A friend sent me an article critical of Edinburgh 2010. Edinburgh 2010 is a celebration of the 100th anniversary of a conference in Edinburgh 1910 which set the stage for ecumenical advance, especially in missionary work.
The celebration includes events around the world including a whole host of individuals. One of the events is Lausanne III to be held in Cape Town, South Africa.
Here is the speakers list for Lausanne III:
The expositors have been named as Ajith Fernando, Director of Sri Lanka Youth for Christ; Calisto Odede, Associate Pastor of Nairobi Pentecostal Church, Kenya; John Piper , senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis , US; Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St Ebbe’s Church, Oxford , UK; Ruth Padilla DeBorst, General Secretary of the Latin American Theological Fellowship (Costa Rica); and Ramez Atallah, Director of the Egyptian Bible Society, and his wife, Rebecca, who has a grassroots ministry among children and Sudanese refugees in the ‘garbage village’ in Cairo.
The article I first ran across had this to say about this conference:
The Cape Town Conference will be in conjunction with The Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization and is considered the most conservative of the main conferences. It features six keynote speakers (each apparently preaching a message from the book of Ephesians) from six world regions, with John Piper representing North America. Boston University doctoral student and General Secretary of the Latin American Theological Fellowship Ruth Padilla DeBorst is one of two women expositors, 4000 leaders from 200 countries have been invited and special criteria have been established to “include men and women from a broad spectrum of nationalities, ethnicities, ages, occupations and denominational affiliations.”
Well, the ecumenism is not surprising.
But so much for Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, eh?
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
John Piper & Wayne Grudem, editors
There has been a definite sad trend occurring in relation to John Piper and compromise with the growing ecumenicism of today. I have always disagreed with some of his views, but until recently would have regarded him to be far to sound to make the great errors in judgment that he has made of late. When listening to his preaching going back 10-20 years ago compared to the last five years or so I notice he has changed for the worse. Though I’m no fan of reformed theology, they are still brothers in Christ. I hope that for John Piper’s sake and for those who are influenced by him, that God would cause him to see the errors he is making and that he would make a stand against the wolves in sheep’s clothing which he is currently embracing.
Don,
Your mentioning this article reminds me of the recent missionary swap between Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Mark Dever) and Inter-City Baptist Church (Dave Doran). Both Dever and Doran had Conrad Mbewe from Zambia speak at their churches.
Apparently, Piper isn’t the only one who’s moving in unusual circles these days. I find the “chumminess” between Doran and Dever interesting because of Doran’s criticism of the separatism of men like J. R. Rice–the very separatism which Doran is now practicing.
As you know, I’ve always felt Rice, Jones, Sr., and Sumner had the separation issue about right. Perhaps Dave will now acknowledge this and give credit where credit is due. But what do you think the odds of that are?
Have a good one!
tjp
Do you think the YFs and those older men who applaud men like Piper for their “defense of the Gospel” are going to finally take the blinders or rose colored glasses off and see the real world of CEs as it really is a group of new evangelicals who still cannot put into practice Biblical separation? Maybe, but I won’t hold my breath. Thanks for the posting. Have been reading of the first Lausanne in McCune’s book, Unfulfilled Promise.
Don,
This is the first I’ve seen this, Don. Ouch! All the Piper lovers go into hiding. This isn’t a downward trend. This is who he is.
Hi all, thanks for the comments.
It really is amazing to see this particular step. I have thinking all day about it. Especially the appearance with two female expositors… With Piper’s prominence in CBMW, this is such a blatantly hypocritical decision that it is hard to fathom how anyone can defend him, or really how anyone can recommend his work.
I had a call this evening from a fellow who is a new convert (from an amazing background). He wanted to know about 1 Tim 2.11-12 and women preaching and all. (He didn’t stay for all our services Sunday, because I preached on the passage in the afternoon!) What he was wondering about was whether he should watch the women Bible teachers that appear on television or not. His theory is that if the Bible says it, we should go with what the Bible says.
So… I agree of course, and I taught him what the text means and mentioned the reasons Paul gives in vv. 13-14. Now, the issue isn’t at the level where I would necessarily need to send him to read some of the CBMW material on the subject.
But what about this? Suppose I had a young convert or a preacher boy or someone who really needed more help than a short conversation on the phone about women preaching and all. Knowing this kind of hypocrisy by Piper, how confidently can I recommend his writings on the subject? “Oh, what Piper says is real good here, too bad he doesn’t practice what he preaches.” It is incredible how discouraging and damaging this compromise is.
The same damage occurs from the ecumenical perspective, but we are getting kind of inured to it, I think. It maybe is a little harder to see. But this hypocrisy with the women expositors makes the whole hypocrisy quite plain.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3