Thursday, March 06, 2008
Piper on Prosperity
This video is getting a ton of exposure in the blogosphere. It features the modern poster boy for the reformed movement, John Piper. I can’t say much good about Piper’s theology, but the production value of this video is good and I do agree with his criticism of the prosperity Gospel. Here is my issue. How is Piper’s manipulative Gospel message any better? His Gospel also relies on a consumer mentality based on the same transactional model. Follow God and you get something in return and in addition you should follow God because he is powerful and demands it. Is a "stick" better than a "carrot"? Both seem to be based on emotional manipulation rather than sound logic.
- Prosperity Gospel says, follow Jesus and you’ll get a new car.
- John Piper says, follow Jesus and he’ll make you feel better in your loss.
- Prosperity Gospel says, follow Jesus and you’ll get a better job.
- John Piper says, follow Jesus and God will be your treasure.
- Prosperity Gospel says, believe in Jesus and he will lift you out of poverty.
- John Piper says, believe in Jesus and he will save you from hell.
What ever happened to the idea of following Jesus because he had some good ideas? I'm not wild about making it so complex and emotionally manipulative. I chose to follow Jesus simply because I agree with his message about non-violent protest against injustice and I have faith that his concept for a new way of life is possible. I agree with Piper that Christianity should be based on a life of sacrifice, but not because of a divine mandate or because God's ego demands obedience and worship. Shouldn't we sacrifice because we agree it is a better choice and it makes the world a better place?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
AMEN!
I once had a student in one of my theology classes that said he'd still be a Christian if we found out that Jesus didn't exist because it's "a damn good story."
Why can't the religious life just be its own reward?
Wow good stuff Mike. Thanks for taking the time to post this. It's amazing that we could watch this and not realize the parallel between the two views.
Cheers
Hey Mike,
I'm wondering about the idea of everyone taking a big breath and a step back and looking for areas of agreement and simply living our lives in a way that's consistent with what we believe that we've learned about Christ.
I admit that the fundamentalists have harped on their version of "truth." But are you in danger of falling into the same trap? Are you getting to the place where if people don't believe just the way you do you're rejecting them?
You are seeming to gravitate to areas of disagreement between yourself and those on the "other side" of the argument, i.e. evolution, incarnation, reformation, born again, prosperity vs. sacrifice.
Supposedly, there are many parts of the body of Christ. Each important in its own way.
Gotta go for now. Peace,Kim
Kim,
I don't think unity means avoiding our differences. It means openly celebrating them together. For example, I'm in dialogue with many John Piper fans (in the real world). I blog about those differences so I can work them out in my own mind and be better prepared for conversation. I'm open to responses and willing to change my perspective if I've mischaraterized someones views. I often do that, but if I don't write them out and get a response, how will I ever know?
I don't think we should just keep our mouths shut. I find that learning more about others is a good way to create unity. It just takes some work.
Fair enough, Mike. I know my own character flaw of desiring more to be understood than to try to understand others.
In Matt. 34-36 Christ says "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD."
Earlier in the chapter, Christ would seem to belie the idea that we should hope in men for "a new way of life," when He says "But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues..."
So, given that you follow Christ because you "agree with his message about non-violent protest against injustice and I have faith that his concept for a new way of life is possible," how do you square that decision with Christ's own words?
Kim,
Christ's own words? Where are those?
As with all the Gospels, I'd say that texts accurately reflect the feelings of the different communities that wrote them. The evolution within the gospel tradition from non-violent protest to something like this notion of defending themselves via "the sword" correctly represents the changing experience of Christians from the time of Jesus to the time shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. It was a much different world during and after the war than it had been 30-40 years earlier. They were in a fight for their lives and were writing that experience into their story about Jesus. An earlier text like the source text (or "Q" / Queue) doesn't have that type of statement.
My view not only "squares" with the story, it solves all the inconsistencies.
"is a stick better than a carrot?"
...nice.
Your pretty suave with the lingo Mike L. Which means I need to read your posts multiple times before buying in or not. I've only read this one once so I'll hold off for now...but I think I agree with you.
Piper's manipulative gospel? I wonder how you will explain to God that his Word is manipulative. I mean, it is Jesus himself who said: Sell everything and you will get a reward in heaven... mmmm... sound a bit manipulative on the part of Jesus... I think someone should tell him, dont you?
Come on... stop trying to find the bug in everything that is evangelical.
Anonymous,
I don't think there is any doubt that this is manipulative language on the part of Jesus. Are you suggesting that Jesus had no intention of the listeners making a behavior modification as a result of this teaching?
For the sake of discussion, let' assume your notion that God created those words. Let's also assume there is an afterlife with some kind of "better" status or "reward". Then, let's use the most manipulative of the variations of the statement (Mark as opposed to Matthew, neither of which is written exactly as you paraphrased them).
Wouldn't God already know this is manipulative? Wouldn't that be the point? How would the reality of the reward make the words any less manipulative? How does a reference in scripture change the nature of the proposition?
Are suggesting that a God, who in that scenario created a system of reward and punishment for particular behavior, would then deny that this system exists? Are you suggesting God would lie about the system if/when we inquired about its existence?
The reality or fiction of the reward does not change the manipulative nature of the proposition. The only question up for grabs here is who is doing the manipulation. Is it God, is it Jesus, or is it the author of the text who places the manipulative proposition on the lips of Jesus.
I vote for the latter.
ok Mike... so whats the point? Your suggesting that proposing a reward is not something that Jesus would have done? I mean, if you follow Jesus, it is still because you think it is the way that will be the most rewarding to you (maybe the most rewarding thing to you is to bring joy to someone else...)
Also, if you doubt the word written on the gospel, how can you say that you follow the Jesus way? maybe everything has been ^put in the mouth of Jesus by the apostols ?
Sorry for my poor english, it is not my first language
Anonymous,
I have no doubts about the gospels. They are what they are.
You said "maybe everything has
been ^put in the mouth of Jesus by the apostols?"
Yes, that is the only choice we have. All accounts of Jesus teaching are 2nd (or 3rd, 4th, 5th) hand accounts. There is no "gospel of Jesus". We have to work backwards from these stories to find Jesus (if we want to).
The best reason to follow Jesus is because his "way" is the most logical method to acheive our goals. That is ALWAYS the best reason to make ANY decision. To use manipulative emotional rewards/punishments does nothing but skew the decision and lower the gospel to the level of brainwashing. Piper gives ammunition to the Atheists who see christianity as dumb. If Piper's Christianity is the best we have to offer, then the Atheists are right.
Christianity must change or die. Its only hope is an intelligent argument for how it can work, not a plea to appease an angry God who mandates our worship. It is simple. If Christianity works then make the case. Use evidence not manipulation from the "spirit world".
Post a Comment