John Piper & the Minneapolis Tornados

If you are at all in tune with the blog world you have undoubtedly heard about John Piper's most recent controversial blog post. Five relatively small tornados hit Minneapolis this past week on Wednesday, August 19th. While several structures were damaged, a broken church steeple got the most attention. Central Lutheran Church's steeple was damaged while helping host the National Convention for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). It just so happened that on the agenda for discussion at the time the tornado hit was the consideration of their position on homosexuality--namely, whether practicing gays should be disqualified from pastoral ministry. Piper quickly put together a blog post suggesting that God sent the tornado to warn the ELCA and called the ELCA to "turn from the approval of sin." You can read his entire blog post here.

Now I don't have any qualms with Piper's basic stance on homosexuality. I do think homosexuality misses the mark when it comes to a biblical understanding of human sexuality. But Piper has overstepped his bounds in my estimation. And I am glad I am not the only one who sees it this way.

Perhaps the best rebuke of Piper's theological reasoning can be found on Greg Boyd's blog. The article can be found here. Boyd posits six reasons why Piper's theological explanation regarding the tornado and the ELCA is substantially flawed. (Others that have responded include Scot McNight and Tony Jones). Allow me to posit one addition theological reflection in attempt to strengthen Boyd's argument to counter Piper...

Argument # 7

In the Bible God has harsh words for people who presume to speak on his behalf when it comes to judgment. The best example can be found in the book of Job. Job suffers a great deal of calamity because of an interaction that takes place between Yahweh and [the] Satan (lit. the adversary). While Job's friends initially try to comfort Job with their presence (2:13), they eventually attempt to offer explanations for Job's suffering. While each of their arguments have slightly different nuances, all three friends assume that Job has sinned against God and the calamity he is experiencing is God's judgment. All three friends encourage Job to repent. At the end of the story, however, it is not Job who gets the harshest rebuke! It is Job's three friends -- "The Lord said to Eliphaz, 'I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has'" (42:7). All three of Job's friends assumed the destruction that befell on Job was a sign of God's judgment--an assumption we know is incorrect from the prologue (Job 1-2).

One thing we can deduce from this is narrative is that we have to be careful about offering divine explanations in light of human calamity. In fact, we might be entering into dangerous territory when we offer such explanations. Attempting to offer such explanations could result in divine rebuke!

My sincere hope is that Piper apologizes for his blog post and turns away from offering such explanations in the future. Unfortunately, he does not have the best track record. He pulled the same stunt after the giant tsunami, the devastation of New Orleans, and the 35W bridge collapse. Piper, quit your theological shenanigans!