed in the literal fires of hell. But because they do NOT believe in the literal fires of hell, they do not have enough of a compulsion to force themselves to not be addicted to porn.
So…I’m not sure how that makes it any better.
My interpretation of his tweet may have made things worse?
I’m not so sure Driscoll (with his hand-made Masters degree) knows better than this. I’ve seen nothing out of Mars Hill that suggests he understands addiction and human sexuality, either. On the other hand, Driscoll is more media savvy.
Reformed theology has some elements which can be useful. Fortunately, those useful elements can be found elsewhere. This means you don’t have to play with tar.
Any theological system that permits you saying God actually wills people to Hell does resemble a black, tarry substance.
oh MPT… how you make me giggle.
Jason – i think Crystal’s point (and many of us as well) though addiction is VERY damaging, it’s not easily turned off. It’s not as simple as “blowtorch-in-face” = I’M CURED! Addiction means you end up waiting till the blowtorch is off duty and sneak in whatever.
Addressing and healing addiction takes a good balance of grace and truth. John Piper’s last two tweets were 100% truth and not-so-much grace. I am not judging… I own MANY of John Piper’s books and have many quotes ingrained in my head… however, those tweets have me thoroughly confused.
As a leader, he should have addressed it by now.
MPT, I had the same questions and it did seem to me that he was saying that porn is not an issue.
Jason, thanks for posting your view. That made it not quite so mysterious, if that is what JP meant.
Anonymous, your comments don’t count.
MPT, I love the way you just say what’s on your mind. We never have to guess what you are thinking.
Matthew:
A perfect 5! My favorite of all your writings.
You just made me one happy Hindu.
I think Jason hit the nail on the head…I feel like Piper was saying that being addicted to porn can do just as much damage to your life, that the damage that something physical would cause, in this case a blowtorch. Piper could have used any analogy…”being addicted to porn is just as damaging as continuosly getting hit in the face with a baseball bat.” But you still would have criticized him, because you didn’t understand what he was saying. I’m a huge fan of you, MPT, but I think it’s very silly and immature to fire off like this, just because you didn’t understand his statement. Here’s a crazy idea, how about confronting Piper first. I’m sure you have enough pull to get a phone call, or at least and e-mail response from him, before posting this. But then again, this is what you do…you say things that other Christians wouldn’t say, in order to sell books & get visits to your blogs. Which is a good thing, because there is a lot of truth in what you have to say, truth that people need to hear.
@Danny … I can understand that interpretation and get behind it (a little) but the truth is… if that is truly what he is saying and if all Christians lived according to that … then there would be no sin of any kind, anywhere. even John Piper would be without sin (only Jesus was without sin so one can only assume that Piper has also sinned and sins fairly regularly, like the rest of us). but the reality is, we live in a fallen world… and we all fall victim to sin. major or minor.
i am not saying we just deal with it and be okay with sin and not consider consequences—because that is not what grace is for. grace takes our sin and washes it so that we can live in freedom. but we also can’t live as though our sin is going to send us to hell. no, Christ died so that our ransom is paid. He put out the flames on our behalf. threatening a porn addict with the flames of hell… isn’t going to stop them from looking at porn.
If he’s gonna talk about the addiction to Porn then he should have included all addictions. Especially if what he said meant putting hell in front of the sinners face. You could say that about any sin/addiction…yes?
Did you contact Dr. Piper personally with this before you posted it out to the world?
I was just wondering because it is clear that you take the bible seriously and Mt 18:15 – Gal 6:1-2 would appear to be in order here. We really do a good job ‘slamming each other’ as Christians by not giving each other charitable judgments or respecting one another enough to address it biblically FIRST before we hit send. I am just curious in if you contacted him as I searched your site and could not find a response or attempt to write to him personally before it went public.
Regarding ‘porn addiction” I would point you to perhaps calling it a disorder…. a disorder of worship… no one held a gun to that … person’s head and said, “I am going to shoot you and your family if you don’t look at this porn…” That individual made a conscious and culpable decision. The “sickness” model tends to give people NO hope when scripture is clear that “such were some of you.” Being free of Porn for 10+ years through SettingCaptivesFree.org, revealed the truth to me that I had a disorder of worship… I was worshipping something other than Christ… telling myself the lie that God could not meet my needs, and I needed to meet that need myself. 1 Thes 4 is also clear that we should abstain from sexual immorality and you’re saying that God has given an impossible command? Does God give impossible commands? Thanks for allowing me to comment…
In conclusion, let me say that I am not a Piper acolyte, or Driscoll acolyte, etc… I am a Jesus acolyte… and it does grieve me that believers think it is appropriate to disagree publically without respecting one another privately first (some of you are going to think that I am doing the exact thing here), further in lieu of Pastor Piper’s status, he is worthy of double honor and 1 Timothy is clear that when we disagree with leaders, how to approach them. I also know a good way to drive traffic to a site is to put something controversial out there (got me….. for instance) and let it go… I wonder if perhaps this might have been handled differently… perhaps even biblically.
Recently for instance Piper was baited into commenting on two other pastors and he graciously, humbly, and biblically pointed us back to the Cross…. I highly recommend it to us all: http://5ptsalt.com/2009/05/15/piper-addresses-mark-driscollmacarthur-issue-at-basics-conference/
We really love our controversies don’t we? 1 Tim 1:5-7, 2 Tim 2:24-26 (and we don’t have to read these verses either)…
@Crystal, oh definitely!
I think that’s what I meant (in my head) when I said that this interpretation makes the tweet even worse, because of the logical extension that you wrote of.
And as you said: “Threatening a porn addict with the flames of hell… isn’t going to stop them from looking at porn.”
I just read it as much more….incendiary than belittling someone’s very real struggle with porn addiction.
MPT,
I wonder if you are predestined to controversy.
🙂
Derek,
I think it’s cool how you really paid attention to context on the Matthew and Galatians passages you cited.
I also think it’s cool how you contacted MPT privately to discuss this rather than commenting publicly on, say, his blog or facebook.
(Wait…nevermind on both counts.)
AE
I like you. I like your blog.
That said, this is a mean spirited flippant post.
There are much better, more productive, ways to confront Piper on what you disagree with.
Hmmm…. I’d say this is at least as mean-spirited as the tweet you purport to be disappointed in. Does that make both of you wrong, or neither of you?
You’ve missed the point, @BarryWallace… by a long shot.
Of course, the real problem is that JP doesn’t use a computer, writes his tweets on sticky notes and hands it to one of his interns. So I’m guessing that the sticky notes got dropped and muddled and this infamous tweet is probably five or six tweets all jumbled together.
I’m sure it will all make sense when JP writes his three volume response to this post.
@Matthew Paul Turner — Can you make the point a little clearer, then, for someone apparently too dense to get it?
@MPT
You should check out CJ Mahaney, he wrote a book called “Humility,true greatness” That book is awesome.
in regard to the tweet, I was completely confused as to what was going on. This is where I struggle with “big namers” tweeting. They can stay stuff and then have not interaction with others. I just do not understand a tweet like that with no follow up.
But I can see both sides. I cannot believe that he is saying porn is not that big of a deal. I heard about an organization that supports missionaries moving from asking pastors if they struggle with porn to how have they combated or worked through their struggle with porn. The numbers are there, no one can doubt that a lot of people have viewed, are addicted, or are recovering from addiction from porn. I just cannot see John Piper being that naive.
I would love to see some follow up from him or the person that tweeted that (it might not have been him that tweeted that, but someone who manages his account).
I am left very confused. Which in 140 characters or less is that the kind of conversation we should be bringing up?
“And Mark Driscoll seems to like you better than he likes his jockstrap. And he really likes his jockstrap.”
Mars Hill Porn.
(Trust me, don’t Google this or you will want to burn your eyes out with a blow torch!)
“Stop acting so proud and haughty!
Don’t speak with such arrogance!
For the Lord is a God who knows what you have done; he will judge your actions.”
I Sam. 2:3 (NLT)
I just noticed that this post immediately follows a Joel Olsteen post. Nice. I look forward to reading tomorrow’s commentary on Benny Hinn 🙂
If you’re addicted to something then part of you LIKES the blowtorch. That’s something that non-addicts don’t seem to understand. The “Oh if you only knew how much damage it causes!!” hand wringing is clueless to the very real struggle that addicts have. We KNOW, most of us anyway, that it’s harmful. Those of us in recovery are likely very convinced both of the literal flames of hell and of the grace our father has shown us.
Wow. I guess leading by example wasn’t exactly what you had in mind here. Agreed, Piper is abrasive and has a way of making theology sound scary. However, your response was pretty abrasive and kind of made Christians sound scary.
I like your stuff man but this isn’t exactly mature, big boy problem solving here.
I must be WAY out of the TR Tweetiverse because I never even saw a RT of this.
Not a big fan of Piper, but my guess is these were just poorly written tweets. After all, he is kind of a one-trick pony and you can only write “Our job is to glorify God BY enjoying him forever (get it? BY)” so many times…
MPT your post on Piper confuses me more than Piper’s tweet on porn. He attacks sin and you attack his character. Or is it something different? You make Piper sound like a moron and condemn him for his theology but you are both brothers in Christ that are called to love one another so that others might see the love of Christ. Wait…no maybe I interpreted your post wrong…oh wait maybe I just dont understand it. Oh well, like Piper, I’m sure you wont explain yourself.
p.s. When 90% of the time “Christians” piss even me, a Christian, off it makes sense that the world hates us…
“Optimus Prime of the Christformers” “Holy Riddler” – ha-ha, what is up with the riddles? Maybe Batman can help…
I understand Limited Atonement…
I’ve never read one of Piper’s books, but I have seen some videos of him speaking, and will admit that I heard some things that were beneficial. I don’t agree totally with his theology, but we do have some beliefs in common, and it’s possible I could learn a few things from him.
Regardless of what Piper meant with that tweet, it was insensitive to people (like myself) who’ve struggled with addiction to pornography.
I don’t follow Piper on twitter(I don’t have to, because the people I follow RT him anyway). But I’m not going to call for a boycott or backlash against him. I would hope that he would clarify what he meant by that tweet, just to satisfy the questions about it. But, even if he does or does not, I’m not going to hold it against him. He should get the same amount of love and respect that I would give to anyone else, even if I disagree with him.
@the MPT haters/critics: I would much rather MPT be honest and potentially offend, than to lie just to pander to everyone. A post like this is true to the MPT brand of snarkasm. I might think he is being a little over-the-top sometimes, but I won’t hold that against him either. He should get the same amount of love and respect that I would give to anyone else, even if I disagree with him.
One thing that MPT has over Piper: you don’t have to wonder what he really means.
I agree with many others who have written above: Your post is arrogant, sarcastic, & completely disrespectful to the man. You judge the man based on one tweet that he wrote & you don’t even know what he meant by it. I happen to agree, some clarity of his comment would be helpful, but after what you’ve written about him in such a rude way, I don’t think you even deserve a response.
You say you respect the man, but by writing the trash that you wrote, it’s clear that you really don’t. So don’t speak out of both sides of your mouth & tell Piper to have grace when your own words prove very plainly that you have none for him.
I went to see John Piper speak once. He didn’t look grumpy, even though Northern Ireland’s summers aren’t the best. I think he even had a few lines of self-deprecating humour. His explanation of why there is suffering in the world was excellent to listen to, and I understood it, though I wish I could explain it to others as well as he did. It was even endorsed by RT Kendall who was also at the conference.
Anyway.
One of your latest tweets claims people like satire about Osteen, but not satire about Piper.
I would say the difference is that the satire about Osteen was overlong, but it was funny with a couple of gems along with a few serious and possibly necessary digs.
First, my problem with this post is that it is also too long. 859 words (counted by pasting the text into Journler – it has an auto wordcount) railing against TWO TWEETs made by Piper? Yeah, I get a couple of the predestination jibes and I know it may take more than 280 characters to debate two tweets properly, but the content does not justify the length.
Second, the tone is whiny.
Third, is the post a personal letter? If it MPT, can I call you that? I’m not sure I know how to address you. Did you write a loving, well-reasoned personal epistle to Piper? Did he reply with some snaky comment or a public blog post saying you were predestined to be more bald than him? Incidentally to me the post reads exactly like some of Michael Moore’s badly written open letters. Is that a common style of US satire?
Finally, it’s just not good satire. What point were you trying to make? Piper is bad at Twitter? Piper doesn’t understand porn addiction? MPT doesn’t like TULIP? In my view, despite the paragraph near the end, the post merely said ‘I don’t like John Piper’. Perhaps it’s me and my lack of exposure to Piper’s writings that meant I just didn’t get it.
Wow! Someone would have to put a blowtorch to my face to keep me from recommending this post to my friends.
I thought Piper was very clear. He was making a clear analogy between porn and fire– that if you truly understand that pornography (and indeed all sin) is damaging to your flesh and soul, you would turn from it. It is only because Porn does not instantly burn and blister that people don’t immediately turn away from it.
Also, we shouldn’t forget that the limitation in characters makes it tough for Piper to be as clear as you think he needs to be in a tweet. If you want more detailed information about what Piper believes, read his books or his blogs.
To some who have commented about this post’s “harshness.” Perhaps you’re correct. There’s certainly a fine line between harsh/whiny and truth. But the difference is this: Piper’s often harsh/whiny statements are about God or mass amounts of people. My post is just about Piper.
Unfortunately “Blogger” had a glitch and deleted my last post, but here is what it was…hopefully it will stay up this time.
MTP, the difference is you attacked Piper’s character as well as belittling his theology and personality using harsh/whiny statements. Piper tries to reveal the glory of Jesus Christ to others, sometimes, using harsh/whiny statements..
@Dallas: We see it from 2 different perspectives. I’m not going to argue with you. In the end, this is just a blog post. Some people laugh. Some people don’t.
I’m having flashbacks of hearing Jimmy Swygart (or however you spell his name)…how he always focused on and preached so harshly against fornication and prostitution, etc…Yet it was the very sin he was caught up in (until he was caught).
I wonder if Piper is tweeting so harshly on it, and without grace or mercy, because he himself is caught up in it and can’t seems to stop. Perhaps he loathes it within himself. Not saying this is the case…only a thinking it could be a possibility…anything is possible! 🙂
Thoroughly disappointed with this post. Mean spirited and hateful. If you really had an issue with his tweet you should have contacted him directly. I usually enjoy your posts, and this one was terrible.
Mark thank you for allowing me to link to your post and for being an instrument in the redeemer’s hands to spark some creativity: http://wp.me/pgunr-9U
I think you will be able to understand Piper more when you have your second child. Then you can choose which child you want as your own and the other you can disown for your glory.
@Nick
Is that a serious comment or funny? It’s a bit scary. 🙂
@Nick
You sir, win one internet.
That was amazing.
I think the level of ire coming from many commenters may be indicative of the level of veneration given to this man. I will state from the outset: I am not a fan of Piper. Never have been. And I am Reformed, so it’s not that. (But contra Piper and his fans, blaring about TULIP is not the be-all, end-all of Reformed theology.) Reading the schoolgirl-crush adulation from so many on Twitter the other day when Piper was doing his “Ask Pastor John” thing (“He’s answering my question! He likes me, he really really likes me!”) was more than a little nauseating.
Piper ia human. He is not to be worshiped. His Tweets the other day were extremely weird, and he needs to explain himself. If he really thinks the passage he quoted was about looking at porn, then his hermeneutic is even more bizarre than I thought–and that’s saying something.
I honestly didn’t realize that Piper was being serious until I read your blogpost.
So now I have to ask (and I mean this too, so please pardon me in advance), couldn’t he have picked a better torture device to frighten a *porn* addict than a lovely phallic “blow” “torch?”
I mean, really, John.
@MPT – It was supposed to be funny.
@Nick. I THOUGHT so. But it was so scary/ugly/true, I was frightened…
My next book covers my years in Calvinism… it was IN to be reformed when I was in college. 🙂
After reading through all 62 (at the time of this writing) comments, I’m not very surprised to find the various reactions MPT got here. Yes, the post borders on harsh and whiny, and can be seen even more so if you disagree with the content – opponents tend become more annoying in tone the more we disagree with them. This doesn’t mean they actually *are* annoying/harsh/whiny; it’s just that we choose to interpret them this way.
So, because I agree with what a lot of what MPT was saying, I found the post hilarious, not annoying. But I can’t see myself handing off this post to my uncle, who attends Piper’s church and practically worships the man (not kidding), and my uncle finding it funny. He would be extremely offended.
I’m not saying that that’s all that’s going on here, but it’s certainly part of it.
That said, I think this is a sarcastic (NOT SATIRICAL) open letter that does get some nice jabs across at the national IMAGE of John Piper, not necessarily Piper himself. There’s a difference between jabbing at his *image* – which he seems to have readily embraced – and jabbing at his actual character.
MPT, while the tone could maybe have been changed to be better received by those who disagree with you, I have to wonder how much of that would be pandering. There are points when Jesus came across as very sarcastic, and I’m pretty if he was physically on the Earth in the 2000s, he’d be totally responding to some things with “REALLY? REALLY?” in a loud sarcastic tone like Seth and Amy. I just can’t get behind a God who doesn’t have a sense of humor. Why else would humans be able to laugh? Lewis seems to embrace that idea in “The Magician’s Nephew” – the Raven who makes the first joke within minutes of creation. Why can’t we, as Christians, learn to laugh at ourselves?
Ironically, most of the Christians I’ve met who can’t laugh at themselves and their silly (and knowingly inadequate) interpretations of the Christian life are…Calvinists. *shrug*
I’m pretty sure that what he’s saying is that people use the word “addiction” as a cop-out for not changing. like, “Oh well…I’m addicted to porn and that’s why I can’t turn it off.” the off button is RIGHT THERE!! I struggled with it myself like 99% of christian men in America and It took more than just my admitting that I have a problem. Rick Warren said in a recent tweet: “No christian is addicted to anything. the proper saying is:I’m a believer who struggles with…” or something along those lines. I’m pretty certain, @MPT that you just have a problem with theologians who are more successful and popular than you because you don’t get the publicity they do. And so you try to force attention to yourself.
@Jared:
“@MPT that you just have a problem with theologians who are more successful and popular than you because you don’t get the publicity they do.”
I wouldn’t touch John Piper’s publicity with my blowtorch. Well, perhaps with my blowtorch. Nah, probably not.
Sorry, dude, you’re reaching because you disagree with me. It’s cool.
Thanks for reading!
tsimer,
and I understand stereotypes and stereotypical responses 😉
AE
Good post Matthew, I love the site and it is great to see different people’s reactions.
Keep up the good work!
C!
“But the difference is this: Piper’s often harsh/whiny statements are about God or mass amounts of people. My post is just about Piper.”
Not necessarily taking sides, but…
MPT, if you think you should apologize for the tone of the post because it was over the top then do that. What you did there was plead “John is a bigger meanie than I am” while simultaneously taking another stab at him. You don’t exactly sound resolved. 🙂
@dubdynomite and @dianna
Well said.
Just like the Osteen post, i will not tell my Uncle (who watches osteen every sunday) to go and read this post. It will completely shatter his view of God (in time I work with him on conversation, not trial by fire).
Same with this post. I view this with a grain of salt. I do not know MPT personally (though that would be cool if we were friends) so it is hard for me to completely judge everything he says and to that fact judge his heart.
I appreciate him calling it out and then giving people a place to react. We all have differences of methodology and opinion and that is celebrated here. That is why I love these post.
MPT=tension creator that spurs on conversation.
BTW: I hope you were serious about that book on Calvinism. Would be an interesting read for myself.
I don’t know much of anything about John Piper. I know he has written some books, but I have no idea what they are about.
Yes, this post seems a little harsh, and perhaps some of it over the top. I do believe MPT tried to get an explanation from Piper before this post but received no response.
Does MPT come across a little arrogant, rude, sarcastic? Yes. Could he have done a better job with this post. I’m sure he could have.
But I’m not going to criticize MPT. First, because I have been arrogant, rude, and sarcastic once, maybe twice, in my life. MPT isn’t perfect, nor Piper, nor any of us. (Thank GOD for grace!)
Second, I admire MPT’s honesty. I’ll agree his honesty is sometimes harsh, but it always challenges my thinking. Sometimes he says what I’m thinking but too afraid to put into print. Other times his honesty makes me uncomfortable, but it makes me examine my own beliefs and feelings. I need that, which is why I keep reading his blog.
Thank you for challenging me, MPT. It will be a sad day when I no longer allow my beliefs to be challenged.
As far as Piper’s tweet about porn addiction, where do I begin?
I worked at a Christian treatment center for adolescent males before taking a youth ministry job in May. Piper’s tweet makes me think he (along with some of the commenters here) has no understanding of addiction (porn, drug, alcohol, food, etc.).
There is a huge difference between a single first-time sin and an addiction to that sin. Most people who are trapped in an addiction know that it is wrong and know that it is destroying them, but they don’t know how to get out of it.
They do not know how to function without that addiction. It’s not just a matter of stopping. It’s not even a matter of threatening physical harm (i.e., a blowtorch).
Addiction goes much deeper. It is rooted in a problem with a person’s soul. Something at their very core is wrong. Perhaps it is a hurt they received from a parent or a spouse. Perhaps it is depression and grief from losing a loved one. It could be a feeling of abandonment or any number of other huge hurts they have experienced. Until they deal with that hurt and allow Jesus to bring healing to it, they will always struggle with some kind of addiction.
Piper seems to think that no one is actually addicted to porn, that they could stop if they just wanted to. I’ll be honest: that infuriates me. I know plenty of people who were addicted to porn and hated it. They wanted out, but didn’t know the way until someone showed them.
Has Christ not called us to show the lost how to find The Way?
I wonder if John Piper would recommend the blow torch method to cure addictions to crack and alcohol. I wonder if John Piper would stand by his blow torch statement if one of his loved ones was a porn addict.
I’m really not seeing the LOVE of Jesus in the blow torch deterrent method.
Michael, I would actually argue that THAT is the point J-Pip is trying to say in the first place. So many people feign inability to repent do to their addictions. I don’t think he’s downplaying the hold of addictions, rather he questions if everyone who claims addiction actually is addicted. I see addiction as something that maintains it’s control even the dangers of a blowtorch. Piper seems to be saying “Lets blowtorch your face and see if you’re truly addicted at all!” and that many times not even WE believe we’re addicted, at some subconcious level acknowledging that we’re fooling everyone, perhaps even ourselves.
For the record, I’m not reformed, a Piper follower, and I appologize for any wonkiness in my post, I chicken pecked this on a phone.
Probably the most disrespectful thing I’ve ever read.
@Jace
I agree that there are Christians who use “addiction” as a cop-out. They may not actually be addicted, but claim to be addicted to justify their sin. Others who are truly addicted may use it as a cop-out so that they don’t have to change.
But I don’t see how Piper’s tweet could be taken to mean that. Look at his tweet again:
“Is anyone really addicted to porn? Put a blow torch in their face; they will turn off the computer. IF they believe its real.”
He asks if anyone is “really addicted.” It looks to me that he is questioning if people are actually able to be addicted. If he is trying to make a distinction between those who are truly addicted and those who only claim to be addicted, well, I don’t see how that works.
His answer to his question of if someone is addicted to porn is to threaten them with a blowtorch. Then “they will turn off the computer. IF they believe it is real.”
It might make sense, though it would be cruel, had he said to threaten them with a blowtorch, and then we will see who is addicted and who is just using it as a justification to sin. But that’s not what he said.
It appears that he is saying if you threaten addicts with a blowtorch, they will be cured of their addiction. That is way more cruel and insensitive than anything MPT said.
I hope I have misinterpreted what Piper said, but I don’t really see any other explanation. If that’s not what Piper meant, he really needs to clarify because he has confused (and upset) a lot of people.
one of the biggest things i’ve gotten out of reading all of this (besides the obvious reminder that addictions suck and are a big deal but God’s grace is bigger still) has been the weight of responsibility in using twitter and social media in general.
people actually care about what dudes like JP, MPT, or even Ashton Kutcher (he has almost 4 million followers) say, even if it is only 140 characters. points out the significance of our words, the means by which we use them and the amount of clarity, or lack thereof, they contain. all of this is another example that words are certainly not something to be taken lightly, even if it’s just a ‘tweet’.
I could be wrong (because it’s certainly not clear), but I read Piper’s tweet as equating the effects of porn to the effects of a blow torch – damaging, painful, and engulfing. I didn’t read him as saying that a blow torch would cure addiction – nor have I seen evidence of that line of though in his other writings. I certainly didn’t read anything “Calvinistic” into those 160 characters.
I am the wife of a former porn addict. It was painful and hard and shitty and everything I listed above. I have had my own addictions. Each of us do. I’m often still addicted to the desire to be liked, to be seen as funny and smart, to be seen as witty and knowledgeable. I’m addicted to myself, mostly. As is everyone writing in these comments.
I often spew out words without putting much thought into who they might damage, or what Christ would say about this person, or how much he desperately loves them. I often say things that could be, and often are, sadly misinterpreted.
We are no better, no matter what the intentions of “Dr. Piper” were.
In other news, I like satire a lot. I’m not a Piper fanatic. But even a very general overview of Piper’s writing (and seeing him once in person at a conference I crashed) indicate a man who loves joy and passion, not one who is grumpy, or obsessed with pestilence. He desires to make Christ known, over and above any humor, satire, brilliance, or desire to please others. I find it difficult to find “satire” in that.
I probably wouldn’t agree with Piper’s theology, but I find this post a little too snarky for my tastes. Especially your last paragraph, where you talk about grace. You might want to take that to heart…besides, ad hominem attacks tend to get people mad at you, not at whatever concept you’re trying to talk about through snarkiness. So another approach might also just be more effective. 🙂
Michael-
Oh, I totally think it isn’t the most tactful way to say anything (140 characters or however many) but it’s still the best way I could rationalize it.
I guess the common sense that I want to apply to John Piper doesn’t want to think that he seriously believes a blowtorch can be a cure for addiction. Like MPT said earlier, it really doesnt jive with the type of intelligence Piper normally is contributed with.
Kind of interesting that we have to come up with our own John Piper Hermanutic to interpret J-Pips Hermanutic of scripture.
And though it’s still an ackward thing to say:
“Is anyone really addicted to porn? Put a blow torch in their face; they will turn off the computer. IF they believe its real.”
I still read it as “If someone claims to be addicted to porn, put a blow torch in their face. They’ll probably change their tune quickly, and thats if they even believe their addiction is real themself.”
It may be “cruel” as you put it, but it seems a lot more in line with something Piper would say.
Regardless, John Piper may be great cranking out books at the cyclic rate, but he really fails at trying to squish heavy messages into 140 characters or less. I think thats one point all of us can agree on.
@Michael: I don’t think that Piper is suggesting Christians begin purifying people through the threat of violence.
I do think maybe he is suggesting that if people believed in God’s threat of violence they would change behavior, regardless of whether or not they were “addicted”. (This flies in the face of what everyone understands about addiction and hopefully Piper rethink.)
I think that this reflects the darker side of Piper’s tune which, unfortunately negates for some the very bright and powerful side of one of his central messages; namely that cultivating your desire for God and then seeking to fulfill that desire gratifies the self (pun intentional) and glorifies God.
I agree that Piper is obligated to clarify his statements.
Seems like alot of people here already dislike Piper (and Reformed theology) and are taking advantage of the tweet to throw their stones.
It’s a 140 character limit tweet. It was not fleshed out, and maybe shouldn’t have been presented as it was. It may underscore the problem that can arise from trying to teach/preach/theologize via Twitter. If you think your 45 minute sermon can be misconstrued, just wait to see what people can do with a soundbyte (which is what Twitter is).
But Piper doesn’t deserve this. It’s funny that some of you dislike Piper so much yet you hold such high expectations for him.
I am a recovering porn addict, and it didn’t offend me.
Can’t believe I’m taking time to respond to you.
I just think it’s funny you call Piper grumpy. And Jonathan Edwards. Because they take the (debatably?) literal truths of the Bible seriously?
It’s like me reading your blog a few times and thinking you can ONLY communicate using biting sarcasm and flippant, evasive language. Surely that would misrepresent…
“Matthew Paul Turner said… @Dallas: We see it from 2 different perspectives. I’m not going to argue with you. In the end, this is just a blog post. Some people laugh. Some people don’t.”
So do you really care what Piper said or are you just looking for a laugh/response? Do you really take anything seriously or are you just playing a ‘is my blog post or Piper’s tweet more outrageous’ game? I’m confused. If it’s ‘just a blog post’, at the end of the day Piper’s tweet was ‘just a tweet’.
I don’t get it, brother. BUT we are brothers in Christ… Or at the end of the day is this whole Christianity thing something some people laugh at and some don’t?