Having read the book I can certainly endorse the audio version: John Piper’s Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. It’s available as a free download right now from Christian Audio.
Hat Tip to Thinking Matters.
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
Tom:
I know your readers are going to jump in my [-----], but I’ve e-riffled through the book at Amazon (and I’ve noted the theological pedigree of those heaping praises upon the book). I am NOT being provocative in terms of stirring up sectarian conflicts, but I AM being provocative in highlighting glaring–perhaps intentional–omissions in Piper’s book: neither does Piper address (1) Luther’s deeply anti-reason pronouncements (no, I’m not going to be baited into how to interpret Luther’s words, his virulent anti-Semitic bigotry, or his profoundly uncharitable anti-Catholic polemics) nor (2) does he address the philosophical and theological Nominalism that Luther sponged up and which has infected–nay, hamstrung–Protestant theology since then.
To be fair, Piper–in the Introduction–does reference other authors like Noll (who characterized Luther’s MO as “sinfully violent”) and Guinness, and he does qualify the scope of his book as “this book is less in lots of ways.” On the other hand, Piper acknowledges Jonathan Edwards as being largely responsible for animating his own mind and inspiring him in his studies… but I don’t have to tell you that Edwards’ interpretations are not just problematic for Catholic and Orthodox believers.
To repeat: I will not chase the details here. I mention them because one would expect an honest appraisal of these errors in a book that purports to be an examination of or reflection upon the mind (reason) and its relation to faith. To put a positive spin on it, if Piper and others (including you!) can open Evangelicals’ minds a bit more to the role of fides ET ratio, then perhaps these errors will one day be honestly examined. I see your blog and your writings elsewhere contributing to the “positive spin” I suggest… if comments here from the last few days are any indication, atheists flee the intellectual battering they receive. Shouldn’t that give people the confidence to honestly examine the two errors mentioned above?
Holo,
1. An “honest appraisal of these errors” would require Piper to believe that they are errors. Not all reformed Protestants adhere fully to Roman Catholic doctrine (you knew that, I know).
2. Piper’s purpose was limited. He did not set out to write a comprehensive tome. He did omit some things intentionally, not out of dishonesty but because they were not in the scope of his project.
3. You haven’t read the whole book, so I’m not sure how you would know what Piper was intending to do in it.
4. You sound angry, my friend. If you’re going to raise complaints about Protestantism here, I’d prefer you not do it that way. Thanks.
Tom:
“Angry”? Come on. Aren’t you stretching your assessment just a tad bit? Any evidence in my comments to support such a characterization? Moreover, I specifically and clearly made sure it was understood this was not a “sectarian” thing but an “idea” thing. Was that, ehem, “intentionally” missed… or was it a convenient deflection from the difficulties Luther spawned for Protestants and of Nominalism he and others embraced?
Wrong also on conflating Nominalism and anti-reason with “Roman Catholic doctrine” or “doctrine” opposed to them… or Orthodox, by the way: ask Franky Schaeffer (he’s kinda loopy, I admit) or Francis Beckwith (solid–really solid). Way wrong. Nominalism is a philosophical error that infects other strains of thinking… including theological.
I did qualify, quite specifically, Piper’s book was limited. The “intentionality” was qualified by “perhaps”… AND, you seem to have missed the overall point: what MUST be grappled with is Luther’s clear anti-reason tirades (and the influence it had on subsequent strains of anti-intellectualism even to our day… as noted by Guinness and Noll) AND the philosophical notion of Nominalism and how it was absorbed by Protestantism. These are NOT being addressed. The question is “why?”
I’ve had enough discussions with Protestants on these topics to “see” them gulp when faced with owning up a very difficult implied question: if Luther was so wrong on these issues, could he have been incorrect on others? Indeed, a difficult question… but one that any thinking Christian must honestly address, n’est pas? My question is, why are these seemingly out-of-bounds questions? Why are these 800-lb gorillas not being addressed… or ignored?
I readily admitted I did not read his entire book… what what I did read (the entire Introduction and parts scattered throughout, including doing a search for Nominalism and Luther)–as with similar books–left much to be desired.
Perhaps the answer is as you already stated – the book has a limited scope.
Could he? Yes. Was he? Maybe. Opinions vary. I’m no expert on Luther, but it seems to me that he has been the topic of debate for centuries. Believers are not required to accept everything Luther taught. It doesn’t surprise me that Luther could be wrong for he is a man like I am.
Hi Holopupenko… I’m going to pick a fight with a Catholic 8^> (not really, but I hope to correct some misunderstandings)
Luther has been stigmatized as “anti-reason” because of a couple of comments regarding “Reason” (note the capitalization). Any cursory reading of Luther will reveal a ratioanl mind steeped in biblical concepts arguing for an interpretation of scripture which is rational. The “Reason” Luther vilifies as the “devil’s whore” is the Rationalism which was just poking its apostate head up above the Renaissance horizon. The idea that man can reason to God without revelation which Frances Schaeffer laid at St. Thomas’s doorstep (a conclusion on which I am ambivalent… I think it requires a misreading of Thomas. But then, we are discussing a misreading of Luther, so it does happen that some men are blamed for what we think they said rather than what they actualoly said).
The “anti-semetic bigotry” is an embarrassment but not out of step with the times. Anti-semetic bigotry may be laid at the doorstep of most Christian denominations at one time or another and it is only since the holocaust that anti-semitism has fallen out of fashion. Although secular-progessive liberalism has seems to made anti-semitism fashionable again.
The “profoundly uncharitable anti-Catholic polemics” might have their source in the attempts of the Catholic church to murder Luther… (d’ya think?). Luther attended the Diet of Worms (unfortunate name) and faced the cardinals and the emperor with the words “Unless I am convince by sound reason and scripture, I cannot recant.” (NB, the bolded words might be a hint that Luther’s view of “reason” is somewhat more nuanced than his critics credit).
The “philosophical and theological nominalism” of which Luther stands accused is smething I have never quite fathomed… While Luther rejected scholasticism, he embraced the Bible as the foundation from which all reason should proceed. There were nominalist scholastics and there were idealist scholastics. Luther was critical of both. If that is “nominalism” then I suppose he is guilty as charged, but his major concern was to set aside the speculations of philosophers in favor of the revelation of scripture.
Chesterton has a wonderful observation about “reason”. He says reason has two parts, the assumptions from which we start, and the process by which we reason. Most logicians focus upon the process and overlook the assumption. We should (occasionally) examine the assumptions with which we begin rather than relying on the validity of our reasoning. We may reason with exquisite skill from false assumptions.
And as for “hamstrung theology” – there is enough of that to go around. The Roman church has its share of flakes, as does orthodoxy and every flavour of Protestantism. We live in an age of superficiality and (as someone wrote recently) we have too read our own books to relearn our own knowledge. I think that all (well… most) denominations have something to bring to the table and that we should “test everything, holding fast to the good” as we seek to reconstruct the Christendom which has fractured and shattered between the hammer and anvil of doctrinal dispute and temporal authority. It will take humbleness of spirit, charity in dispute, and submission to revelation. “Unless I am convinced by sound reason and scripture…”
A recent biopic of Martin Luther part of the PBS Empires series. 1hr.