I
have sometimes imagined Bertrand Russell actually asking what he said
he would ask if, after he died, he discovered that God did indeed exist.
If he really said to God, "Then, sir, why did you go to such
lengths to hide yourself?" I hope God at least acknowledged it to be a
very understandable question. So many of those who speak with authority about
God do not, including prominent evangelical theologian John Piper. Piper
sweepingly accuses Russell of playing academic games in the latter's Why I am Not a Christian.
"One great benefit of going to a good Christian college is
that you read important bad books with the help of wise Christian scholars," Piper
writes in an October 2009 "World" article. "I thank God for wise Christian
scholar-teachers who led me through the swamps of academic unbelief so that I
could see how inauthentic its play-actors were."
I read Russell's book in college, too. On my own, on a plane
ride. And while I still considered myself a Bible-believing Christian at the
time, I remember thinking Russell had understandable reasons for his
conclusions. And he wasn't a jerk about stating those reasons. He titled his
treatise simply Why I am Not a Christian, after all, not something like God is Not Great or The God Delusion. From what I can tell, Russell was honestly
seeking to know the world around him. He looked for God, and he longed for
certitude, like me. But Piper recognizes in Russell‘s philosophy little worth
sympathizing with.
"Yes, we die. And there is darkness and sorrow," Piper
writes. "For those who see only that, there will be something much worse than
Russell's 'extinction in the vast death of the solar system.' That is not what
hell is. But for believers, the despair and futility are swept away in the dawn
of Easter Sunday."
When I read words like Piper's, I too can see only that – darkness
and sorrow. Hell. Piper's world is ultimately an either-or one, with no space
for ambiguity. It's full of realms that welcome dichotomy, banishing nuance.
Elsewhere, Piper talks about the appropriateness of "holy ostracism"
in an online transcript of one of his "Desiring God" radio broadcasts. "Holy
ostracism" is a new phrase to me, and I continue reading. He‘s been asked a
question about how to interact with a fellow believer who comes out of the
closet and starts attending another church where he is welcomed.
Piper‘s advice? Take the now openly gay friend to lunch one
last time and explain that unless he repents they can‘t be friends anymore.
Piper goes on to suggest that this is the loving approach
with those we know who "claim the name of Christ." He cites an example of
friends whose daughter was "living in sin" and how they broke fellowship with
her, believing this ostracism to be the correct approach. The family stopped
associating with their own daughter. The result? They did the right thing,
Piper says, and the reward was great because the daughter became so distraught
about the loss of those ties that she soon came around.
"So I've seen it work," Piper concludes, "It doesn't always
work. But that's what the New Testament prescribes."
Maybe the healthy response to this kind of authoritative
counsel is simply to shrug it off as ridiculous. But it deeply alarms me. So
many people regard Piper as a trustworthy guide. He's prolific, and his book
aimed for young adults, Don’t Waste Your
Life, lit me on fire when I encountered it in my early twenties. He made me
think about what it would mean to go all out in following Jesus, to have a
sense of urgency and to take up my cross daily.
But there are only two words with which I can describe his
approach to dealing with fellow humans whose lives or opinions or decisions
don‘t fit a given mold – manipulative and devastating.
For Piper, this approach is an application of scripture's
exhortation that if a fellow believer is caught in sin and will not repent he
should be treated the same as an unbeliever. The same as an unbeliever. What
does that look like?
It looks like Chava. Little bird, little Chavalah from
Fiddler on the Roof. It reminds me of the scene where her father, Tevyeh,
remains implacable to her pleas for acceptance of her marriage to a man outside
the Jewish faith. Before completely turning his back, he reminisces, singing to
himself, and implicitly to her:
Little bird, little Chavalah
I don‘t understand what's happening today
Everything is all a blur
All I can see is a happy child
The sweet bird you were
Chavalah, Chavalah...
But his knowledge of his daughter's love for the family, and
of his fatherly love for her, does not sway him from his convictions and his
beloved, disappearing tradition.
"Accept them?" he says to himself. "How can I accept them?
Can I deny everything I believe in? On the other hand, can I deny my own
daughter? On the other hand, how can I turn my back on my faith, my people? If
I try and bend, that far, I‘ll break. On the other hand...no. There is no
other hand. No, Chava! No! No..."