The Bible does not oppose or forbid interracial marriages but sees them as a positive good for the glory of Christ.It reminds me of some comments Michael Lawrence made in a sermon a couple years ago.
Piper's excerpt raises a number of personal and historical perspectives. This reminder draws on both:
[T]here is no mystery in it as to why a young black man [Jesse Jackson, taken in context] growing up [in Greenville, South Carolina]—or a Martin Luther King growing up in Atlanta a generation earlier—would get his theological education at a liberal institution (such as Chicago Theological Seminary or Crozer Theological Seminary). Our fundamental and evangelical schools—and almost every other institution, especially in the South—were committed to segregation.
13 comments:
Does Piper mean to suggest that a JJ or MLK had any interest in attending a fundamentalist or evangelical institution but were prohibited? Does he mean to suggest that they are/were elect, but due to the wrong deeds of men, they ended up in liberal institutions?
Strange direction for a sovereigntist to take.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
It's been a long time but somewhere I read that JJ's mother listened to the BJU radio broadcasts all the time and would have liked to have sent Jessie there but could not. I don't really know if that is true but I remember reading that somewhere. Now, whether Jessie would have wanted to go or not, that's another question.
OK, so now I read the article and Piper references the same story I remember hearing...funny
Don, the CT article includes the anecdote about JJ's mom listening to WMUU. It's been a long time, and I don't remember the source, but I heard another anecdote about JJ asking his mom or someone during his youth why he couldn't attend BJU.
There's another anecdote about a non-conservative president at SBTS who got around segregationist laws in Kentucky by letting African Americans sit in the hallways outside seminary classrooms. Given the state of SBTS at the time, they might have been better off not hearing some of those lectures.
Well, that may be true. But a good Sovereigntist like Piper shouldn't be questioning how things turned out, should he?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Sovereigntist? Don't think I have ever heard that label; guess we love our "ist" endings. Assuming it refers to one who believes that God is sovereign, it would appear that Don needs to keep studying up on God's sovereignty and how it relates to human responsibility. Key word--compatibilism. But I suspect that this would be more fitting with a post that is about this issue.
Yeah Don, I was gonna ask if you're a BAD Sovereigntist or an ANTI Sovereigntist. But on second thought, don't tell me.
Well, I am fully committed to the Sovereign. I assume I am a bad Sovereigntist, though.
In any case, I find it a little odd to make the argument 'if only' southern colleges had been integrated, JJ or MLK would have turned out ... what? more conservative?
It is kind of an astonishing argument. Its a kind of blame-shifting game that sounds plausible, but I don't think it really holds water.
JJ and MLK were products of their times, it is true, and no doubt many factors/influences shaped them. In the end, though, they have minds, they have the Scriptures, and they are where they are because they chose the liberal path, not because of the separate sins of someone else.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
I think that Ben might be tempted to classify your last comment as theoretically Arminian, but functionally Hyper-Calvinist. They've got a mind and the Bible--what else do they need? Or would this be a form of Hyper-Arminianism?
Don wrote:
"In any case, I find it a little odd to make the argument 'if only' southern colleges had been integrated, JJ or MLK would have turned out ... what? more conservative?"
It's not too hard to make a biblical argument that one man's sin can have implications for another man. Of course, if we read what Piper said, we'll see no one's actually making that argument here.
Nevertheless, Christians in the 50s and 60s seem to have thought it was important to have institutions to train pastors who'd maintain doctrinal fidelity. Presumably, they thought it would make some difference. Presumably, they saw some reason to provide an alternative to theologically liberal institutions.
Well, an alternative for everyone who wasn't African-American, that is.
Don, if I may make a suggestion, pick your battles. This isn't one you want to win even if you could.
Not fighting anything! Just find Piper's statements a little astonishing is all.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
"Well, that may be true. But a good Sovereigntist like Piper shouldn't be questioning how things turned out, should he?"
Give me a break Don. He's not questioning how things turned out. He's calling sin, sin. Every sovereigntist I know thinks that's part of a pastor's responsibility. Actually, wait, I don't know any "sovereigntists". What you really mean is Calvinist, and every one of those thinks that sin exists AND God is Sovereign.
There is nothing the least bit unusual or non-Calivinst about what Piper is doing here.
Piper is speaking into real historic events. The fundamentalists dismissed, or criticised MLK and JJ at every turn -- heard and read it myself. And, I don't have the least doubt that Piper would agree that much of the criticism -- they were sadly formed by liberal theology. Nevertheless, Piper is saying, "What else could they have been formed by, we were sinfully neglecting to form anyone like them."
Regardless of what men like MLK and JJ could have/should have gotten from reading the Bible on their own. The fundamentalists and evangelicals were sinfully wrong to prevent them from getting any help at their institutions -- and then, to add insult to injury, to criticise them for getting "help" elsewhere.
Keith
Should have said: "I don't have the least doubt that Piper would agree WITH much of that criticism -- they were sadly formed by liberal theology.
Keith
Post a Comment