A Response to Piper's Latest Comments on the Election

Justin Taylor responds well:

Piper, in the video, argues that we need a "big healthy dose" of the sovereignty of God with regard to this election.

Piper has influenced me greatly in this area; largely through his careful biblical-theological work, I am a passionate proponent of God's absolute sovereignty over all things. And surely politics is included in "all things." God removes kings; God sets up kings (Dan. 2:21). God does all that he pleases (Ps. 115:3), and he "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11). Even though a king (or a president) appears to be the most powerful person in the land, "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will" (Prov. 21:1). Amen and amen.

Theologically, we need to make at least two distinctions. One is between God's secret will (everything that will come to pass) and God's revealed will (what he tells us to do in his Word). The second important point is that God not only ordains ends but also commands and ordains means.

Where am I going with this?

(1) The fact that God ordains all things (i.e., his secret will) has a limited effect on our decision making. It can't prescribe how we act, but it can prevent us from having the wrong perspective (e.g., anxiety, fear, despair, misplaced trust, etc.). But in terms of interpreting events, the main way to read providence is backwards (as John Flavel wrote: "Some providences, like Hebrew letters, must be read backward").

(2) The fact that God ordains means ensures that our actions have significance. The ordained outcome can never be seen as an excuse for complacency or fatalism.

Now I don't think that Piper would disagree with the above theologically. But there may be a difference between us regarding how this works out practically with respect to politics.

For example, he says that the "prophetic perspective" speaks in this way: "I will always be pursuing his [God's] kingdom first, and let the political chips fall where they will" (my emphasis). But to my ears, a comment like this does not sound like a robust theology of means. It could be taken to sound a bit fatalistic.

Piper also says, God is "gonna get elected the one he wants elected, and if it's the person we think is hurtful, then we need to be hurt!" I agree that whoever is elected as president (and to all other political positions) on Tuesday is the person that God ordained to be in that position--and that that person might be a partial manifestation of God's already/not-yet judgment against us.

But again I fear that the phrasing of this could sound like fatalism. A few years ago I asked Piper about praying for persecution, and he responded, "I can’t help but think that a good heart would long for anyone who is being hurt not to be hurt anymore. In fact, I think our churches should labor to relieve suffering in the world, especially eternal suffering" (Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, p. 224). I think this is the right perspective to have. But I didn't hear that in this video.

To be fair, Piper does say that we should vote and be engaged (though in a way that is not all-consuming). But there is really no guidance or encouragement for political persuasion and engagement. Without pastors building a positive vision of what this could look like--only telling us the dangers and the attitudes we should avoid--should we be surprised that there are few Wilberforce-like figures today, engaging in risk-taking sacrifice for the cause of justice?

Please read the rest for some shocking abortion stats that demonstrate what hangs in the balance with tomorrow's vote.