South Africa VIII

Day four
I fully, unashamedly and completely confess that I do not like aspects of Piper’s theology. The man himself is very nice and kind (for the few brief moments I met him), and I’m sure he treats his family, dolphins, bunny rabbits and puppies well. However, his thought around many issues is really problematic. I mean, the regular criticisms of his being a hyper-Calvinist is one thing. But also, his fixed, monocultural, mono-worldview is concerning (particularly more so as he’s supposed to be a missions-minded pastor), with a very Puritanical, very dualistic point of view. In terms of approach and theology, he rides a very narrow horse that gets ridden over and over again. Not to mention his very rigid views on the role of women. This last point is particularly hurtful, as not only because of his near idolization by many people that I know, who take everything he says as near-gospel, or even, dare I say, word of God itself, but also because his views actually completely ignore and deny the reality that there are many equally orthodox views in seeing the world. However, in the country-that-shall-not-be-named, as well as in my own, there certainly is a significant segment of people who follow of a version of Piperanity. This is no fault of the man himself if people choose to idolize him; he’s a very modest, humble guy who I am quite sure would be aghast if people thought of him that way. However, I am quite sure he is also fully aware at how much weight his words carry when he uses them.
For this, I am quite upset (as were many other non-country-that-shall-not-be-named delegates) by his using his Lausanne pulpit to push his own particular brand of evangelicalism as the “right” one.
For some reason, only in the country-that-shall-not-be-named, and, by proximity, in our own, there seems to be a tension between proclamation of the gospel and demonstration of kingdom (‘seems to be’, for, in our Canadian delegation, there is no tension - I will write more about the redemptive purposes of my fellow Canadians in another post), requiring a prioritization, a categorization, and a distinction between the two. This is NOT so anywhere else in the world. Word and deed go together; indeed, they are inseparable, and cannot even be distinguished. The concept that they are separate entities is hard to understand for most of the rest of the church. Providing freedom for captives, healing the broken and proclamation of good news is all one and the same. There is no condition of having one first before the other will be provided. There is no stronger emphasis on proclamation at the expense of transformation. Only here, where we live.
So, when Piper uses his pulpit to proclaim that there is a distinction, that there needs to be higher priority on proclamation over transformation, that, unless one is explicitly laying out the four spiritual laws (which is SO modern and irrelevant to our times), then really, what are you doing with your life? The messaging I received was that: You are non-essential to the kingdom, for you are not doing anything of merit, for you are not standing on street corners with stupid signs saying, “You’re going to burn in hell if you don’t accept Jesus”. Psht; helping the poor? Transforming policy? Defending the weak? Living close to the land? Rejecting to live at your 'expected' standard of living? Governing your nation justly? Removing economic barriers and dismantling unjust structures? But you’re not telling people explicitly about Jesus? Pointless, all of it.
Other speakers this day also spoke about globalization and the gospel, which many attended, thinking it would actually be talking about globalization and how the church should respond. Many left, including myself, quite early on in the session when it became apparent that it was not. The speaker decided to define globalization, not in the regularly accepted notion of economic structures that cause great disparity and pain in the world, but as the increasing ‘worldliness’ that encroaches upon the church that we must fight and defend ourselves against. What??? Many of us left disgusted that the church had no response to the grinding poverty and economic structures that leave half of the world in desperate need and want without providing some succour, some answer, some solutions.
This was certainly a turning point for me here at the Congress; a militant, aggressive advancement of the narrow definition of ‘the gospel’, ignoring the realities and disparities of our world today, and denigrating the work and aspirations I have for transforming Kingdom left me wondering if I even wanted to be an evangelical anymore. It left me wondering whether I was even ‘acceptable’ enough in my theology to be an evangelical, and wondering whether I even belonged in this family anymore.
This was a dark teatime of the soul for me. This particular day made me want to go home, and probably I should go and become Roman Catholic or something, as I clearly didn’t belong in this club. The language of exclusion, of preference of some views over others, of a lack of justice and action was very isolating. The incomprehensibility of reviewing (for three whole days! Half the congress!) over and over again the base beliefs and theology that unite us (uh, hello, I think we can all agree on the uniqueness of Christ, the death and resurrection, the necessity of proclaiming the gospel and making disciples etc etc, and to flog it for half the Congress, when we are all quite sure where our orthodoxy lies was kind of a waste of time), and leaving little room to discuss and respond to pressing issues of our day left many wondering why we were gathering for a global basic theology lesson.
Many of us were grasping with: but how will we respond to the need for true racial reconciliation? To climate change? To global poverty? To HIV/AIDS? To new ways of expressing and understanding the Grand Narrative? To the challenge of orality? These were issues that were sidelined and marginalized.
Sigh. Thinking about it, even now, after some redemptive things that happened after this point, still makes me wonder whether I am an Evangelical. If I am, I am not a proud one. Some point out I actually never was and this should be reassuring to me, and that what should comfort me most is that I actually follow Jesus first. And that is comforting, that I think seriously about the red words in my Bible, even though I fail miserably at following them, and that I think about the OT, and focus much less than the regular Evangelical on Romans to Philemon. Thanks to solid brothers and sisters who helped to listen, who vented alongside with me, and for my fellow countrymen who made me realize I wasn’t actually totally a freak.