Blogging, Piper, & Evans

I won’t link to all the posts that go behind the link I’m about to include. The back story is simple: John Piper tweeted some biblical verses after the Oklahoma tornadoes. Rachel Held Evans sprung quickly to criticize Piper and his theology. Evans later apologized, sort of, for going off half cocked.

All that leads to this helpful post by Derek Oullette that is based in the above scenario, but I commend it to my fellow bloggers for the observations it makes about Christian blogging.


4 thoughts on “Blogging, Piper, & Evans

  1. So would you agree with Derek and Alan Noble that tweeting about Job as an “answer” that adequately addresses a tragedy is pastorally appropriate? I just think it’s pretty raw to share a verse like that without commentary and then the verse after it which says Job shaved his head and worshiped God. The tweet before it said, “We are given all things, including death,” or something like that. It would be hard not to take that as: death happens, get over it.

    Piper has a history of turning tragedies into “teaching moments” for promoting his theology:

    So if Rachel was too trigger-happy, it’s not without cause. The irony of saying that Piper is being taken of context is that the critique of Rachel likewise is being taken out of context.

    1. I agree with Oullette’s point that we should be a charitable as possible when ascribing motives to others, especially those with whom we disagree.

      It appears Piper agreed that his Tweets failed to say what he intended, which I did not see Oullette disputing in either of his posts on the topic that I read. Evans appears to have decided her initial post was not as careful or thoughtful as it should have been.

      I linked to him because I agree with him that we have far too many cases in the blogosphere of people leaping to conclusions about motives of others and dealing with lack of clarity by assuming the worst. That does not strike me as Christian.

Comments are closed.