John Piper is an Idiot

Suzanne McCarthy ably documents some recent failures of common sense, Christian charity and just plain logic on Piper’s part.

However, I have known this for a long time.

I wrote a review over ten years ago of his Desiring God, a book which attempts to encourage what Piper calls “Christian hedonism”. The concept is as bemusing as I write this as it was then, but bear with me, because the book begins with a plainly fallacious argument.

In the first chapter, he attempts to found his entire enterprise on the notion that the proper end of humankind is happiness. A bit dubious, to my mind, but certainly a valid opinion. Why should happiness be the ultimate goal? Because God is happy, of course.

The idea that God partakes of a mental state influenced by waves of ions and streams of neurotransmitters in a neural network is a bit wierd to me, but let’s accept that as a given, because Piper is setting up a formal argument. He says that he can show that God is happy by the following argument:

    If God were not sovereign, She would not be happy.

This axiom seems even more dubious to me, but let’s give Piper the benefit of the doubt one more time.

    We assume that God is sovereign, therefore God must be happy.

This is a completely invalid argument. Even if its axioms were individually true, the form of the argument itself guarantees that we can have absolutely no knowledge of whether the conclusion is true or not.

In formal logic, it’s called denying the antecedent, and is one of the classic blunders.

Let us try a different argument with the same form:

    If I were not human, I would not be Japanese.
    I am human.
    Therefore, I am Japanese.

It is obvious from this example that the argument proves nothing at all about whether or not I am Japanese or whether God is happy.

From this incoherent starting point, the book proceeds to pile shoddy reasoning upon linguistic ignorance to eventually completely re-define the word “hedonism” to mean a sort of grim Sisyphean death-march towards the kind of lifeless legalism to which Piper is evidently dedicated.

Nothing has changed, it seems.

A Fairly Silly Biblioblog

Why are we taught in Sunday school that Jesus raised Jairus’s daughter from the dead?

It has always seemed completely obvious to me that she was in a coma — because Jesus said so! You would think that being endowed with divine knowledge he would know better than the townspeople…

In an extremely unscientific search of the internets, I keep coming across sermons that say as an aside “well, she may just have been in a coma, but that doesn’t detract from the miracle, because she was as good as dead”.

Why the defensiveness? It’s not as if the NT is lacking in resurrections. Why do we in effect call Christ a liar in order to boost his supernatural powers? Why isn’t coma-girl the default interpretation?

Ooh, Biblioblogging!

What with all this biblioblogging going around maybe I’ll do a few posts in an exegetical vein.

First off, I’ve been meaning to get into the Church Fathers, an aspect of my theological education that has been sorely neglected in favour of Arabic and statistical machine translation. So I found a more or less readable translation of I Clement — my Greek is far too rusty for a lunchtime read.

My impression: “be nice.” I like the bit about the Phoenix, though.

Two Birds with One Stone

I just stumbled across the blog of Peter Kirk, who knows his stuff when it comes to Biblical languages. There’s been a bit of an uptick in the Evangelical blogosphere discussion of gendered language in Scripture and liturgy, and Mr. Kirk offers a wonderful suggestion, sure to make explode the heads of both patriarchists and prescriptivists alike:

Perhaps, if I put my tongue in my cheek a little, the best solution is to call the Holy Spirit “they”. For some this will be understood as a singular “they”. But, to those who might object to the singular “they” or insist that it carries nuances of plurality, I point out the ancient Christian tradition of the sevenfold Spirit, based on Isaiah 11:2 and repeated references in Revelation (1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6) to the seven Spirits of God. So there should be no objection to using an apparently plural pronoun to refer to them.