My Response to John Piper

John Piper wrote an article providing insight into his perspective on the current political climate. While I agree with his initial premise that Christians error when they justify the sins of one party's personality in order to condemn the sins of the other party's policies, I disagree with his overall conclusion.

Piper places the sins of personality on a balance scale against the sins of policy and concludes that in God's eyes, both are sinful and wrong, and that one does not outweigh the other. He states, "it is baffling and presumptuous to assume that pro-abortion policies kill more people than a culture-saturating, pro-self pride."

I agree with his initial premise: sin is sin in God's eyes, and one sin does not justify another. I respectfully disagree, however, with his conclusion.

In his argument, Piper commits a logical fallacy. He boils down today's complex political discussion into an either/or statement: you either tolerate the sin of personality found in Donald Trump or you condemn the policies of the Democrats and Joe Biden.

He appears to place everyone together into one of these camps.

Piper states, "Therefore, Christians communicate a falsehood to unbelievers (who are also baffled!) when we act as if policies and laws that protect life and freedom are more precious than being a certain kind of person. The church is paying dearly, and will continue to pay, for our communicating this falsehood year after year. The justifications for ranking the destructive effects of persons below the destructive effects of policies ring hollow."

He then concludes that the proper perspective for Christians and pastors is to prepare to suffer for the cause of Christ. "Imagine that America collapses. First anarchy, then tyranny — from the right or the left. Imagine that religious freedom is gone. What remains for Christians is fines, prison, exile, and martyrdom."

To pastors, he asks, have you prepared your congregation for this outcome? Piper states, "Have you shown them that they are 'sojourners and exiles' (1 Peter 2:11), and that their 'citizenship is in heaven,' from which they 'await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ' (Philippians 3:20)? Do they feel in their bones that 'to live is Christ, and to die is gain' (Philippians 1:21)?"

Will pastors and Christians not conclude from this article that we should simply disengage from the political dialog? Should we not conclude that to engage we must openly tolerate the sins of personality found in Donald Trump in order to condemn the policies of death in which the Democrat party platform is founded upon?

I respectfully disagree with this conclusion.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer found himself in a similar dilemma. He could resist the policies of National Socialism, or he could stay quiet. In his magnum opus, Ethics, Bonhoeffer argued that Christians do not live in a separate, insulated sphere from all earthly relationships. That in a real sense, we are "Dual Citizens" of both our earthly existence and our heavenly destination.

Bonhoeffer argued that our existence is defined by our bond to fellow human beings and to God, and that the outcome of this interwoven bond is what Bonhoeffer described as "vicarious representation or responsibility."

This concept is first illustrated by the Lord Jesus Christ who, as God, took on the nature and form of a human being in order to vicariously represent us in death and to atone for our sins on the cross. Jesus stood in our place and bore the wrath of God upon Himself.

Bonhoeffer then argues that we, too, as Christians are called to a life of vicarious representation and responsibility as we stand for those who are unable to stand for themselves.

When I stand in opposition to the policies of abortion advocated for by the Democrats and Biden/Harris ticket, I am doing so on behalf of the unborn who cannot advocate for themselves. As a Christian and a pastor, I am a vicarious representative for them, and this is my responsibility to do so.

When I stand in opposition to the policies of childhood transgender surgery and hormone treatments advocated for by the Democrats and Biden/Harris ticket, I am doing so on behalf of small children who are unable to advocate for themselves. As a Christian and a pastor, I am a vicarious representative for them, and this is my responsibility to do so.

In his article, Piper does not accept a vicarious responsibility. He sees two contradicting narratives (sins of personality vs. sins of policy) and concludes his only option is to embrace one or the other, a proposition he cannot accept, so he taps out. That is wrong.

Please hear me: I am not condoning the sins of personality Piper describes, but I do not accept his argument that this is an either/or proposition for the Christian. I believe we have a vicarious responsibility to be a voice and a vote for those who cannot or those who are unable to have a voice.