I’m not sure I like this from John Piper. Not sure I like it at all. It’s an illustration directed at kids in a 1999 sermon, recently quoted by Justin Taylor.
Your daddy is standing in a swimming pool out a little bit from the edge. You are, let’s say, three years old and standing on the edge of the pool. Daddy holds out his arms to you and says, “Jump, I’ll catch you. I promise.” Now, how do you make your daddy look good at that moment? Answer: trust him and jump. Have faith in him and jump. That makes him look strong and wise and loving. But if you won’t jump, if you shake your head and run away from the edge, you make your daddy look bad. It looks like you are saying, “he can’t catch me” or “he won’t catch me” or “it’s not a good idea to do what he tells me to do.” And all three of those make your dad look bad.
But you don’t want to make God look bad. So you trust him. Then you make him look good–which he really is. And that is what we mean when we say, “Faith glorifies God” or “Faith gives God glory.” It makes him look as good as he really is. So trusting God is really important….
…Faith glorifies God. That is why God planned for faith to be the way we are justified.
What’s odd to me (among other things) is that this comes from the man who most loudly champions the self-glorification of God! He’s forever saying that God’s chief end is to glorify Himself, God is the most self-centred being in the universe, etc, etc.
Now I’ve written elsewhere my problems with this kind of theology of glory (here, here and here). Fundamentally I think Piper lacks a trinitarian/incarnational shape to this glorification language. He needs to be talking about the other-centredness of Father, Son and Spirit. When we think out our theology from an explicitly trinitarian logic then actually it is the glorification of the Other that defines the being of God. The Father glorifies the Son by the Spirit and the Son glorifies the Father by the Spirit. Wonderfully, when the Son is born of a woman, born under law, He comes to be glorified by the Father as Man and to glorify the Father as Man.
Now this is the sense in which God glorifies Himself. The Son offers to the Father the true obedience, trust, worship and sacrifice. He does this in my place, on my behalf and as my substitute. And even when I don’t desire or glorify God, Christ does.
It’s for this reason that TF Torrance can say in Theology in Reconstruction:
[A truly trinitarian and incarnational theology is] not concerned simply with a divine revelation which demands from us all a human response, but with a divine revelation which already includes a true and appropriate and fully human response as part of its achievement for us and to us and in us.
And the upshot of all this is that we don’t have Daddy on the sidelines needing little old us to make Him look good. He has Big Ol’ Jesus to do that, which is good. Because frankly I’m not up to the job and neither are you. And to be honest it’s not the most attractive doctrine of God is it? Feed me, Seymour!
But then only a deeply and thoroughly trinitarian doctrine of God can ever avoid making God look needy (see this sermon). It’s always a good diagnostic to check – if in my theology I have a needy God, I’m probably not being trinitarian enough.
I’m afraid to say I sense a lack here with Piper. (I mean ‘I’m afraid’ because I reckon I’ll get some serious resistance to this. Btw, have I mentioned I have deep and ongoing respect for the man? I do, I promise! But occasionally fresh-faced, big-mouth with a red guitar, three chords and a blog gets something stuck in his craw).
And if anyone complains that I’m taking an illustration for kids too far, I’d invite you to read some more Piper. He writes the same stuff for grown-ups too. A lot actually.
Now you might say – this is not about saving faith, it’s about daily trusting the Lord. I’d reply a) there are still problems and b) look again at the final sentence.
You might ask, why the picture at the top? Well, maybe it’s becoming more clear. I believe Piper has his theology of self-glorification backwards which means something else has to be brought in to do the job of giving God His due – little old us. And in the end, it just looks silly.
My blogging’s been very dull for the last couple of weeks. Maybe this will spice things up!
.
My blogging’s been very dull for the last couple of weeks.
************************************************
I’ve enjoyed reading your previous posts. Your video depicting Jesus as my substitute brought me to tears, because it spoke directly to a struggle I’ve been going through.
Would you mind terribly if I added the video (with a link back to your site) to a blog post I’ve been trying to finish?
Anyway, I do understand some of your concerns about JP’s presentation. The first time I heard him speak, I went away feeling condemned and desperate for not desiring God in the way I apparently should. The only thing I know to do is beg God to give me that desire to obey and glorify God, because it certainly isn’t something I can dredge up on my own.
Since then, I’ve come to respect Mr. Piper very much and have gained valuable insight from his speaking/writing–but do feel a little uneasy about the emphasis that is placed on the human response to God’s love.
Okay, I’ll start the commotion.
So you accept that Piper is loudly champions the self-glorification of God. I think you would probably also accept that he, probably more than any big-name preacher I know, depicts God as not needing anything from anyone else but was perfectly happy and glorious before the world began.
Then, from a children’s illustration which: 1. Biblically affirms that God is glorified by our trusting in him (how else would we do give him glory, and we are called to give him glory); and 2. Biblically affirms that we should give God glory because we think that just displays what he already has (“which he really is”, “as he really is”); you argue that he is depicting a needy god.
Is that really fair?.. I know Australians are meant to be even worse than Brits for tall poppy syndrome, but isn’t that a step too far?
I do like Torrance’s emphasis on Christ’s substitutionary human response. Perhaps Piper could do with emphasising that more. Similarly he could do with a more explicitly Trinitarian theology. But we all have our faults. Poor old Mr Piper…always getting picked on.
I’m reminded of PT Forsyth’s criticism of the Prodigal Son as an incomplete picture of the gospel. Even Jesus’ parables miss important truths. But they are not meant to be read apart from the rest of the bible. They often are meant to make just one point, much like Piper’s illustration here. I think his one point is valid, and if read in context of the rest of his writings he would agree with all you say. But you don’t deal with his main point, you deal with how it is unhelpful in what it implies because of its incompleteness.
Rant over.
Hi Heather,
Of course – you can plunder anything of mine for what you think it’s worth.
Hi Dave,
Piper is sometimes picked on, but mostly in our circles is just absorbed.
Perhaps I’ve highlighted the wrong aspect of all this – with the self-glorification stuff. Let me deal with Piper’s main point then directly. The punchline to this whole illustration is this:
“That is why God planned for faith to be the way we are justified.”
It seems to me he’s saying that ‘Christ alone, Grace alone, Faith alone’ is God’s way of doing justification because it enables us to make Daddy look good. And I say ‘huh??’
There’s a problem here. Faith alone is not the way of salvation because it helps us make God look glorious. It’s the way of salvation because we don’t make God look glorious at all. We make Him look very foolish indeed, holding out His arms all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people.
It is to speak of ‘faith’ as our contribution to God’s self-glorification project. But faith is not our contribution. It’s not a thing like that.
That’s lying at the heart of this illustration and much of Piper’s teaching I think.
[...] Now Jimmy, don’t make Daddy look bad, He’s counting on you « Christ the Truth christthetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/now-jimmy-dont-make-daddy-look-bad-hes-counting-on-you – view page – cached I’m not sure I like this from John Piper. Not sure I like it at all. It’s an illustration directed at kids in a 1999 sermon, recently quoted by Justin — From the page [...]
Thank you, Glen.
I have to admit to also being convicted by the Josh Harris clip you have up…so now I don’t know when I’ll be able to get posted. But I definitely could relate to your video.
Concerning faith glorifying God, I think John Piper might have a good point. Especially if it is stressed that God is the one who supplies us with that faith which allows us to take that leap of obedience.
I personally have trouble with the way JP sometimes communicates his thoughts on God’s glorification of Himself through us—because in my mind, I circle back to looking at how well I’m doing, which is the wrong focus.
Someone told me recently that he believes all of our illustrations break down at some point. Which is probably true, as we are attempting, in our human frailty, to paint a picture of God (gotta be careful with that as I don’t want to sound all mystical, as though God is totally unknowable ;) )
Anyway, I need to go practice self-control and get about other things.
Nobody has really bitten yet. You must be loosing your touch for creating controversy Glen :)
True, faith isn’t a thing that we offer God. But I don’t think Piper is implying that. As he says in the sermon the quote comes from:
“Giving glory to God doesn’t mean adding glory to God. It means showing that God is glorious. It means calling attention to his glory and showing it to be what it really is.”
You say:
“[1] Faith alone is not the way of salvation because it helps us make God look glorious. [2] It’s the way of salvation because we don’t make God look glorious at all. ”
[1] Piper has often and convincingly argued what we are created and redeemed ultimately to display God’s glory. I think that is indisputable. There are just too many passages which show God’s concern for his name being his motivation for saving us, and doing everything else he does.
[2] As you say God looks foolish in how he saves us. He looks weak because he doesn’t punish us but is patient. He looks like like nothing to the world’s eyes. Christ doesn’t look glorious to the world. But to Christians, to angels and to the Father he is glorious precisely in that which looks inglorious to the world. So he does receive glory through our saving faith which makes him ‘look’ foolish.
Those are my hasty reflections anyway.
You would agree that faith glorifies God I presume… is that right? If so I’d be interested in how you describe it doing that. I think Piper is just trying to show how jusfication by faith fits into the WSC Q1 “What is the chief end of man? to glorify God”, which I do think is a worthwhile task… its not all about us, after all.
I don’t think anyone visits my blog any more apart from google image searchers looking for fat cats and ned flanders.
I’ll do another post soon. But basically I think that once you frame everything in terms of a God who takes then you create all these problems for yourself. You end up having all these caveats and parentheses:
You say: God takes, (but obviously he first gives what he takes). And we are those who give to him (but obviously he first gives to us so we give it back). And faith is our giving to God (but obviously it doesn’t ‘add’ to God and God first gives us the gift of faith), etc, etc.
That’s why I think the guy with the backwards baseball cap is a good illustration for this. You get the first thing backwards and you just end up having to add in all these extra caveats to prop the system up. And everything in the brackets in Piper’s system is the hidden sovereign working of God while the front-and-centre action is the stuff outside the brackets.
I’m arguing that it’s just a lot simpler, and it puts the gospel front and centre as the very essence of God’s sovereignty to say:
God gives; we take; faith is receiving.
How do we glorify this God? Take.
I just think that’s a lot simpler. And it puts the grace of God out there as the driving power.
I’ve always prefered Richard Sibbes’ answer to ‘the chief end of man’. Writing 20 years earlier than Westminster he said the chief end of man is ‘to be swallowed in the love of Christ.’
Faith is receiving.
I have a feeling that what Piper is trying to do in that illustration might be something like this:
‘Don’t think that a worksy way of relating to God and receiving his salvation is somehow more glorifying to him. It’s not at all, because it places the emphasis on us and what we do. Rather faith, which is trusting God to be big enough/ strong enough (through the strength-in-weakness of the cross)/ God enough to save us. Faith is jumping into the arms of your Father, which places all the emphasis in our salvation right where it should be – on God and his catching of us.’
The point is surely just a simple one – faith is glorifying to God because it’s about a resting in what God has done for us.
So there’s so much more to be said. Like ‘faith is a gift of God too.’ And, ‘don’t think you add anything to God’s glory by your faith, he’s already perfectly glorified and satisfied in himself’ (which are things Piper would and does add elsewhere, lots), as well as things like ‘and of course this self-glorifying of God is thoroughly trinitarian’ (which Piper does believe but could do with having said/ saying a bit more often).
“You say: God takes, (but obviously he first gives what he takes). And we are those who give to him (but obviously he first gives to us so we give it back). And faith is our giving to God (but obviously it doesn’t ‘add’ to God and God first gives us the gift of faith), etc, etc.”
But that just depends on what your particular conversation/ sermon/ part of the bible is ‘about’ doesn’t it? It depends on what question you’re answering/ issue you’re dealing with at that moment in time.
“How do we glorify this God? Take.”
But I think that is exactly what the illustration is trying to say. Substitute ‘take’ for ‘let him catch you’ and you’ll see what I think Piper is on about. Piper’s point is surely that we dishonour God by not receiving his catching-rescue, and we honour him by leaping into his arms.
On a related but unrelated point! This post hits at a soap box of mine! One time, many years ago, I complained after a children’s talk in a church. The point being taught was theologically incorrect. The heart behind the talk was a truism, and morally worthy, but was made in a theologically and exegetically incorrect way.
I complained and I was told “sure, it’s just a children’s talk.”
I retorted “Don’t our children deserve good theology?”
The person laughed in a ‘yea right’ kind of way and walked off.
The problem is that we really do our children a great disservice when we have the attitude that ‘it’s just a children’s talk’ lets get children what they deserve – the truth.
If i don’t jump then God can’t have…
tut tut tut… works…
Hi Glen.
I like your last comment, and find it much easier to understand what your main problem is with Piper’s comment.
Pete seems to be making some sensible points too.
And I agree with Tim :)
I’d also like to say sorry for the tone of my comments (and the content of the ‘tall poppy syndrome’ one). On reflection that I’ve been getting on my high horse. Ironic, getting hyper-critical with someone you think is being hyper-critical! Bit like complaining about complainers.
Tim – yes indeed. Speaking as someone who regularly gets het up about kids songs, I’m with you.
Dave – didn’t think your tone was inappropriate at all. And anyway, as a friend of mine reminded me recently – “Don’t be ‘nice’, no-one is ‘nice’ in the Bible.”
But what to say. I dunno:
“Jump in order to make Daddy look good.”
That just does not sound right to me. To my mind it’s more like this:
“God gives Himself to you utterly and without reserve in Jesus. And He gave Jesus to you when you refused and hated and killed Him. And He was glorified in that precisely when you refused and hated and killed Him. You did not contribute to that glory except to lift Him up on the cross. The glory has happened – the glory is in His giving. And to even say ‘there’s glory in my taking’ is to throw the spotlight on entirely the wrong place. Yes, it is in line with God’s glory for you to receive Christ – after all it is God’s glory to give Him to you. But the glory doesn’t come from your noble act of receipt. And to picture it as you bravely jumping into His arms because you’ve trusted Him enough… I dunno.
I just don’t want to put the emphasis on “I honour Him by leaping into His arms.”
I didn’t jump. I was swept off my feet. And that’s where the glory belongs – entirely with Him.
Just seems a far more gospel way of putting things.
And of course Piper says other stuff to emphasize God’s initiative and sovereignty. He’s Piper. But I just think it’s like the guy with his cap on backwards. Where does the sovereignty stuff come from – it just doesn’t seem to be of-a-piece with the thrust of the presentation.
To say ‘oh and by the way even the leaping is empowered by God’ doesn’t make it an illustration of grace. In the same way, ‘You’re saved by drinking the blood of a unicorn’ is not made into a gracious salvation by the caveat ‘btw even the drinking is empowered by God’. For it to be *God’s* grace (i.e. gospel grace – grace alone) it is to be strictly related to Christ alone. It then becomes dangerous to shift the focus from Christ as God’s giving-ness and to start to look to us and our receiving-ness.
Must go to bed.
Just checked in on the comments on this one, and I’m surprised to see that there was a little controversy. I have no problems with Piper, but that analogy seems to be a good long way afield of even his own theology. Glad to hear you ding it, Glen.
I agree with so much of what you’re saying Glen. And ‘I jump to make Daddy look good’ is crass, I agree.
But as is often the case in these kind of discussions, I think some of this still just depends on what the conversation/ sermon/ talk is ‘about.’ Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me that some of the problems here are down to the fact that you can’t simply say everything every time. I think Piper’s final line tells you what he’s doing – he’s trying to show why it is that faith is the thing, and that’s because faith by it’s very nature is about magnifying the greatness of God in salvation. Plenty of times the bible calls on us to respond to the gospel and doesn’t go into monergism/ synergism discussions there and then, it just says – ‘there’s Christ, trust in him!’