Dear John Piper: A Constructive Analysis on His Voting Article

John Piper’s Voting Article and the Need for a More Constructive Response

Alright, well yesterday's video about the John Piper article was aggressive and I'm not sorry for it. It definitely needed a little bit of aggression and all of that kind of thing. It was a very bad article.

But that being said, you know, there's a time for, you know, destroying things and there's also a time for building up and I think that today's video will be a little bit more constructive. I promise not to say that John Piper's moral reasoning is that like that of a child in this video.

I have some questions though, because his article is extremely confusing. I think a lot of people noticed that pretty much right away and good on John Piper. He did clarify a little bit about what he was saying.

He did say, look, this is about me not voting for Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Good on him. I find it bizarre that you could write an article where someone wouldn't know that, but a lot of people didn't really know what he was talking about.

Apparently he's going to write in a candidate or something like that. A completely legitimate option. Hear me saying that a completely legitimate option is to vote for somebody other than Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

But he said in his, in his, in his tweet, clarifying this, that it's the reasoning that's important, the moral reasoning. And I've got to be honest, like I kind of assumed that that was the case, but, but actually that's my big problem with the article.

The moral reasoning is very confusing. So it's not just that I didn't know who exactly he was writing about. It's that the reasoning itself is pretty confusing. And so I want to talk a little bit about this and maybe ask some questions about it.

And hopefully this will be helpful. And, you know, if, if, if someone could help me out here, that would be great. And if not, then that's understandable. So the main article or the main point of this article is, is the fact that John Piper's assertion is that flagrant boastfulness, vulgarity, factiousness, these are things that are not only like, they don't only make yourself guilty before God, which we all knew that everybody knows that, you know, those kinds of sins do condemn you to hell if they're, if they're not forgiven by Jesus Christ.

So you can kill somebody or you can hate them. And if you're not forgiven by Christ, either one of those sins will send you to hell. Now, now that's not to say that those are equal sins, like one is worse than the other, but they both will condemn you to an eternity in hell.

That's basic theology. And by the way, yesterday, when I said that John Piper was good at basic theology, that wasn't a dig. That's actually true. He's fantastic at it. In fact, I would recommend his work on, on, on foundational kind of basic theologies to anyone.

I really like John Piper. You know what I mean? Like, this is not a denial of John Piper's value as a person or as a minister. It's not at all. But then, but then he also says, not only are they self-incriminating, but they're nation corrupting.

Now, I know that this is the point of the article, thanks to my fourth grade critical reading teacher, but also Big Eva is good at this. They do pull out lines from their own articles that really give you a lot of help as far as what's the point of the article.

You can see that here. This is what he pulls out. You can share it on Facebook or Twitter very easily. So you know that Piper, or at least his editors think that this is the primary point of the article.

So he says they're not all, these sins are not only self-incriminating, but they're also nation corrupting. Now there's a few questions that I have about this because, because I understand that Trump is portrayed as this vulgar, boastful, just divider of people.

Like that is how Trump is portrayed in the media. But I have to be honest with you. I don't necessarily buy this about Trump. Now that's not to say that he's not vulgar sometimes. Of course he is. That's not to say that he's not boastful sometimes.

Of course he is. That's not to say that he's not, um, he hasn't been factious, factious. I still don't know how to pronounce that word sometimes. That's true. But that is, people have, the media has portrayed that as his personality, but I don't trust the media because here's the reality guys.

Like when I watch Donald Trump, I actually don't see this like arrogant guy with an ego the size of kingdom come. I really don't see that. Now, Donald Trump is a high performer. There was no question about it.

And so when he thinks he's had a lot of accomplishments and he tells you about his accomplishments, that's accurate. He's a high performing person. There is that. That's not debatable. Objectively. That is true.

He is a high performing person. But yet when I see Donald Trump interacting with people, I don't see an ego, the size of Mars. I mean, sometimes I do. I mean, obviously he sometimes says things that I'm like, what is that?

But is that his character is just that, is that, is that what he always is? I don't see that. I see him identifying very often with the common man. I remember back when he used to be in WWF, I remember like, like these are the kinds of things he eats McDonald's, you know, he has McDonald's fast food feasts and stuff like that.

Like I just don't see it. Furthermore, I understand that the media spins things all the time. I'll never forget this. I saw a video and it was, it was one of the mainstream medias. I forget which one it was.

It was like MSNBC or CNN or something like that. Or maybe it was all of them cause they all kind of take cues from each other. And the title of the video was Trump storms off when he was asked a question about so and so or something like that.

That was the title. So they're framing it in such a way like Trump is just this arrogant. He doesn't respond to anything and all that kind of stuff. But I watched the video and they asked him the question and he answers it and then just walks away calmly.

There was no energy in his voice. It was very actually, it was actually out of character for Trump because usually he's got a lot of energy. He's a very high, high energy guy. And in this case, he just kind of answered the question calmly and walked away.

And I started thinking to myself, how could you title this? He storms off. I just don't even understand that. And so, so here's the thing, John Piper, like I'm not saying that Donald Trump isn't sometimes boastful, vulgar, factious, whatever that word means.

I know what it means, but I don't know how to pronounce it. What I'm saying though, is that you, you really do have to actually demonstrate that is flagrant. It's just who he is. It's just he, cause I honestly don't see it.

I don't see it. When I, when I listened to Donald Trump speaking, he seems like a very down to earth kind of guy. Yes, he tweets, he has mean tweets and he's very bombastic with tweets at times. But the thing is like, there are places for that kind of talk.

Obviously there are places for that kind of talk. Obviously there's places for spitting superlatives about the United States of America. Obviously there are places for touting your accomplishments. Obviously you can do that in a sinful way as well, but you actually have to demonstrate this stuff.

You can't just say it because I don't believe the same propaganda that many people believe about Donald Trump. And that's where a lot of us are, by the way. So we're not saying that these things are not sins or not problems for Trump, but you're saying it characterizes his entire leadership.

And I got to be honest with you, I don't, I don't think it does. I simply don't think it does. Furthermore, I would say that, that your argument that the arrogance and the vulgarity and the factiousness, I think that those, those definitely can be nation corrupting.

There's no question about that. That argument that you're making, it could be very true. But the thing is though, that you have to actually, it has to lead to action. In other words, like if somebody is boastful and vulgar and factious, which again, I do not accept about Trump, but let's just say I did, and it doesn't bleed over into his policy.

And he actually has very restrained policy. Like maybe he has a team of advisors and stuff like that around him that temper his attitudes and stuff like that. And so when you see the policies, it actually doesn't carry over.

Well, that's a problem for him. It is self incriminating, but it's very hard for me to see how that could be nation corrupting if it doesn't bleed over into the policies. Like nobody's looking at Donald Trump and telling their kids, you see, son, it's okay to be vulgar.

It's okay to be sexually immoral. It's okay to be a divider of the people. Like nobody's actually saying that. And so we have to look at the policies, right? And so arrogance isolated, if it leads to humble policies for whatever reason it does, again, maybe he has a team of advisors around him.

Maybe it's just because, I don't know, maybe it's just a miracle that it doesn't. Well then that's actually not as much of a problem as you're making it out to be. Actually thought of a Trump related illustration that illustrates this exact point.

If you remember during the 2016 elections, one of the big knocks on Trump was that he was too bombastic, too aggressive, and essentially too stupid, and he would get us involved in World War III. That was one of the big things that people were saying.

He's just unhinged and unpredictable. And then once he was president, there was a time, do you remember when he said that he was going to blast North Korea into kingdom come? And I remember when that happened, like the media was like, here it is, World War III, it's coming.

And I remember I thought to myself, oh no. Like at that point I was still kind of non-Trump supporting kind of thing, well at least a little bit more measured than I am right now. And I thought to myself, oh no, here it is, we're going into World War III.

But then something amazing happened. Then shortly after that, we essentially made peace with North Korea. And it's like, okay, so you can interpret that two different ways. You can say, oh well he just got lucky that time.

Or you can say, maybe there's something to what he said. Maybe he was actually abusing aggressive, sort of a show of strength, a show of force, because he knew that King Jong-un would actually respect that.

And I've actually seen some analysis that says in their culture, you actually do respect someone who's willing to sort of buck to you a little bit, you know what I mean? So when he said he was going to blast him into kingdom come, he had a mind and an eye for peace.

And he achieved it. So you can interpret that one of two ways. You can say, well, vulgarity and boastfulness and pride is always wrong. Or you can say, well, you know, there's sometimes a place for that kind of thing.

And if it does, if it actually leads to a good policy result, a good solution, we can maybe see it as a strategy or something like that, instead of something to necessarily emulate at all times. You wouldn't want to necessarily say you're going to blast just anyone to kingdom come.

But if you have information that knows, okay, King Jong-un actually will respect this kind of thing, it might be a good idea. But you see, Piper's analysis doesn't leave any room for that. He doesn't leave any room for someone having personality traits that don't carry over into negative outcomes for some reason, whether it's a strategic thing and it shouldn't, or if it's just an accident, he doesn't leave any room for that kind of thing.

You actually make the case here actually against Biden a lot more because he's an arrogant person as well. I know you wouldn't characterize him as that, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't. He's vulgar.

He's a sexual pervert. He's factious and all of those things. And it very clearly carries over into his policy positions. You actually make that case here. You say arrogant hearts leads to abortion. Yeah, it definitely does in Joe Biden's case and with the entire democratic party, but does it in the Republicans case?

Well, I'd like to see the case made for that because you seem to think that the Republicans policies are actually good. And so I would say if we're going to judge by someone's works, what the condition of their soul is, you have the two works there.

Why would policies be exempted from those works? You can see their works and what they've done and what they hope to do, what they say they're going to do. And so if we're going to judge it by the receipts that we have in the last four years of Donald Trump and the policy positions of Donald Trump, I mean, how boastful could he be?

How vulgar could he be if it never comes out in his policies? That's a very important question that I think I'd like you to answer. I'd like you to make the case that in Donald Trump's situation, it carries over into his policies and into his actions.

One of the things that you mentioned here is the Bible verse where it says the king sinned and made others to sin, but you see, that's actually works against you here because in that case, what you said was he's the king set the tone and other people sin.

So he didn't twist people's arms, but he set up a worshiping idols as a positive as a good. And then everybody else saw that and said, okay, great. I'm going to worship idols too, but you see that carried over into policy, right?

So his attitudes, the condition of his soul, it was rotten. He was an idolater, but then he started acting and there were works. He started making it policies. He said, Israel, we're worshiping at the Asherah pole or whatever it was, and everyone followed him.

He didn't twist their arm, but it carried over into his works, but you see with Donald Trump, what we're seeing here, and again, this is from my perspective, what we're seeing is you're saying that he's arrogant.

I know the media is with you on that. You're saying that he's vulgar and boastful and dividing up the people. We know that the media is telling you that. And we look at him and we're like, well, we don't really necessarily see it.

But even if we do look at the fruit, look at the policies, the policies actually aren't doing that. And so where's the connection here? See, in the days of Israel, there was a clear connection there. His rotten soul translated to rotten works and rotten policies.

And then reformers came and changed some of those rotten policies. So he would set up an Asherah pole and that was his policy and everyone followed him. Where's Trump's Asherah pole? That's what I'm asking.

So that's a question I think you need to make that case. You just kind of assume that case, but you actually need to make that case. And frankly, the last four years have kind of worked against you if you wanted to make that case.

That's why a lot of people, not just myself, a lot of people were saying that this article would have been really good in 2016, it would have made a lot of sense. But like now we see what he does. And so we need to consider that with our vote in 2020.

The Problem of Unbelief Versus Moral Flaws in a Candidate

Another thing that I think that a lot of people were very confused about and I have a question about is this line. You said this. You said, to which you may say, so what, rejecting Jesus as Lord also leads to death, but you are willing to vote for a non-Christian, aren't you?

And then you say, I am willing to vote for a non-Christian, assuming there is enough overlap between biblical uprightness and the visible outworking of his character and convictions. And so here's the thing, like, is not unbelief one of the most boastful, arrogant, vulgar, dividing things that somebody can do?

So somebody who's an unbeliever, like that's like boastfulness to the nth degree, that's arrogance to the nth degree, that's vulgar and profane and factious to the nth degree. And so I'm not accepting your case here, but if I did, I would have to say that an unbeliever, that would be the worst possible option for, for, for who I would support.

Like, like there's no form of biblical uprightness that can be maintained when someone rejects their creator. Like the most obvious fact in the entire universe, you reject that, you'll reject anything.

You don't even tip your hat to the creator. You don't even try to, to, to pander to people who love the creator. Like you're not even doing any of that. And it's like, I have to ask yourself using your own standard, John, how is not unbelief the ultimate version of what you're accusing Donald Trump of here?

I just don't see it. Now, from my perspective, I've got an answer for this because I actually do agree with the way that you've kind of, you know, set, set this up, but yeah, there's enough overlap in his policies and his works.

In other words, if there's enough overlap in his works, then I might be able to get away with voting for a nonbeliever. But the problem is like, you're saying that that's actually not the case in Donald Trump's case.

I'm saying it is. And you haven't even attempted to prove that case here. In fact, you seem to think that that's off the table at the outset, like, no, I can't vote for Donald Trump because there isn't enough overlap in his works, in his policies for me to vote for him.

Well, why not? Why, why not? You seem to think that that's an option, but for some reason, boastfulness, vulgarity, and factiousness, those are worse than unbelief. For some reason, I think unbelief embraces all of those things, but you want to make an exception for unbelief, but not necessarily an exception for, for boastfulness.

I just don't understand that even a little bit. One of the things I got in trouble for yesterday was to say that Donald, I'm sorry, John Piper's big problem with Donald Trump is mean tweets. People were saying that was unfair.

But you see, John Piper, this is actually your fault because you actually don't provide any examples of what you're talking about when it comes to Biden or Trump. You don't say Biden's problems are these, Trump's problems are these, here's some examples.

You actually just leave it completely up to a person's imagination. And so obviously I'm going to look at, you know, the facts that I, as I see them, I can't do anything else. And to me, the only difference between the two are the mean tweets.

But you really can't, you really can't say that I've treated you unfairly because you actually haven't provided any receipts. And so you've left it completely up to the imaginations of who's reading you.

And so, and this is one of the problems with the article, it's just so vague that it's not actually helpful in real life. Like we actually have a real life choice in two weeks and we need, you know, we need ways, we need tools.

We need some kind of strategy to figure this out. And you really haven't given us much except these like really high minded, like overarching principles that actually, when you try to connect them to real life, they don't match the real situation that we've given.

You've created, in my opinion, a fantasy where you're just essentially buying the propaganda and expecting us to go with you. I can't go with you there. And because you haven't made the case very well, and there's very, a lot of inconsistencies in the case, like somehow an unbeliever is okay, but someone who's vulgar is not like, I just don't get that.

I just really don't understand. And we'd, I'd really like some clarification on that. You know, we also have verses in the Bible that talk about who would make a good judge, who would make a good leader.

Biblical Qualifications for Leaders and the Importance of Bribery

Jethro's advice to Moses is an example of that. And one of the things he called, there's only three things he says, he says, male fears God and hates a bribe, right? It hates a bribe, corruption, bribery, partiality, that kind of thing.

And I'm like, I'm thinking to myself, okay, in the verses that actually address this, bribery seems to be a very big deal. And it's not even mentioned in this article, corruption, financial corruption, someone who makes themselves rich and therefore perverts justice, perverts the right thing to do.

Like that's a primary thing that a Christian should be thinking about according to Jethro and according to just regular, regular mention in scripture, corruption and bribery, accepting bribes. We understand that that perverts justice.

And that is so relevant to this upcoming election because there are allegations and very convincing looking things about bribery, about the very thing that the Bible says, this is the primary thing that you should pay attention to Christian.

When you're looking at a leader, bribery, corruption, that kind of thing. It's not even mentioned in this article. I have to ask John, why? Finally, like you mentioned in your tweet when you clarified the article that your moral reasoning is very important to you.

Like that's the point of this. It's really not about Biden or Trump. It's more about your moral reasoning about how you decide how to vote. And I agree that is the most important thing because this election will come and go and things are going to be fine for Christians most likely either way.

You see what I mean? I know that if the Democrats lose, they'll throw a tantrum. If the Republicans lose, you're going to wake up in the next morning, someone might be sad, but we're going to go on with our lives.

That's how Christians operate. We have joy in the Lord. We know where our help comes from. You know what I mean? We get that. But if your moral reasoning is the most important thing, why is yours so impossible to follow?

That's the big thing I've seen online. People are like, this is just confusing. Who would meet his standard? Would Churchill even meet his standard? Like Winston Churchill, one of the most revered leaders of all time, would he even meet John Piper's standard?

Who is a good leader according to John Piper? I'd love to see it. I'd love to hear him say, this is an example of a good leader and stuff like that. Because we're running through all of the best leaders from our history and we're like, does anybody meet this standard?

Is John Piper able to vote for anybody? Well, we don't know because the logic here is just so confusing. Arrogance is too much, but unbelief isn't. Vulgarity is too much, but unbelief isn't. By the way, I don't have to prove any of these things.

I'm just accepting MSNBC's spin on this. He watched the video that Trump stormed off the stage and he probably didn't even consider the fact that maybe Trump actually didn't storm off the stage. That's just how it was spun.

The big thing here is, my question for you is, could you please give us a little bit more clarity into your moral reasoning? And also, likewise, could you please give us some receipts, some examples, some evidence that what you're saying about the candidates is true?

Because to be honest, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I know that Trump has arrogance and vulgarity and factiousness. Yeah, here it is, factiousness. He's done that kind of stuff before. Everyone has, but you're trying to make it seem like this is just his character.

And I know a lot of people on my side of this issue, we know he has issues like that, but it doesn't really seem to flavor his entire character. In fact, we see a lot of humility in some of the things that he says and some of the things that he does.

He's a very high accomplishment type of a person, so of course, when you're running for president, you're going to talk about your accomplishments. It makes perfect sense. But I'm willing to see the facts and change my opinion on that and all of that kind of thing.

But let's not pretend like if it doesn't carry over into his policies, then it's just as big of a problem as someone who has all of these character flaws, but then it does carry over into his policies.

That's the big case that I think you should probably try to make. It doesn't really make much sense to me. But anyway, I hope this was a helpful, more constructive video than yesterday's video. I'd love to see answers to these questions because I do think that you're a genius, John.

I love your work. I respect you greatly. I think you're a genius level intelligence, which is why I'm so confused with your article. It doesn't make much sense, and I know you're able to make things make sense, and so hopefully you'll offer some rejoinders or some clarifications.

I hope you found this video helpful. God bless.