He’s so well-spoken. Not sure if it puts to rest the concerns of critics of Warren, but definitely a good analysis of “secondary separation”, which I was thinking of doing or anything, but I would imagine some are pretty peeved.
Thanks for this. Brings some clarity.
Droopy Dog said in April 9th, 2010 at 8:12 am
Correction…was NOT thinking of doing. That is, writing off Piper because of Warren.
Repeat, was NOT. Man, I should go work for the P&C.
Rob Eaton+ said in April 9th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Steve,
I know you and St Andrew’s have made your decision, and having followed the same course for my own parish, but with different results, I honor and respect your patience and your leadership with St Andrew’s in your own process.
I can only trust that the Holy Spirit has led you all to that decision.
There is still one thing, however, that I hear ringing uncomfortably through it all, from the first time I heard you talk of separation prior to the episcopal election (the first one) until the actual vestry decision and parish vote of affirmation.
In this very video from John Piper, it is ironically addressed and of which you may have been unaware. Perhaps you could speak to that (I’ve noted the time sequence below). I realize John Piper is not your official spokesman; and further, I would hope you don’t simply trot him or others out just to undergird your own positions. Still, here he is, a bastion of Calvinistic Reformed theology, which is primarily your own, and he almost off-handedly speaks to an issue of justifying one aspect of separation that does not undergird that aspect of your or your parish’s decision to leave TECUSA.
The defining sentence is at 7:55 to 8:00.
Kelly said in April 9th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Sometimes I can be dumber than dirt and feel that way reading Rob Eaton’s comment. I know this wasn’t by any means an attack on Steve or St. Andrew’s, but I can’t say I care for the “I realize John Piper is not your official spokesman; and further, I would hope you don’t simply trot him or others out simply to undergird your own positions,” comment. It simply has no merit.
No one that I know of has ever been “trotted out” before our congregation to persuade us to take any stance one way or the other (our guest speakers have this funny habit of making their sermons all about Jesus–imagine that!), and the position Steve has taken is nothing more than the decision to maintain biblical integrity in our church. He was not interested in replacing the Word of God with the social gospel of inclusivity. And neither were those of us who voted to withdraw from the TEC. If I had to vote on this issue a million times over my choice (to withdraw from TEC) would still be the same.
You can make this about Calvin all you want, but at the end of the day it’s still all about Jesus. Steve knows that, and so do we.
Thank you, Steve, for taking a stand for Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
Mark said in April 9th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Piper seems to be quoting me, “Warren is getting a bum wrap!”
Mary Catherine said in April 9th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
I think I’m missing some context here.
Rob Eaton+ said in April 10th, 2010 at 1:56 am
Mary Catherine,
What Mark said. A godly teacher no less than John Piper, even on the eve of a pastoral sabbatical and hiatus, has taken the time to defend the Reformed theology and teaching of Rick Warren. This has necessity due to the reaction of many to John’s invitation to Rick to speak at a major teaching conference coming up (“Desiring God”), a conference that highlights John’s ministry priorities. The controversy boils down to people who are great supporters of John’s teaching, but who have great disdain for Rick, are venting and worse, villifying. For all in the Body of Christ, it is shameful and embarrassing to hear those claiming Christ not heed James 2. To see just a little bit of the furor, go here: http://www.benterry.com/?p=273
I believe Steve+ appreciates both John and Rick and their influences upon Episcopalian evangelicals. So, since John’s relating of his phone conversation and interview with Rick is so self-explanatory in that regard, it looks like Steve+ simply posted the video.
And as far as I’m concerned, Mark’s observation is correct, Rick Warren has gotten a bum’s wrap.
But that’s the context, I think, for the video being posted. My original comment, however, is not about that context. It is making note of the irony of John’s comment regarding secondary separation which he speaks of (at minute 7, second 55), most likely towards those who have been highly critical of any connection or fellowship with anybody else beyond the one-on-one. And he admonishes them. And that leads back to the decision by St Andrew’s to separate from TECUSA. The deed is done, of course, but the challenge that John P is himself making is still worth presenting, if only for the sake of charis and sozo, grace and salvation/wholeness/healing. Avoid the bitter root.
I don’t see our separation from TEC as a secondary separation. I see our separation with the Diocese of South Carolina as a secondary – though institutionally forced – separation.
With regard to TEC – and by argument using the context of this posting – I do not see SAMP as John Piper and TEC as Rick Warren. Rather, I see SAMP as an entity seeking to remain faithful to the revealed faith of Scripture and faithfully born witness to throughout our godly heritage and faithful teaching of the church. Having said that I tremble a bit as it is more than presumptuous of me to say that we are faithful. Rather, I hope we are being faithful. Only time, and ultimately the Lord, will determine our faithfulness. Anyway, back to the analogy. Our separation from TEC is primary – of the first and deepest order – for I fear and we have concluded that TEC, based on her pronouncements and actions, has abandoned the Gospel and has embraced a false gospel. So, by analogy, it would be as if John Piper had invited Deepak Chopra to speak. While we may recognize a common humanity as well as, perhaps, a mutual desire to serve the common good, there would be fundamental chasm separating Piper and Chopra. Similarly, TEC and SAMP.
Sadly, because of institutional reality, this primary separation has consequentially separated us from the DioSC; folks with whom we find no fault. However, as I have argued from the first, it is organically, organizationally, ontologically and logically impossible to remain a part of the diocese and have separation from TEC – and the forced, institutional separation is proof of the DioSC’s inextricable tie to TEC. The PB is the PB of the DioSC. Period. Gene Robinson and soon, Mary Glasspool, as bishops in the church are bishops for the church – including DioSC. No Convention resolution, no Standing Committee statement, no eloquent Bishop’s Address, no mythological third way changes this reality. For, if it did it would then have been a genunie possiblity for SAMP to remain within the DioSC and truly separated from TEC.
Having had a forced secondary separation imposed upon us by the institutional reality we find ourselves, by grace, able to engage one another freely for the purposes of common witness and cooperation for the sake of the Kingdom and the gospel.
Now, with regard to what I can only perceive as sarcastic and snippy accusation presenting itself as commentary: I’ve not “trotted out” anyone to undergird my/our positions. Personally, I/we have found Scripture to be abundantly clear on the matters before us – and now those who remain within TEC. While I can respect those who stay for the sake of conscience (as long as the pretense of being “in” but “not in” is stripped – in which case the individual holding this false dichotomy is simply delusional or fearful and lacking in public ownership of their convictions), it was abundantly clear to us that the choice was Jesus and His Gospel or the traditions of man and the false god and gospel presented in this god’s name under the banner of TEC.
Lastly and personally, neither I nor St. Andrew’s would stand in the theological line of John Piper. I do appreciate much of his ministry, however, we are not of the same genetic make-up. Rather, would find ourselves fully immersed in the stream of our Anglican Reformers, Charles Simeon, John Stott, Jim Packer, Henry Orombi and Peter Jensen.
Danny said in April 11th, 2010 at 8:46 am
I got a good laugh at the labeling of Rick Warren as a Reformation(capital R) theologian. He might well be as I said in an earlier post a 15 point calvinist. However, you would never know it by his preaching and scripture twisting on some occasions.
Amy said in April 18th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Correction…was NOT thinking of doing. That is, writing off Piper because of Warren.
Repeat, was NOT. Man, I should go work for the P&C.
Related Articles
10 users responded in this post
He’s so well-spoken. Not sure if it puts to rest the concerns of critics of Warren, but definitely a good analysis of “secondary separation”, which I was thinking of doing or anything, but I would imagine some are pretty peeved.
Thanks for this. Brings some clarity.
Correction…was NOT thinking of doing. That is, writing off Piper because of Warren.
Repeat, was NOT. Man, I should go work for the P&C.
Steve,
I know you and St Andrew’s have made your decision, and having followed the same course for my own parish, but with different results, I honor and respect your patience and your leadership with St Andrew’s in your own process.
I can only trust that the Holy Spirit has led you all to that decision.
There is still one thing, however, that I hear ringing uncomfortably through it all, from the first time I heard you talk of separation prior to the episcopal election (the first one) until the actual vestry decision and parish vote of affirmation.
In this very video from John Piper, it is ironically addressed and of which you may have been unaware. Perhaps you could speak to that (I’ve noted the time sequence below). I realize John Piper is not your official spokesman; and further, I would hope you don’t simply trot him or others out just to undergird your own positions. Still, here he is, a bastion of Calvinistic Reformed theology, which is primarily your own, and he almost off-handedly speaks to an issue of justifying one aspect of separation that does not undergird that aspect of your or your parish’s decision to leave TECUSA.
The defining sentence is at 7:55 to 8:00.
Sometimes I can be dumber than dirt and feel that way reading Rob Eaton’s comment. I know this wasn’t by any means an attack on Steve or St. Andrew’s, but I can’t say I care for the “I realize John Piper is not your official spokesman; and further, I would hope you don’t simply trot him or others out simply to undergird your own positions,” comment. It simply has no merit.
No one that I know of has ever been “trotted out” before our congregation to persuade us to take any stance one way or the other (our guest speakers have this funny habit of making their sermons all about Jesus–imagine that!), and the position Steve has taken is nothing more than the decision to maintain biblical integrity in our church. He was not interested in replacing the Word of God with the social gospel of inclusivity. And neither were those of us who voted to withdraw from the TEC. If I had to vote on this issue a million times over my choice (to withdraw from TEC) would still be the same.
You can make this about Calvin all you want, but at the end of the day it’s still all about Jesus. Steve knows that, and so do we.
Thank you, Steve, for taking a stand for Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
Piper seems to be quoting me, “Warren is getting a bum wrap!”
I think I’m missing some context here.
Mary Catherine,
What Mark said. A godly teacher no less than John Piper, even on the eve of a pastoral sabbatical and hiatus, has taken the time to defend the Reformed theology and teaching of Rick Warren. This has necessity due to the reaction of many to John’s invitation to Rick to speak at a major teaching conference coming up (“Desiring God”), a conference that highlights John’s ministry priorities. The controversy boils down to people who are great supporters of John’s teaching, but who have great disdain for Rick, are venting and worse, villifying. For all in the Body of Christ, it is shameful and embarrassing to hear those claiming Christ not heed James 2. To see just a little bit of the furor, go here: http://www.benterry.com/?p=273
I believe Steve+ appreciates both John and Rick and their influences upon Episcopalian evangelicals. So, since John’s relating of his phone conversation and interview with Rick is so self-explanatory in that regard, it looks like Steve+ simply posted the video.
And as far as I’m concerned, Mark’s observation is correct, Rick Warren has gotten a bum’s wrap.
But that’s the context, I think, for the video being posted. My original comment, however, is not about that context. It is making note of the irony of John’s comment regarding secondary separation which he speaks of (at minute 7, second 55), most likely towards those who have been highly critical of any connection or fellowship with anybody else beyond the one-on-one. And he admonishes them. And that leads back to the decision by St Andrew’s to separate from TECUSA. The deed is done, of course, but the challenge that John P is himself making is still worth presenting, if only for the sake of charis and sozo, grace and salvation/wholeness/healing. Avoid the bitter root.
Hope that helps.
Rob,
I don’t see our separation from TEC as a secondary separation. I see our separation with the Diocese of South Carolina as a secondary – though institutionally forced – separation.
With regard to TEC – and by argument using the context of this posting – I do not see SAMP as John Piper and TEC as Rick Warren. Rather, I see SAMP as an entity seeking to remain faithful to the revealed faith of Scripture and faithfully born witness to throughout our godly heritage and faithful teaching of the church. Having said that I tremble a bit as it is more than presumptuous of me to say that we are faithful. Rather, I hope we are being faithful. Only time, and ultimately the Lord, will determine our faithfulness. Anyway, back to the analogy. Our separation from TEC is primary – of the first and deepest order – for I fear and we have concluded that TEC, based on her pronouncements and actions, has abandoned the Gospel and has embraced a false gospel. So, by analogy, it would be as if John Piper had invited Deepak Chopra to speak. While we may recognize a common humanity as well as, perhaps, a mutual desire to serve the common good, there would be fundamental chasm separating Piper and Chopra. Similarly, TEC and SAMP.
Sadly, because of institutional reality, this primary separation has consequentially separated us from the DioSC; folks with whom we find no fault. However, as I have argued from the first, it is organically, organizationally, ontologically and logically impossible to remain a part of the diocese and have separation from TEC – and the forced, institutional separation is proof of the DioSC’s inextricable tie to TEC. The PB is the PB of the DioSC. Period. Gene Robinson and soon, Mary Glasspool, as bishops in the church are bishops for the church – including DioSC. No Convention resolution, no Standing Committee statement, no eloquent Bishop’s Address, no mythological third way changes this reality. For, if it did it would then have been a genunie possiblity for SAMP to remain within the DioSC and truly separated from TEC.
Having had a forced secondary separation imposed upon us by the institutional reality we find ourselves, by grace, able to engage one another freely for the purposes of common witness and cooperation for the sake of the Kingdom and the gospel.
Now, with regard to what I can only perceive as sarcastic and snippy accusation presenting itself as commentary: I’ve not “trotted out” anyone to undergird my/our positions. Personally, I/we have found Scripture to be abundantly clear on the matters before us – and now those who remain within TEC. While I can respect those who stay for the sake of conscience (as long as the pretense of being “in” but “not in” is stripped – in which case the individual holding this false dichotomy is simply delusional or fearful and lacking in public ownership of their convictions), it was abundantly clear to us that the choice was Jesus and His Gospel or the traditions of man and the false god and gospel presented in this god’s name under the banner of TEC.
Lastly and personally, neither I nor St. Andrew’s would stand in the theological line of John Piper. I do appreciate much of his ministry, however, we are not of the same genetic make-up. Rather, would find ourselves fully immersed in the stream of our Anglican Reformers, Charles Simeon, John Stott, Jim Packer, Henry Orombi and Peter Jensen.
I got a good laugh at the labeling of Rick Warren as a Reformation(capital R) theologian. He might well be as I said in an earlier post a 15 point calvinist. However, you would never know it by his preaching and scripture twisting on some occasions.
Correction…was NOT thinking of doing. That is, writing off Piper because of Warren.
Repeat, was NOT. Man, I should go work for the P&C.