Thoughts on Bloodlines by John Piper
First of all I want to share my love, respect, and honor for my Brother, Dr. John Piper and the ministry God has given him in Minneapolis and beyond. I was born and raised in Minneapolis, Minnesota and served in Ministry there in various capacities for almost 20 years as a youth pastor, associate pastor, and church planter. I have seen up close the ministry fruit of Dr. Piper and Bethlehem Baptist Church in downtown Minneapolis. I know of many African-Americans who lives have been transformed by God thru that ministry. I also know of African-American pastors who have been given the opportunity of ministerial leadership and development there. I know of African-American and Christian hip hop artists whom have been mentored by Dr. Piper. Praise God for all of this. Most recently Dr. Piper has released a book on the topic of racial reconciliation called, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian. Here are my thoughts after reading this book.
First, as one who is involved with a growing group of humble leaders speaking, preaching, writing, teaching, and advancing multi-ethnic and missional ministry, I am excited that Dr. Piper felt led by God to write this book. Someone of his stature writing on this topic will only bring it more into the forefront of the evangelical movement where he is so well respected. As an evangelical myself, I see how important this is. Within evangelicalism multi-ethnic and urban ministry and racial reconciliation, especially when led by people of color has been marginalized greatly.
Leading multi-ethnic and urban ministry is not new for Dr. Piper. He has served in this area for decades and has been preaching on this topic from his pulpit for the last ten years. What is new is Dr. Piper bringing his passion, personal stories, and theology around racial reconciliation onto his national and global ministry platform thru the writing of Bloodlines. I have spoken at many conference on reconciliation and multi-ethnic ministry across the evangelical spectrum and have never known Dr. Piper to attend or speak at one of these conferences. I’m not aware of a book prior to Bloodlines where Dr. Piper has made racial reconciliation the central issue. I don’t believe this is criticism, but truth.
Because I’m from Minneapolis, I’ve known of many times when race was a major issue in the city. I’ve been a part of many of the discussions and initiatives to bring about racial reconciliation in Minneapolis, I don’t remember Dr. Piper being involved in these discussions or initiatives. This is why thru facebook and twitter, I welcomed Dr. Piper into the discussion of racial reconciliation and multi-ethnic ministry. This was not a “shot” but a welcoming praise. When I was in Minneapolis I worked very hard to meet with and partner with Dr. Piper. I met with many of his associates to try to make this happen. I know Dr. Piper is very busy and has a number of people trying to meet with him, so I get why our partnering never happened. I am thankful though that before I left Minneapolis to serve as a Superintendent within the Evangelical Covenant Church, Dr. Piper came to visit the Sanctuary Covenant Church where I served. Okay, really to the book now-
I like the way the book begins, but not so much how it ends. I love that Dr. Piper shares his personal story. I love that he shows biblically that Jesus took on ethnocentrism as He walked the earth in human form. I love that he goes into great depth to show that race is not biblical and racism is a sin. The book shows his commitment to racial reconciliation within the church he leads in Minneapolis. His commitment is shown, though he doesn’t share in great detail in the book, thru the multi-ethnic staff he has built with his church board over the years. He shares that he has struggled in living this out in the community where he lives, which happens to surround the church he leads. I am moved by knowing more of his personal story. It’s why I wish I could have gotten to know him more personally when I lived in Minneapolis. I praise God for his commitment to urban ministry.
The second half of the book is the problem that I have. Dr. Piper presents Calvinism as the theological framework for living into racial reconciliation biblically. I must respectfully disagree with him. He states in the book that Jesus deals with ethnocentrism, but then presents a theology rooted in Eurocentric ethnocentrism as the solution. In Dr. Piper’s commitment to racial reconciliation he can’t just have great love for theologies developed by European men. By presenting Calvinism this way, he actually goes against what he is writing about. Structural racism exists in the church in the United States because theology is dominated by White theology. Just because some African-Americans are sold on Reformed theology and seem to have no regard for theologies developed by Africans and African-Americans doesn’t mean its the best frame work for reconciliation. This is actually assimilation, not reconciliation. What makes the Evangelical Covenant Church strong is that White leaders are allowing the theologies and ministry practices of so-called minorities to come into this Swedish immigrant denomination historically and give it the second wind of becoming a Christ-centered and multi-ethnic movement. The key is that these theologies and practices not compromise the evangelical foundation of the movement.
Piper also only offers politically conservative and Republican solutions to dealing with structural racism. He only offers school choice and welfare reform as solutions. These are political solutions not biblical ones. Matthew 25, John 4, Matthew 9, the Book of Leviticus, the Book of Exodus, and the Book of Nehemiah are better frameworks for dealing with structural racism. Still, I believe it is good that Dr. Piper has written this book and I hope to both have healthy conversations with him and hope to see him speaking and writing even more on this important topic for kingdom advancement in an ever-increasing multi-ethnic and multicultural world.
24 Comments
Leave a comment
BLOG Categories
Great article. I agree with your thoughts. Have witnessed this first hand at Fuller Theological Seminary and many other current context I find myself in.
Thank you so much for writing this respectful and thoughtful review of Bloodlines pastor Efrem. As usual, your critique is precisely on point.
“He states in the book that Jesus deals with ethnocentrism, but then presents a theology rooted in Eurocentric ethnocentrism as the solution.”
YES!!!
Efrem, can you name any white evangelical leaders who have a national platform that are doing multiethnic missional ministry right?
Bro Jesus came to reconcile sinners to Himself. With that being said the heart of the sinner has to be change first. I don’t believe Jesus said anywhere in the bible that the African Americans or the Swedish Europeans are are the front of anything. Racism in the heart. A sinner no matter what color they are needs the Heart to be re-generated NOT reformed.
Thanks Efrem for the graciousness of your review. Hopefully he will prayerfully consider what you have written with humility and grace.
Efrem
Thank you for this post. I have had some major issues with Piper’s (and others’) approach to race, but I will leave those aside for now.
I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit:
“Matthew 25, John 4, Matthew 9, the Book of Leviticus, the Book of Exodus, and the Book of Nehemiah are better frameworks for dealing with structural racism.”
In particular, how is Nehemiah a liberating text in regard to race relations?
[...] Efrem Smith reviews John Piper’s Bloodlines; thumbs up to the first half; the second half, well… [...]
Hi Efrem, You seem to speak in generalities and don’t give specific examples of Dr. Piper’s “Eurocentirc Ethnocentrism.”. Perhaps specifics would be more helpful to establish your thesis? I’m also confused about the criticism you have about what you feel are “conservative and Republican” solutions Dr. piper proposes. Left hanging without specifics this sounds similar to the comment made by President Obama a year ago where he referred to Republicans as “our enemies.”. This doesn’t sound much like reconciliation to me. Are you alienating all conservatives and Republicans?
Rod,
Thanks for your comments and question. In terms of using the book of Nehemiah for dealing with issues of race from a Kingdom perspective-
In the book of Nehemiah the city is in ruins and there is a need for a communal strategy to rebuild the city. The man made social structure of race has brought ruin to humanity to a large degree. It will take a a broad and strategic approach to get on the wall and rebuild the church. To an extent because of the impact of race, the church is in crisis in this ever-increasing multicultural world. We must rebuild the church into Christ-centered, multi-ethnic, and reconciling communities.
Also, today you can’t separate issues of race from community development, economic development, and justice. This is another picture of the city in ruins when you think of many inner cities across the country. So the Bible provides a framework for justice, reconciliation, and community development. We shouldn’t separate these issues.
Hope this is helpful.
I agree with Troy. Being a Christian, man or woman of God, transcends race issues. It IS and ONLY IS an issue of the heart. Trying to interject race into it, instead of climbing over it is simply some people’s opportunity to push an agenda. In this case it is being used to push an agenda of the left. To attack those with different beliefs than you, conservatives and Republicans, divides and certainly doesn’t develop an environment for Unity in Christ.
[...] an excellent article on Senegal’s success in addressing female genital mutilation, and a book review by Efrem Smith, a leading voice for racial reconciliation within the Covenant, of John Piper’s new book [...]
Efrem: Thanks for clarifying your tweets about “Bloodlines” with this post. Much appreciated.
I think it’s unfortunate that you would dismiss a philosophy/theology as useless in helping solve the theological problem behind racism merely because it was made famous by white europeans. That in itself seems racist to me. If I heard you right, you’re saying that reformed theology is useless because it’s white and european. Have I misunderstood? If not, how is that not racist. I would think you would call “foul” is someone said, “Such and such a theology cannot help the race problem, because it was generated by black people in Africa.” Am I wrong?
I think it would be more helpful if you would spell out why exactly you think reformed theology’s tenets don’t work in racial reconciliation–rather than just dismissing it on grounds of race.
By the way: Calvin would have said that his theology is Augustinian. Augustine wasn’t a white european. …Just to throw that out there…
Peter, Thanks for your post. Expressing disagreement respectfully is important. And I think Efram has balanced his respect and disagreement as well as anyone could without failing to communicate completely.
I read no intent to ‘push the agenda to the left’. I read a de-politicizing of the issue as the intent. A challenge to look beyond our cultural blinders that we all have. A God-push toward self-awareness and growth as the church. Where we take a fresh look from another perspective.
I see the post as issue-centered and not undermining any unity. Paul and Peter went at it over important issues. (Gal 2). I don’t think that we should use unity as a reason to end honest respectful discussion about what it is for us to grow in following Jesus.
Efram, thank you for your ministry and post!
Bryan,
Thanks for your email. Let me clarify some of my points in the book review-
One, I didn’t say Reformed theology was “useless.” I’m saying that Reformed Theology alone is not enough to bring about racial reconciliation and harmony. This is a theological critique. I’m not sure how that is racist. Racism is the combination of prejudice and power in order to discriminate against or oppress a people group simply because of their race. I’m not sure how my book review comments fit that definition. What I’m saying is that there are other biblically based theologies that could be more helpful. Reconciliation theology is one. If you “only” want to use theologies developed by European men to bring about unity between multiple ethnicities, being homogeneous theologically doesn’t make sense to me.
Piper says in the book that Jesus came and dealt with the ethnocentrism of the Jews to bring about multi-ethnicity and Christ-centered unity with the Gentiles, but then wants to use an ethnocentric theology for racial reconciliation.
Second, there have been many books including, The Christian Imagination by Jennings and Race: A Theological Account by Carter that present historic accounts on how Calvinism was used to justify slavery and the dehumanizing of Africans. So, we at least have to deal with how Calvinism was used to support racism. The theology of Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Howard Thurman, or Dr. John Perkins for instance could never be used to justify racism because its biblically based and was developed with the intent to bring about reconciliation, but also pointed to Jesus. I wonder if Pietism be a better theological framework for racial reconciliation. It’s also founded in Europe, but I consider myself a Pietist.
I hope this is helpful.
Efrem Smith
Thanks for your response, Efrem. I appreciate you taking the time.
I think I understand a little better where you’re coming from. I understand that you’re not calling reformed theology “useless.” But I still don’t understand why it cannot serve as the central philosophy for reconciliation just because of its origin? I’ve seen elsewhere that you’ve criticized the prevalence of reformed theology in hip hop. I don’t understand this. These young men don’t care that reformed theology started in Europe (actually, North Africa, I’d argue). They believe that it’s true to Scripture, and because they’re committed to Scripture they have used it as a centerpiece of their message.
So, what is it about the SUBSTANCE of reformed theology that makes it unusable as the centerpiece for reconciliation? To say that it can’t be used because it has European connections is actually something of an ad hominem argument on a larger scale.
Bryan,
My issue with Reformed Theology as a solution to reconciliation is its take on the cross. The focus of the cross seems to be more about the Wrath of God verses God’s love. I’m not denying the bible dealing with the wrath of God, but reconciliation will be driven by God’s love being the focus, not the appeasing of God’s wrath. Also, Reformed Theology is soft on the issue of our daily joining Christ in His death and resurrection. The reconciling work of Christ is at the same time completed and being completed in us thru us dying in Christ. As we die in Christ, we die to the old labels and identities of race, which is unbiblical.
I’m not against a theology simply because its European. I consider myself a Pietist and Evangelical. I just believe we need multiple streams of theology all rooted in Scripture. Howard Thurman and Martin Luther King jr. are helpful with this. The dessert fathers and the coptic church can be helpful here possibly as well.
Efrem
Thanks again, Efrem.
Efrem,
David Fitch pointed me to your post and I am very thankful for your approach. I completed research on Jonathan Edwards’ approach to missions among Native American the decade before he died. As one of the bulwarks of Reformed Theology, it is very interesting to learn of some of the changes (radical ones) that took place after he continued to do theology among the Native American Community that he had gone to for “missionary” work. The problem I have had with his history and how others praise him time and time again is the reality of his ownership of slaves. He spent endless hours writing theology and praying because he was able to by the mere fact that a black slave was caring for his home, splitting his wood, cleaning his house, etc. That doesn’t mean he was lazy by any means, it just means that he was able to build his theological treatises on the backs of the human beings that he owned. This infects everything he writes regardless of how we want to sanctify his work. The content of his work is great and helpful, but our problem in the west has been that we have been able to divorce the content of our faith from the lived reality of it. There were abolitionists during his day that were active and he would have known about them. His son became an ardent abolitionist immediately after his death and until his death, Jonathan Edwards owned slaves. He was not a man of his time because there were and had been abolitionists present, especially in the Quaker tradition, during his time. Some have tried to argue that this doesn’t have a detrimental effect upon his theology, but the problem I see with that, is that it is only content related. A lived theology creates the context for the content. It is sad that so many don’t consider this when they praise the work and influence of Jonathan Edwards. I appreciate much of his work as well though I wouldn’t consider myself Reformed but I do so with the ongoing awareness that his “great” theology never caused him to openly question the ownership of another human being. It would seem that Reformed theology, because of its elements, makes space for this reality moreso than other traditions (though none are perfect). With the determinism and relegation of historical circumstances to God’s sovereignty, it seems that the Reformed tradition makes too much room for these historical atrocities to be relegated, justified or at least unincorporated into the lived theology for today’s Reformed community. The Henry Center at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is going to feature (if they haven’t already) this issue at some point with presentations regarding racism and the Reformed tradition. That should be interesting.
Nathan
As I read your argument, I don’t think your real point is to go after the theology of European men and theology “dominated by White men,” though it ends up sounding like “can anything good come out of White Europe?” And yet, in the process, your words imply that the only way Piper (or any of us) can be effective in this debate is if he abandons his Reformation framework. The Reformation is not the problem. Getting rid of Calvin and Luther is not going to pave the way for racial harmony in America, in fact, when properly used, they will help us (where, for instance does the “the evangelical foundation” come from?). I suspect, rather, that you’re trying to criticize the narrow and exclusive use of Calvin rather than Calvin per se. So, when you criticize Piper’s use of Calvin you’re getting at the need to be more widely engaged in our theological study and application, and I applaud that notion. We need the whole church. Secondly, I don’t see how can you solve our alienation by pitting God’s wrath against His love. Both are necessary to a biblical and holistic Gospel. The cross is just as much about God’s wrath against sin as it is about His love, and love and wrath are not mutually exclusive. We should be angry at anything that is destructive (like racism) of what we love. His forgiveness makes no sense if you don’t know why you need to repent. As Jurgen Moltmann points out, the oppressor also needs redemption: through repentance and liberation from his evil “need to oppress.” The “old man” must die. Law and Gospel are both necessary for that to happen. In fact, God’s wrath against all ungodliness is driven by His love. A Marcionite Gospel will not be effective. There must be a death before there can be a resurrection.
I am not trying to do away with theology rooted in Europe. My point is that Calvinism is not the strongest theological foundation for dealing with racial reconciliation. I’m saying that there is biblically rooted theologies that are much stronger. How can Piper say on one hand that he’s committed to racial reconciliation and unity, but only believe that Calvinism, a European theology alone can bring it about? I’m saying that reconciliation theology (comes out of the African-American Church), liberation theology (out of the Latin Church), and missional pietism (Europe) ought to be considered as well. I have done here what Piper failed to do; present a biblical and multi-ethnic theological framework.
Efrem Smith
Efrem, I have a couple questions for you. 1) what is your understanding of Gods sovereignty and the sinfulness of mankind? “Our failures to love each other are rooted in our sin against God” bloodlines p 227
“Calvinism is not the strongest theological foundation for dealing with racial reconciliation” What foundation is stronger in your opinion?
Our faith and freedom are not found in anything other than the blood of Jesus Christ.
[...] Piper: That was [Evangelical Covenant Church Pastor] Efrem Smith’s critique. He spent the next two weeks after reading my book defending the fact that Pietism would be a [...]
“What makes the Evangelical Covenant Church strong is that White leaders are allowing the theologies and ministry practices of so-called minorities to come into this Swedish immigrant denomination historically and give it the second wind of becoming a Christ-centered and multi-ethnic movement.”
I would be interested in better understanding the theology of African American churches as opposed to the Reformed theology. Would you have resources you would suggest for this?
Thank you,
Marcella
What does a person’s race matter who created a theology? What’s wrong with being passionate and convinced by a theology developed by a white person. The fact that you call it a “white theology” shows racism.
It’s doesn’t matter if an African-American developed a theology or a European white guy what matters is that the theology is biblically sound. Some white guys have terrible theology and some black guys have terrible theology.