Yes, but knowing when to use strong language is the key. Swift to hear, slow to speak.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don, I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, but I get the idea that people are tepid to the use of strong language at times. The Scriptures are saturated with prophets and our Lord Jesus Christ using strong language to denounce. The precedent has been clearly established. But in our day, it seems, woe to the person who even bucks the politically correct mindset of offending no one with your words (unless of course you don’t agree with the PC mindset, then you’re fair game for their harsh words).

Post if you wish, if you don’t I understand, as I said I don’t want to sidetrack this thread since this is a tangential issue.

Exactly. Grossly vested – a much more dignified term than I used!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

First, thanks for the stop-by at the blog and noting the comparison at the article I posted.

Regarding Scott Aniol, Piper acolytes and defenders and John Piper’s own view on Mrs. Osteen’s assertion.

Scott, in his article, goes to great lengths to disestablish a connection between Christian Hedonism which claims an Edwardian cause, and Gloria Osteen’s statement by insisting, “No, she wasn’t close to the truth. Not close at all.”

However, as I have read, John Piper apparently tweeted semi-affirmation of Mrs. Osteen’s thought in stating (I understand this was “tweeted”) that she was, “half right”.

My point underscores what many observe about students of Piper and what was alluded to earlier, that they are grossly vested in Piper to the point that they exceed anything he, himself, says, all to create a defense for something he, apparently, affirms, in part, that Gloria Osteen was half right.

Ultimately this speaks to an observable unwillingness by many followers and sympathizers to reflect, objectively, regarding the problematic nature of John Piper’s proprietary teachings.

Fair or not, it is probably more effective to be dignified. A standard hard to attain!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

D4v, why isn’t the “sacred cow” jab fair? When anyone has brought up questions about Piper (or other Evangelical darlings), they tend to get shouted down, ad hominem attacks, etc., etc. The content is dismissed and the “sacred cow” upheld at all costs. I personally find that analogy quite fitting at times without being snarky, but that’s my opinion.
Don, I know you can get snarky but I wasn’t seeing this as a snarky comment. But then that’s me.

It seems to me that the differences between the problems manifested in the Osteens, Pipers, and fundamentalists are indeed degree rather than kind, i.e. materialsim of one form or another. So I guess I agree, but go you one better. No snark intended.

Fair enough on the last point, Dave. I am much too prone to snarkiness.

I think that there is doubtless some difference between the Osteen’s and Piper in terms of their overall ministries. I am not really that familiar with either group, however. My experience with evangelicals in general leads me to suppose that the difference might be one of degree but not of kind. In other words, the Osteen materialism is held in muted degrees in the evangelical world to a large degree.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I stop short of saying he focuses too much on the creature rather than the Creator, because I believe God did create us, at least in part, to enjoy communion with Him, and in so doing we do glorify Him.

Now the (minor) push-back: I do think there is a distinction in articulation (not to mention the stark difference in the full thrust of the ministries of Piper vs. the Osteens), and you can see it in this portion of the quote above:

I mean that pursuing the highest good will always result in our greatest happiness in the end.

I don’t think the sacred cow jab was fair (especially if you’re implicating Scott there). Who’s throwing stones?

http://oldlife.org/2014/09/victoria-osteen-channeling-jonathan-edwards/