My friend the iMonk has excised part of a critical essay of John Piper by theologian Steve Brown in one of his recent blogs: The Spiral of Despair in Christian Hedonism: Steve Brown’s Take on John Piper. I hold Piper in very high regard. In fact, I consider him to be a hero of mine. However, I do have some concerns regarding Piper’s ministry. I will blog on those later. But Dr. Brown’s critique is no critique at all. It is trite, populist and pandering.

His okra analogy is mildly amusing. I feel the same way about Asparagus. God does not demand that we muster up a liking for a food that we preferrentially dislike. But to somehow equate food preferences to the holy God of the universe who is in fact objectively and Truthfully glorious and beautiful. And Piper’s assertion that God demands our love and worship is not a stretch at all. Seems more like Christianity 101.

It is ironic that Dr. Brown calls Christian Hedonism (CH) “too religious”. Experientially, for me and many people I know, CH has been the antidote to religion. Religion is doing the right things because you are obligated to do them. CH recognizes that a heart inclined towards God does not have to be compelled to obey, it will obey because it is a delight to do so. This is the only real power for holy living.

Dr. Brown writes, “God never demanded that I love Him or enjoy Him the way He loved me and, it had become apparent, enjoyed being with me. ” This is the Jesus is cool school of theology. He is also holy and righteous and beautiful and just and kind and merciful and gracious and loving. He makes incredible demands of us. He also met those demands with His blood. Surely Dr. Brown is not suggesting that God does not command us to love Him. What is the first great command? So is he is making an argument of degrees? I am not so sure that scripture makes such fine distinctions.

The essence of Brown’s criticism is that we cannot control our emotions. Therefore the demand for love cannot include an emotional element. And yet, throughout scripture, God calls us to emote: rejoice, delight, fear, have compassion, and, of course, love. Like salvation itself, joy and delight is a gift from God. If we obey without it, we must repent of our half-hearted obedience. If he grants it to us, to Him be all honor glory and praise.,

Steve

My favorite movie reviewer, Stephen Greydanus at Decent Films has written a brilliant essay: An American Mythology: Why “Star Wars” Still Matters. Worth a read.

Steve

Spoiler Warning: Certain plot points are revealed in this blog about the forthcoming movie Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.

Being a bit of a sci-fi fanboy and in light of the forthcoming movie Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith I decided to rewatch Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones. The primary conflict in Episode II (and that began in Episode I) is between a separatist group and the Galactic Republic. Although the movie doesn’t speak well of the politics, politicians or political processes represented by The Republic, the Separatist, in league with the Dark Lord Darth Sidious, are the primary antagonists of the story. Who makes up the Separatist faction(formally known as the Confederacy of Independent Systems)? The Trade Federation, the Intergalactic Banking Clan, The Commerce Guild, the Corporate Alliance, the Hyper-Communications Cartel, Geonosian Industries and the Techno Union all whose alliance has been purchased with promises of an “unyielding devotion to capitalism“. Yes, the powerful business elite are the nefarious self-interested party dedicated to the destruction of democracy in pursuit of material wealth and power. Episode III begins with a critical confrontation between the Jedi Knights and representatives of the Trade Federation led by the nefarious Count Dooku and General Grievous on the flagship of the separatist forces. What is the name of this flagship? The Invisible Hand. I kid you not!

For you non-economists, this is a significant choice of names because Adam Smith, the father of modern economics used an analogy of an “invisible hand” to desribe the forces that guided market activity in his book The Wealth of Nations. In his most famous quote, Smith wrote:

Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it… By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

Among economists, the term “invisible hand” has come to mean market activity that are unplanned by any central command and that have unintended consequences that generally benefit the good of society as a whole. Given that the effect of their efforts in Episodes I through III is to undermine the democratically elected governing body of the Republic, the Separatists act foolishly and not in their self interest. Markets never thrive where there is not a committment to the rule of law and to private property rights. And so, the Separatist leaders gruesome demise by the hand of Anakina/Darth Vader at the end of the movie somehow seems fitting.

The entire text of The Wealth of Nations can be found here. For a complete plot summary of The Revenge of the Sith click here. The Revenge of the Sith opens Thursday, May 19th.

Steve

Bros,

Seth, with some caveats, I have to agree with Scott on this one.

Of course the recent beating he took began with this post: I’m Not Like You: An Apologia to My Readers (Calvinists especially). I liked this post a great deal and still do. As the controversy unfolded, and still does, I have made some observations and reached some conclusions.

On the negative side:

Michael has feet of clay like the rest of us. He seems drawn to controversy. He is intentionally provocative. I think being provocative can be good. (Read this great blog on the topic as it relates to economists) There is something unseemly, however, about being intentionally provocative like picking a fight to draw a crowd. And yet Michael, despite this, is often naive about the nature of public discourse through blogging (At the BHT, he expressed annoyance and surprise that someone had forwarded his post on a topic to one of the people he mentioned by name who had criticized NT Wright)*. He invites the controversy and then reacts strongly when the battle is brought to his front door. Interestingly, I think he is naive about his own influence. He is often too quick to lump people into categories. He tends to paint groups with broad brushes. And he often does appear disdainful of his critics.

And yet I believe he is one of the most important Christian bloggers on the web today. When I discovered his website 3 months ago, it was an extraordinary spiritual encouragement to me. About that time, I begin to experience something akin to a personal spiritual revival. I credit his essays and website as one of the 3 things that God used to bring about this spiritual event. Reading his essays made me realize that I was not alone. I agree with Scott that he is saying things that very few evangelicals are saying but that desperately need to be said and heard. Even when he is wrong, I welcome the discussion (at least when it is civil). I appreciate his defense of NT Wright because people are saved by faith in Christ, not by faith in justification by faith through the imputed righteousness of Christ and as Wilson said, even though IMHO Wright is wrong on the issue of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, he can still be read with profit. I appreciate his skepticism about the culture wars. I share his concern about the coopting of the religious right for political purposes. I agree that truth without love as frequently manifested by the TR crowd is “a noisy gong” and even dangerous. His criticism, disdain and dismissal of all forms of shallow Christianity as reflected in the Warren/Osteen, church growth or word/faith movements is an antidote to our weak, pop-culture saturated, materialistic western Christianity. I am sympathetic to his openness to the RCC. As I indicated in this blog, I think the dialogue occuring between evangelicals and Catholics is a good thing.

He does not seem to always relish the role, but Michael is a welcome and necassary gadfly for the church. He often executes this role imperfectly and crudely. But I am glad he is there to make the church wiser and kinder.

My biggest concern/question that I would love to ask Michael: during the discourse related to his “Apologia” essay he suggested to one of the commenters, that he no longer subscribes to some of his older essays. The commenter was OSO and I think the essay was Why Calvinism is Cool? Michael’s response implied that he had changed his mind away from what he wrote in the essay. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind. All good thinkers and writers change their opinion on what they have written over time. But it would be interesting to know Michael’s thoughts on his older essays.

With that in mind, here are links to some of my favorite iMonk essays:

Why Calvinism is Cool?

Wretched Urgency

Wretched Urgency II: My Not-So-Guilty Pleasures

I Hate Theology

The Piper Project The essay that first introduced me to the iMonk. He has recently expressed growing reservations about Piper. I love Piper and have my reservations too. I would love to hear what Michael’s are.

Running Wounded

The Boy At The Beach….and How I Killed Him

Talk Hard in which Michael defends the role of the Christian critic.

Cheers,

Steve

* This writer/theologian wrote a very gracious and persuasive response to Michael’s criticism which Michael linked to on the BHT. Michael later indicated he had sent an apology to the guy.

Brother Seth . I beg to differ. I have been lurking over at the Boars Head Tavern and IM for a few months now and here is my take on the iMonk. Easy to read in bulletized form. DISCLAIMER - These are my perceptions. I may be wrong and the iMonk himself may disagree.

• He has little patience for arrogance (perceived or real)
• He really does believe in a CS Lewis christianity that is “mere”
• He shuns labels and categorization of people and viewpoints
• He is talking about the “right” things. I.E The things we reformed christians need to be talking about

You mention some things I haven’t seen at all. You said,

The thing that MOST irks me about IM is that the people he has most abused in the last weeks are not the TR folks. It is the people that actually like him and think he has some good things to say but don’t agree with every jot and tittle of his thoughts on the door. People who love the message of Jesus but also love the message of Paul and are not afraid of defining what the gospel is and is not. People who think that those who preach a non-Pauline gospel are “accursed.”

Maybe I haven’t been paying enough attention. But I don’t see what you mean. If you are saying that he is not true to the gospel because he doesn’t just dismiss the NPP and NT Wright perspective, then I think you miss the point of the “big reformed tent’ he is speaking of. I read the article he wrote (which you quoted) and I cannot find anything wrong with it.

You said

I’m waiting for the apology. I really WANT to read him. I’m just hoping I’m given a reason to come back into his tent.

What has offended you so?

Love ya bro.

But I beg to differ.

Scott

I mean it. There is SO many ways that the Internet Monk has helped me. I want to send people to his site. And then I read this:

The blogosphere isn’t, as far as I know, a confessional zone. It’s entirely legal and healthy for any one us to post our thoughts and speculations for the world to read, and then go back to our confessional communities- our churches and ministries- where our pastors and elders can look at our whole life and decide if we are “out” of the faith. It’s the same with anybody’s pastor’s conference, and anyone’s book. There are confessional realities that need to be respected, and then there is the “imaginary” reformed tent tended by those who apparently know more than the rest of us.

I have gotten the sense the IM knows nothing about “confessional realities that need to be respected” except his OWN confessional realities. The thing that MOST irks me about IM is that the people he has most abused in the last weeks are not the TR folks. It is the people that actually like him and think he has some good things to say but don’t agree with every jot and tittle of his thoughts on the door. People who love the message of Jesus but also love the message of Paul and are not afraid of defining what the gospel is and is not. People who think that those who preach a non-Pauline gospel are “accursed.”

I once thought that you could disagree with him and that his spirit was liberal enough to accomodate that. I see now that is simply false. Join his fan club and you will not be demeaned and belittled. Agree with much of what he says (and a WHOLE LOT of the spirit of what he says) but not every jot and tittle and he will start explaining why “he is not like you” and why you should “not read this blog”.

OK. That can be done. To bad because you had a lot of good things to say.

I do not want IM to agree with me. I DO want him to respect me as a reader. Until then I can point people to the Jolly Blogger.

I’m waiting for the apology. I really WANT to read him. I’m just hoping I’m given a reason to come back into his tent.

Seth

Russel Roberts, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, testified before Congress on CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The sugar issue proves that markets and competition are far better at regulating goods than the political process. Why is congress demanding that I pay more for sugar to protect the jobs for a handful of american farmers. As Russell’s son said, it isn’t nice!

Steve