John Piper’s son Abraham Piper skewers evangelicals as his star rises on TikTok

[Rachel20]

I've never understood the hostility toward fundamentalists by other believers - is it their political positions or religious positions that are the main cause? I'm trying to figure out why the church of Philadelphia in Rev would draw the Lord's promise "and they shall know that I have loved you" because when I look around, it's the fundamentalists that are attacked the most - by believers and unbelievers alike - and this intrigues me in light of Revelation 3:9

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Abraham Piper:

“Is one of my themes attacking Christianity? No. I don’t attack Christianity. I berate evangelicalism. Fundamentalism. It’s a destructive narrow-minded worldview. And one of the most destructive, narrow-minded aspects of it is that its adherents feel as if they are the entirety of Christianity rather than the tiny sliver of it that they actually are,” he argued.

“Evangelicalism is a toddler tradition that’s cousins with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and the snot-nosed little sibling of mainline Protestant denominations. So yes, I’m out here saying that fundamentalism is bizarre anti-intellectual (bad word). But that’s not me attacking Christianity. Christianity is a big family. I’m just saying that one of the kids is being kind of a brat. And most of the rest of the family agrees,” he added.

Abraham Piper on lies he was told in school:

“In a real class at a school that charged real money to parents to give their kids a real education, I was taught that the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin all had satanic messages in their music. But this was the '90s — 25, 30 years after these bands were in their prime,” he said with wincing sarcasm.

“So let’s say my teachers were telling us the truth and it wasn’t just fear-mongering propaganda from another little ‘ministry’ hiding out in Colorado. Why didn’t the devil have anything new to tell us? Shouldn’t we have gotten that demonic head nod from Green Day or Nirvana? Maybe Garth Brooks?” he asked. “Anyhow, these lessons took place between teaching us how to defend Young Earth Creationism and protect ourselves from secular humanism which, in case you didn’t know, is the root cause of every single atrocity that took place in the 20th century, if you went to my high school.”

John Piper’s son skewers evangelicals as TikTok star rises - The Christian Post

Didn't know who this young person was was, so I looked up John Piper, as I have heard that name.

Apparently, he is an evangelical preacher. (eyeroll - didn't see that coming - sarcasm).

So kid has fallen away and now thinks its a great idea to post stuff mocking what his father teaches and believes in - and apparently Christian schools and/or home schooling. That's gross.

He's also lying. He IS attacking Christianity, because he is saying that the resurrection didn't happen, and that's one of the main tenets of the faith- otherwise, as Paul said, he is to be pitied and we all are still in our sins.

One can share his disparate ideas without mocking and dishonoring his parents.


Abraham Piper
@abrahampiper
Once you recognize that resurrection is a metaphor, you’re free to ask, “OK, but are there any *better* metaphors?” And the answer is yes. Bowling. It has all the same allegorical potency, is truer to life, generally comes w/ beer, and has no holiday you’re obliged to celebrate.

 

[sfs]

I've never understood the hostility toward fundamentalists by other believers - is it their political positions or religious positions that are the main cause?

Their religious positions cause me to discount them but don't make me hostile. Their political/social positions (treating them as a homogenous group, which they're not, of course) are what make me feel hostility.

 

[Speedwell]

I've never understood the hostility toward fundamentalists by other believers - is it their political positions or religious positions that are the main cause? I'm trying to figure out why the church of Philadelphia in Rev would draw the Lord's promise "and they shall know that I have loved you" because when I look around, it's the fundamentalists that are attacked the most - by believers and unbelievers alike - and this intrigues me in light of Revelation 3:9

It's political. Otherwise Fundamentalism would be just one more Protestant variant which would be left in peace.

 

[public hermit]

I've never understood the hostility toward fundamentalists by other believers - is it their political positions or religious positions that are the main cause? I'm trying to figure out why the church of Philadelphia in Rev would draw the Lord's promise "and they shall know that I have loved you" because when I look around, it's the fundamentalists that are attacked the most - by believers and unbelievers alike - and this intrigues me in light of Revelation 3:9

It's true that Abraham Piper is being harsh, and perhaps hostile. I think the attention given to fundamentalists is a reflection of their own rigidity. It's one thing to hold a certain position. I admire the perseverance when I come across it. But, to hold a position, and then condemn those who don't agree, is a different thing altogether. I think it's that combination that fuels the attention Xn fundamentalism receives.

The whole Xn fundamentalism movement started as a reaction to modernity. The specific targets were evolution and historical criticism applied to the scriptures. Its unfailing faith is in a specific reading of the scriptures. That is the heartbeat of fundamentalism. It is so afraid of losing its faith, i.e. the scriptures, that it takes a very rigid position. This rigidity is acidic to Christian love. Fundamentalism too often becomes legalism. It can leave no room for the radical freedom of the Spirit in love.

 

[Clare73]

Didn't know who this young person was was, so I looked up John Piper, as I have heard that name.

Apparently, he is an evangelical preacher. (eyeroll - didn't see that coming - sarcasm).

So kid has fallen away and now thinks its a great idea to post stuff mocking what his father teaches and believes in - and apparently Christian schools and/or home schooling. That's gross.

He's also lying. He IS attacking Christianity, because he is saying that the resurrection didn't happen, and that's one of the main tenets of the faith- otherwise, as Paul said, he is to be pitied and we all are still in our sins.

One can share his disparate ideas without mocking and dishonoring his parents.]


Abraham Piper
@abrahampiper

Once you recognize that resurrection is a metaphor, you’re free to ask, “OK, but are there any *better* metaphors?” And the answer is yes. Bowling. It has all the same allegorical potency, is truer to life, generally comes w/ beer, and has no holiday you’re obliged to celebrate.

That's no evangelical preacher.
Methinks true believers do not mock like this.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It's true that Abraham Piper is being harsh, and perhaps hostile. I think the attention given to fundamentalists is a reflection of their own rigidity. It's one thing to hold a certain position. I admire the perseverance when I come across it. But, to hold a position, and then condemn those who don't agree, is a different thing altogether. I think it's that combination that fuels the attention Xn fundamentalism receives.

The whole Xn fundamentalism movement started as a reaction to modernity. The specific targets were evolution and historical criticism applied to the scriptures. Its unfailing faith is in a specific reading of the scriptures. That is the heartbeat of fundamentalism. It is so afraid of losing it's faith, i.e. the scriptures, that it takes a very rigid position. This rigidity is acidic to Christian love. Fundamentalism too often becomes legalism. It can leave no room for the radical freedom of the Spirit in love.

This is precisely what Abraham Piper is doing. He's condemning those who believe as he was raised to believe.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Methinks true believers do not mock like this.

Mock, what....that I fully expected him to be trashing Dad - since I had heard the name John Piper but didn't know who he was - and therefore I was completely unsurprised to find out that John Piper is an evangelical?

I think I can be sarcastic about that completely foreseeable finding.

 

[sfs]

The whole Xn fundamentalism movement started as a reaction to modernity.

Absolutely.

The specific targets were evolution and historical criticism applied to the scriptures.

Not even evolution so much in the beginning. If you read what's in the Fundamentals about evolution, it's skeptical but not overtly hostile. If Adam and Eve could be accommodated, a lot of evolution would be acceptable. The hard turn against evolution occurred somewhat later, especially after the Scopes Trial. And the wholesale embrace of young-earth creationism -- an import from Seventh Day Adventism -- didn't come until the 1960s.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That's no evangelical preacher.
Methinks true believers do not mock like this.

Well, your opinion differs from religious publishers then. Apparently Piper is categorized as an evangelical by those who follow this kind of stuff:

"On Oct. 22, Piper posted an article that was critical of fellow evangelicals for overlooking sins like boastfulness, vulgarity and sexual immorality while focusing on issues like abortion and “socialistic overreach.”

The New Testament calls the former “deadly,” argued Piper.

“To be more specific, they are sins that destroy people,” he wrote. “They are not just deadly. They are deadly forever. They lead to eternal destruction.”

Those comments led to pushback against the Piper videos."

From Religion News

 

[Clare73]

It's true that Abraham Piper is being harsh, and perhaps hostile. I think the attention given to fundamentalists is a reflection of their own rigidity. It's one thing to hold a certain position. I admire the perseverance when I come across it. But, to hold a position, and then condemn those who don't agree, is a different thing altogether. I think it's that combination that fuels the attention Xn fundamentalism receives.

The whole Xn fundamentalism movement started as a reaction to modernity. The specific targets were evolution and historical criticism applied to the scriptures. Its unfailing faith is in a specific reading of the scriptures.

That would be "The Fundamentals"--according to the Deliverance which the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church issued in 1910, adopted in 1920 by the Northern Baptist Convention, the word being taken up by both conservatives and liberals as a title "for those who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals," defenders of the historic Christian position in the reading of the Scriptures--regarding:
the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,
the deity of Christ,
his virgin birth and miracles,
his penal death for our sin,
his physical resurrection and personal return.

What's not to like?

That is the heartbeat of fundamentalism.

It is so afraid of losing it's faith, i.e. the scriptures,

Scriptures and faith are not the same thing.
One does not defend the Scriptures for fear of losing one's faith, any more than Jesus defended them for that reason.

that it takes a very rigid position.

Do you know of any drawing a line that is not rigid, as in drawing a line on murder or child molestation?

This rigidity is acidic to Christian love.

Truth is not acidic to love. Love rejoices in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6, 2 John 4, 3 John 3-4)

Fundamentalism too often becomes legalism. It can leave no room for the radical freedom of the Spirit in love.

Which is not the fault of faithfulness to Scripture, any more than licentiousness is the fault of love.

 

[Hmm]

It's true that Abraham Piper is being harsh, and perhaps hostile. I think the attention given to fundamentalists is a reflection of their own rigidity. It's one thing to hold a certain position. I admire the perseverance when I come across it. But, to hold a position, and then condemn those who don't agree, is a different thing altogether. I think it's that combination that fuels the attention Xn fundamentalism receives.

The whole Xn fundamentalism movement started as a reaction to modernity. The specific targets were evolution and historical criticism applied to the scriptures. Its unfailing faith is in a specific reading of the scriptures. That is the heartbeat of fundamentalism. It is so afraid of losing it's faith, i.e. the scriptures, that it takes a very rigid position. This rigidity is acidic to Christian love. Fundamentalism too often becomes legalism. It can leave no room for the radical freedom of the Spirit in love.

And I think this is why Christianity is contracting in the West. Most people get their idea of Christianity from fundamentalists shown in the MSM and so believe that the Christian message is a literalistic one about the end of the world and the salvation of a few people with pretty strange views. And so most people have turned away from Christianity as irrelevant to their hopes and concerns.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

"The Fundamentals" according to the Deliverance which the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church issued in 1910, adopted in 1920 by the Northern Baptist Convention, the word being taken up by both conservatives and liberals as a title "for those who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals," defenders of the historic Christian position in the reading of the Scriptures regarding:
the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,
the deity of Christ,
his virgin birth and miracles,
his penal death for our sin,
his physical resurrection and personal return.

What's not to like?

That is the heartbeat of fundamentalism.

Right. Also in Hebrews 6:

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 with instructions about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

And I think this is why Christianity is contracting in the West. Most people get their idea of Christianity from fundamentalists shown in the MSM and so believe that the Christian message is a literalistic one about the end of the world and the salvation of a few people with pretty strange views. And so most people have turned away from Christianity as irrelevant to their hopes and concerns.

That's such a shame. The ones they should listening to are out there doing things, running ministries, paying off bills and houses, feeding people - WITHOUT fanfare.

 

[sfs]

Side note: When American fundamentalists was rejecting elite culture, it was a mutual rejection. Fundamentalism (of all sorts) has gotten a lot more attention in the last 20 years or so, but for most of the 20th century that large stream of American culture was just ignored by the elites, including academics. I looked through The Fundamentals sometime in the late 90s, using the only copy in the Stanford University library system. The copy had to be recalled from long-term storage, and I found when I checked it out that I was the first person to have looked at it in decades. I found it shocking that such an important document in American religious history was simply ignored at a major research institution.

 

[public hermit]

What's not to like

The infallibility claim is the only one that matters for the fundamentalist. And to be honest, that one fundamental is used to justify all kinds of nonsense that has no relation to the initial fundamentals. Therein lies the main issue, I think.

The movement has transformed as time has gone on. Today, an American Xn fundamentalist is just as likely to question another's faith if they vote Democrat, as they would if they reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. I don't think pointing to the initial declarations of fundamentalism captures the current situation.

 

[Rachel20]

Its unfailing faith is in a specific reading of the scriptures. That is the heartbeat of fundamentalism.

Combining that with Clare73's 5 fundamentals, I must be a fundamentalist then!! I think I've been persuaded to change my interpretation of scripture only once in my entire internet experience. That's not to say I haven't learned much from others though, even atheists. How many times have you changed your dogma?

 

[public hermit]

. How many times have you changed your dogma?

I'm not sure what that question means. I'm fairly orthodox in what I believe. I'm certainly within the pale. I can even say the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds without my fingers crossed behind my back.

I just reject the scriptural infallibility premise of fundamentalism. I don't need it for my faith, and I think it creates more problems than it solves.

 

[Clare73]

The infallibility claim is the only one that matters for the fundamentalist.

Speaking in generalities, are we. . .

And to be honest, that one fundamental is used to justify all kinds of nonsense that has no relation to the initial fundamentals. Therein lies the main issue, I think.

The movement has transformed as time has gone on. Today, an American Xn fundamentalist is just as likely to question another's faith if they vote Democrat, as they would if they reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. I don't think pointing to the initial declarations of fundamentalism captures the current situation.

And that's pretty true about all beginnings and current situations.

Is it also judging the quality of apples (infallibility of Scripture)
by the appearance of some of their sellers (behavior of some proponents)?

 

[Clare73]

I'm not sure what that question means. I'm fairly orthodox in what I believe. I'm certainly within the pale. I can even say the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds without my fingers crossed behind my back.

Impressive!

I just reject the scriptural infallibility premise of fundamentalism. I don't need it for my faith, and I think it creates more problems than it solves.

Maybe it's not about any one individual's faith, but about preservation of Biblical truth for the sake of the church and its future.