Jon Hoglund: My name is Jon Hoglund, and I’m one of the professors here at Bethlehem College and Seminary. Welcome to this book discussion session. Joining me on stage is pastor John Piper, along with current students at Bethlehem College and Seminary — both college and seminary students.

We’re going to be discussing together Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions. Pastor John wrote this book originally in 1993, and it has gone through several editions, including the most recent thirtieth anniversary edition. We look forward to sharing that with you.

All of these students have read the book and are prepared with questions. We’d like to invite you into a conversation about it, and also to give you a taste of why this book continues to shape conversations about missions, even 31 years later.

For our first question, Sang is going to introduce us by asking us a question about his interest in missions.

Sang: Pastor John, in this book — and through the rest of your ministry — you put forward the supremacy of God and his glory, and its relationship to our experience as human beings. You say, “God is most glorified when we are most satisfied with him.” You’ve written that Jonathan Edwards was instrumental in helping you to see these realities, and how this was a life-changing moment for you. My question is, Did your passion for missions grow in connection with that discovery? When did missions first become important to you, and what has that looked like in your life since then?

John Piper: Christian Hedonism emerged in my consciousness in about 1968, but it did not have — to my shame — a dominant or significant impact on my world Christianity until 1983. I had fifteen years of percolating, while I was reading my Bible badly. This is a lesson on how Bible-oriented people like me, who read the Bible all the time, can miss things. And when someone eventually points you to them and hits you with a two-by-four, you say, “How did I miss that?”

The kindling was laid early. My dad loved missions. He prayed about the glory of God and mission every night when he was home. And Wheaton, where I went for college, had a missions focus. I remember it. It was inspiring. At Fuller also, I took courses from Raph Winter, who was the craziest gung-ho missions statesman there ever was in the twentieth century. But it didn’t affect much in my life. Then I came here to be a pastor in 1980, and we had a mission conference here that I inherited. It involved two weekends and the days in between. They didn’t have the pastor preach either of those Sundays, so I didn’t have to preach on missions. Nobody asked me to until 1983.

I was preaching a series on Christian Hedonism, and they said, “Pastor, why don’t you do the first week of missions week?” That was epoch-making. The book Let the Nations Be Glad is an epoch. The sermon I preached that day was titled “[Missions: The Battle Cry of Christian Hedonism.]” And I just had to think, what does a Christian Hedonist say about the nations? That’s something I should have said over and over in fifteen years, but I didn’t. I’ll give you several texts that just exploded.

The sermon text for that sermon was Mark 10:17–31, which is about the rich young ruler. He walked away and Jesus said, “It is hard for the rich to get into the kingdom of heaven.” The disciples threw up their hands and said, “Well then who can be saved?” And Jesus said, “With man it is impossible, but with God nothing is impossible.” I can remember in 1967 Noël and I went to Urbana. There was a man who spoke there who said, “When I first went to the mission field, I thought, ‘If I believed in predestination, why would I ever be a missionary? If God has already decided who is going to be saved, why would I go to the mission field?’ Now, after twenty years in Pakistan, I say that if I didn’t believe in predestination I wouldn’t go to the mission field.” Now I’m a seven-point Calvinist, but at the time that didn’t do it for me. It shows how slow we are to make connections between what we hold dear and things we don’t think much about. So that part of the text about the sovereignty of God was connected to how God can save anybody. So, then, we should get going on it globally.

The other part of the text was about how Peter said, “We’ve left everything and followed you.” I think he was saying, “We’re not like the rich guy. We’ve left everything. We’ve made the appropriate sacrifice.” Jesus didn’t like that. Do you remember what he said? He said,

Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. (Mark 10:29–30)

In other words, “Get off your self-pity kick, Peter. Nobody can out-sacrifice me. You’re in it for joy, and I mean for you to be.” That was my paraphrase of what he said. So, we have the sovereignty of God, and he can conquer anyone’s heart. And then Jesus is also telling Peter, “This is not about self-pity or sacrifice, ultimately. It’s about finding where your true treasure is and going for broke.”

Here is one more text. And this seals the deal because of the title of the book. Psalm 96:1–3 says,

Oh sing to the Lord a new song;     sing to the Lord, all the earth!Sing to the Lord, bless his name;     tell of his salvation from day to day.Declare his glory among the nations . . .

There you have glory, and then then Psalm 67:1–3 says,

May God be gracious to us and bless us     and make his face to shine upon us,that your way may be known on earth,     your saving power among all nations.Let the peoples praise you, O God;     let all the peoples praise you!Let the nations be glad and sing for joy . . .

So you have, “Go tell them I’m glorious,” and, “Go tell them to be glad.” After that, the battle was over. Then for the next decade, a lot of what I did was conference after conference on missions, in order to make up for lost time on world missions. A Christian Hedonist is a person who believes that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him, and there you have the Psalms saying, “Go tell the world to be satisfied,” and “Go tell the world I’m glorious.” That’s Christian Hedonism.

Hoglund: Excellent. Thank you very much. The beginning of the book talks about the purpose, the power, and the price of missions. Selah is going to begin a few questions for us on those topics.

Selah: In reading your book, I wondered if there is a danger in treating people simply as a means to the end of God’s glory. While we see in your book that it is important to be zealous for all people to worship God and also to show compassion, how do we keep that big picture of God’s glory in mind while not thinking of people as projects to complete for the sake of God’s glory? Or is there even a problem with that type of thinking?

Piper: Here’s the nub that I’m hearing in your question. You’re going to head into the world and you’re going to say your dominant motive is, “I want God to be glorious in this world. I want every human being to know he is God. And he is glorious. I’m in the world to get you to do that.” They might feel like, “What about me? Do you care about me at all? Do I matter to you?” That’s the question you’re getting at, and let me state the other half about Christian Hedonism because this has been said to me.

People say, “Are you saying that not only do you want to be motivated by the glory of God but also your own happiness? You want your joy to increase? So, you’re in this business of Christianity to be happier?” That’s exactly right. I am. Christian Hedonism is a life devoted to pleasure. So, people say I’m just selfish. They say, “You don’t care about me; you care about you. You’re going to make me a project for your joy.” So, we have two problems, not just one: Am I making people a project to get glory for God? And am I making people a project to make myself happy? These questions do not intimidate me. I am so excited to answer these kinds of questions. I love that question because Christian Hedonism is the answer to both of those questions.

Let’s take mine first. You have to have an answer to this if you even come close to being a biblical Christian. You’re talking to someone about Jesus, and you want to lead them to Jesus, and they pick up on your hedonism and they say, “So you really are talking to me right now to increase your happiness?” I would say, “That’s exactly what I’m doing.” They say, “Isn’t that selfish?” And I would say, “It’s not selfish because no one would accuse a person of selfishness if they’re willing to lay down their lives to draw another person into the sharing of their joy.” Nobody is accused of selfishness if they say, “I will lay down my life to include you into the joy that I am pursuing. And not only will I lay down my life to include you into it, but it will make my joy bigger if you come. Your joy will be my joy.” That’s a Bible statement from 2 Corinthians 2:3. I think you can persuade unbelievers that it makes sense, even if they don’t like it.

I used to go to the hospital to visit people when I was a pastor. Let’s say I’m going to visit Maybel. We’ll call her Maybel because she’s 85 years old. She just had a heart attack, and her son asked me to visit her. So, I go into Maybel’s room, and she’s all hooked up with tubes. I don’t know if she’s going to make it. Her eyes are closed, and her skin is all shriveled, and there are bruises all over her. And I didn’t feel like going to visit her. I walk up to her and put my hand on her arm, and she says, “Oh pastor, you shouldn’t have.” (Old people always say, “You shouldn’t have.” Young people say, “It’s about time.”) At that moment when she says that, I could say, “I know, and I didn’t want to, but I’m a pastor and I have to. It’s my duty.” I don’t say that. I say, “Maybel, I’m here because it makes me so happy to share the best news in the world with you right now.” Not in a thousand years would she say, “You’re so selfish. You just want to make yourself happy.” She wouldn’t say that because it’s not true. That’s the answer to my question, which you didn’t ask.

It’s the same answer in relation to the glory of God. If they say, “You don’t care about me. You just care about your God. You just want him to look glorious, but you don’t care at all about my happiness.” My first response to that is, “Can I tell you about what the beauty of Christianity is? The beauty of Christianity is that we have the kind of God who gets the most glory in making you most happy in him.” This is not about choosing between a person’s happiness and God’s glory. It just doesn’t work that way in Christianity. It might work that way in other religions. I don’t know. But in Christianity, you dare not choose between your happiness and God’s glory. You look them right in the eye and say, “Do you get that? You may not choose between your happiness and God’s glory. As soon as you decide to nullify your happiness, God will not get the glory he deserves. You must pursue your happiness. Right now. You must pursue your maximum happiness. That’s why I’m here. I’m elevating the glory of God because that’s the only thing that can make you truly happy. You were made for something way bigger than all that stuff you’re living for right now.”

So, I just wouldn’t buy it that I have turned a person into a project because the key to God getting glory is the person getting happy in him. And a person whose happiness is being pursued like that doesn’t feel like a project.

Marc: Staying with the heart issue there but going in a slightly different direction, you allude to Matthew 16:24 and say, “To take up a cross and follow Jesus means to join Jesus on the Calvary road with a resolve to suffer and die with him.” Shortly afterward, you then balance this with a reminder, saying, “Christian martyrs do not pursue death; they pursue love.” As you intentionally aim to stoke the fire of zeal in missions, how would you counsel churches to avoid developing a martyrdom complex, where we might have this burning zeal to die for Jesus but be comparatively cold toward more mundane daily ministry to people?

Piper: If I knew any church like that, I would be happy to work on that problem. Are any of your churches in danger of creating martyr complexes? I’m going to make your question valid anyway, because it is. Seriously, I wish that were a problem. The value in your question is that it is possible to head toward the mission field with idealized, romanticized notions even of suffering. It’s not going to go well if you think that way.

It’s interesting you referred to the Calvary road. The Calvary road ended at Calvary, but it was a road — and all of it was hard. If you think, “My life is going to end gloriously. Somebody will write an article about me, or maybe a biography,” that discounts the mundane. It discounts the Calvary road, like reading for class (which you’re supposed to do). It discounts washing your clothes and paying your bills. I think what I would do to counsel those churches is to say, “You need a robust doctrine of suffering.” By robust, I mean enough to handle martyrdom but also enough to handle setting your alarm early enough to have devotions. That’s a kind of self-denial. And isn’t it interesting that in Luke’s version of self-denial, he says daily. It says, “Take up your cross daily.” So, there is martyrdom, and then there are daily crosses. And most of them are very inglorious. They’re just plain boring, hard, and ordinary. Nobody is praising you for them. They don’t even know you were faithful in that obligation. I think that’s probably the way that I would counsel the church.

Marc: I think so. There’s this saying that everyone wants to save the world, but no one wants to help mom with the dishes. And it sounds like you’re saying that underlying it is a misguided zeal, and that having a more robust theology of suffering will help you in those mundane sufferings where you’re not constantly striving for the big suffering.

Piper: That’s a great quote, and I take your question as a warning to me. Because I do — and I will tonight — move toward the ultimate quickly. I think that’s a good test case to see how people respond to the ultimate suffering. But in view of what you just said, probably the other piece of the counsel that I would give to a church is that they shouldn’t send missionaries that they haven’t put to work in a lot of ordinary ways here. Are they just wanting the big glory over there? Or are they willing to walk down 11th Avenue and pick up the trash? Are they willing to walk up to a guy with his lighter under his tin foil, sniffing his smoke, and tell him about Jesus? And if they’re not, don’t send them.

Preston: In chapter 3, you quote from Jonathan Edwards’s sermon “Heaven Is a World of Love” in order to show how differing degrees of glory in heaven will not be the cause of envy or pride in glorified saints. However, while on earth, how are those who are not as successful in their missionary efforts — despite months, years, or decades of faithful labor — to keep from becoming envious? In other words, how would you counsel missionaries to think about fruitfulness even if they are not seeing obvious fruit in their labors?

Piper: That’s really important. Let me say a word about envy first, and then we’ll go to the other part. It’s not wrong to want to be fruitful. It’s not wrong to want to be as fruitful as someone else is fruitful. Envy is being resentful that they are more fruitful than you are. It galls you. That’s envy. The desire for more hope, more love, more patience, more kindness, more faith like a hero is not sinful. The Bible holds up examples all the time of people we are supposed to imitate. We should long to be like them. Envy is when we start this niggling sense of, “I’d like to see them stumble.” That’s dangerous. That’s so dangerous. You see somebody, and they’re making it and they don’t stumble, and then you think, “I’d like to see them take a fall.” That is so far from the Spirit of Christ. That’s envy, and it is owing to pride and ego. It says, “I need my ego to be stroked by superiority.” It’s not about fruitfulness but superiority. That’s wicked.

Now, what do you say to help people press on in all the varying degrees of fruitfulness in the world? Just look around this room. Nobody is identical to anybody. It’s amazing. We are so diverse, and some of you are good at some things and not good at other things. If you spend your life comparing yourself, you will die. Mark Noll told this story in my graduating class in Wheaton. He was my RA my senior year. Outside his door, he tacked up a little saying that said, “To love is to stop comparing.” Mark was a 4.0 student. He was operating from the side of being admired. And he knew that as long as people stood in such awe of him, he wouldn’t have very good relationships. So, we must be careful in that regard.

But how do you do it, then, if you’re not going to compare? Maybe you know that their church grew but your church didn’t grow. Paul said, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:6–7). So, you bow before the sovereignty of God and say, “He gave growth there, and he didn’t give growth here. God is God. I’m not God. I love God. He’s good. He’s just. He’s wise.” That’s one answer. It’s the sovereignty and goodness of God disposing his gifts and blessings where he pleases.

The second thing you might take into consideration is this. When Billy Graham used to have his mission in town here, he said one time to his hundred-person staff, “You know, don’t you, that in line for rewards in heaven a lot of you will be ahead of me.” One lady told me this story and she said, “Most of us rolled our eyes at that. That’s inappropriate humility. But he got very stern. And he said, ‘God rewards faithfulness, not fruitfulness. A thousand people may walk to the front of my crusades, but maybe you’re the means of saving one person in your life and your reward will be great because your duties were fulfilled with greater care and you were faithful morning to night in a thousand ways.’” That’s so important, folks.

If you keep going in 1 Corinthians 3, you have the man whose life is passed through the fire and the wood, hay, and stubble are burned up. He doesn’t get rewards for that. Well, what was that? That was not about fruitfulness or a failure at fruitfulness. It was bad teaching. Paul laid the foundation, and other people were building on it with wood, hay, and stubble, and they are going to squeak by. You don’t say, “Oh, my lack of fruitfulness is going to get burned up at the last day.” That’s not what he’s talking about.

Here’s one other thing. I’ve often wondered what success I might have had as a pastor in Brazil or Mississippi — a place where they have emotions. Because I can get into that. I can preach to people like that. My church might grow. Here’s the point: planting a church in New Hampshire and planting a church in Mississippi are radically different challenges — not to mention Afghanistan. Therefore, if you measure yourself in New Hampshire by the guy in Mississippi, that’s not a wise thing to do. So, taking into account factors like gifting, location, culture, and all kinds of things, it might shape the kind of fruitfulness your life has.

Hoglund: Next, we have a couple of questions on missions practice and priorities, which come from the middle section of Let the Nations Be Glad.

Eddie: My question is about unreached people groups and the strategy that churches employ to reach them. It’s about the desire to finish the task. Should we think of missions as a continuous work of reaching unreached people groups as they sprout up, rather than a time-specific snapshot of people-group status collected by a mission organization? In a migration-heavy and constantly changing world, should missions be more about finishing or being faithful to the task?

Piper: Those are not alternatives in my mind. Work on finishing and work on being faithful are like comparing apples and fruit. Here’s what drives me not to write off the finishing mindset — finish the Great Commission; work on it; be part of it. Back in the 1980s, we were saying, “By 2000, come, Lord Jesus.” Date-setting is a bad thing to do, but praying for it is not. “Come, Lord Jesus” is a prayer every saint should pray. The sooner the better.

Finishing the task is still valid because Jesus said, “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Whatever the panta ta ethnē is, go for it. Disciples them, baptize them, teach them, and keep doing it until you have all of them. Another text says, “You were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:9–10). He died to ransom people from all of those nations, so we should be about the business of getting all of them from those nations. It’s like Paul in Corinth: “I have many in this city who are my people” (Acts 18:10).

The third text I would go to is Matthew 24:14, which says, “This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” There’s a connection between the end and reaching all the nations. I remember George Ladd, a New Testament scholar who was a teacher of mine at Fuller, wrote an article on Peter’s phrase “hasten the day of God” (2 Peter 3:12). What in the world is that? God has a day fixed, so what does he mean by “hasten the day of God”? He said, “There is one way to hasten the day of God: finish the mission.” I thought that was pretty good. So that’s my impulse to not lose the finishing mindset. I hope you don’t. I know from talking to one person already that there are people in this room on their way to the mission field. I was praying with my wife 45 minutes ago that there would be more because of this moment right here. I pray that some of you would come to this, maybe being wobbly about your future, and by the end of it not be wobbly anymore.

On the being faithful side, we don’t know when the end will be. I think one of the things you think about, Eddie, is the fact that “unreached peoples” is an amorphous idea. It’s not clearly defined, even when you say “tribe, people, tongue, nation.” If you take those four, can you draw nice lines between them? No. Can you tell how wide they are? No. But there are a lot of them. It’s probably not taxi drivers in Mumbai. I don’t think that’s the kind of people Jesus had in mind. I think he had ethnolinguistic groups, which is more manageable than every layer of job you could have. But your point is that some of those are going out of existence, and some of them are coming into existence.

So, what did Jesus mean? Frankly, I don’t know. I don’t know how Jesus would answer that question. We should go to all the nations, and Jesus can see thousands of ethnolinguistic people groups, however many there are. He knew that some of those tiny tribes at that point in South America or North America wouldn’t exist by the time missionaries got there. All I can say is that he knew that, and he didn’t intend those things. We shouldn’t press it that hard. But faithfulness means that you do what you should wherever God calls you in the process of finishing. And we all fit into different places.

I’ve never been a missionary. It should be a lesson for a lot of you that I wrote a book on missions that is used in classes and has made a difference, and I’ve never been a missionary. That’s weird. How can that be? That should tell you there are all kinds of ways God is going to use you. You can’t even imagine. So, yes to faithfulness and yes to finishing — both-and.

Jorge: There are lots of churches that send church-planting missionaries and evangelists to already reached places, such as countries in South America, Africa, and Asia. You talk about how the center of gravity in world Christianity is shifting toward the south and east. For instance, in my hometown in Mexico, there were lots of missionaries who came to preach the gospel though the gospel had already been preached there decades ago. Typically, a missionary would come, plant a church, leave, and an untrained or unqualified leader would rise up to the pulpit, eventually resulting in scandal, heresy, and a broken church. So, what should the emphasis of missions look like in countries like these? More specifically, should education and training — that is, theological education and pastoral training — replace the more traditional evangelism route as the primary focus?

Piper: My reaction to the last part of the question is no, but it’s not a quick no because the word “traditional” may carry a freight in your vocabulary that I’m not fully aware of. Let me see if I can put myself in your head and answer what you really mean. In 1985, I went to Cameroon for the first time, and I said, “I thought Wycliffe was a frontline mission organization, but Wycliffe is a church renewal project.” There were churches that had been there for 150 years. What is going on there? Why is there such dependence on the West after 150 years? I’ve thought a lot about those things.

And just to be fair, you didn’t come into being in 150 years. You came into being in two thousand years. This country is shot through with churches, publishing houses, seminaries, Bible colleges, and there is Christian influence at every level. And it’s not because of 150 years, but because of a long four hundred years of battling through the truth. And there was a long time of seasoning during the Middle Ages, and then there were hundreds of years of Reformation and a couple Great Awakenings. And there were new starts on this land, and here you are. You know a lot. You are more biblically informed than almost all Christians prior to three hundred or four hundred years ago. So here we are, and we look at a country that’s had the gospel for forty or fifty years and we say, “What’s wrong?” Are you kidding me? Who are we to be talking? We bear the fruit of thousands of years of labor and refinement. So we really need to be patient.

Now, your question is, Should we alter the strategies in such a way that we would keep what you just described from happening? And when I think of who is doing that, I think of Dieudonné in Cameroon, because Dieudonné loves his country, sees the doctrinal chaos and the weakness of the church, and he wants there to be evangelism — and I would have no problem saying “traditional evangelism.” He wants that to happen. Go tell people about Jesus. Have a strong church where they send them out as salt, tell people about Jesus, people get saved, and then they bring them in and disciple them. That’s what they should be doing, but he knows that he has to train pastors.

We know from recent news that you can be as trained as possible and still make shipwreck of your ministry, right? But what we need all over the world is both-and. Every question here is probably a both-and question. We need people with a vision for deep training, strengthening leaders, and growing up indigenous pastors who stand on their own two theological feet. Here’s a little anecdote to overstate the case, but I love Ralph Winter. He almost overstated everything. When I asked him, “What does it mean to be a reached people group?” he said, “When the local people have Greek and Hebrew and they are writing their own books for their own seminaries and colleges.” I said, “That’s a long time.” If you stay with a people group that long, you won’t reach all of them.

But another qualification is that some are called to stay there with them, and some aren’t. There are Paul-type missionaries and Timothy-type missionaries. Paul said, “I’m going to the unreached peoples,” and Timothy said, “I’m staying in Ephesus.” Timothy and Titus types are growing up elders and trying to reach the lost there. So, I think the answer to your question is that if in your judgment the traditional approach has been “get people saved and don’t do much theological preparation for fifty years from now,” that should change.

Piper B.: Since we believe that God will work in the hearts of those we interact with among the nations, and since we trust his sovereignty in each conversation we have with the unreached, how should we go about pursuing relationships with those who aren’t open to the gospel immediately? Should we consider this a closed door? Or should we continue to pursue relationships, trusting that the Lord will work through our faithfulness to the Great Commission?

Piper: You asked earlier which question I found most interesting, and I said, “I know which one I found most difficult.” It was that one. I have seen these questions before. Jesus sent out his disciples two by two and he said, “If you enter a town and they do not receive you, shake the dust off your sandals and go to another city” (Matthew 10:14). And Paul in Acts 13 goes on the first Sabbath to a synagogue and blows them away with this long sermon. Some say, “Come back next week.” And he comes back, and the opposition is enormous. I can picture Paul putting up his hands and saying, “If you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, I’m turning to the Gentiles.” He leaves the synagogue and leaves the people in their lostness, unless they want to come to the meeting.

So, I have these texts in my mind that are discouraging me at one level from lingering too long with resistant people. And you love people like that. And you would lay down your life for them right now. You don’t want people to forsake them. You’re praying right now that people would go into their lives and ask them for the thousandth time if they believe. You don’t want to go this route of shaking the dust off your sandals, and I don’t think the Bible had that as its only message on how to do evangelism. It’s one message, and it’s true. Jesus said, “Don’t cast your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). I think that means something like, “If the resistance is so ugly, so bitter, so skeptical, so cynical, then you just say, ‘Okay, I’m going to talk to some other people right now. Excuse me.’” So, there is a place for saying, “I’m done with you.”

There are a couple reasons why I don’t think that’s the only message of the New Testament. First, it has to do with what I said earlier about there being two types of missionaries: Paul-type and Timothy-type. Paul was a frontier missionary, a pioneer missionary. When he had reached northern Greece (Illyricum) — starting in Jerusalem, going up through Syria, moving across Asia Minor, going over into Greece, coming down into Corinth, and then going up the coast to Illyricum and northern Italy — he said, “I have no more room for work in these regions” (Romans 15:23). Are you kidding me? There were tens of thousands of unbelievers in that region. What did he mean that he has no more room for work? He meant, “I’m a frontier missionary. The church exists here. I’m going to Spain.” Now, that kind of person will not spend too long with recalcitrant people.

But do you know what he did in Ephesus and Crete? He left Timothy and Titus. And he wrote letters to them to tell them how to do their work, and he said, “Do the work of an evangelist” (2 Timothy 4:5). What did that mean? It meant that they had a region they were responsible for, and they were supposed to stay right there. They should send their people out to be as loving and creative as they could be. They will figure out how long they can talk to a person, just like you’re trying to figure out how many emails you should write to your loved one.

Here’s the other biblical impulse that makes me think that knocking the dust off our sandals is not the only message. Do you remember the parable Jesus told where he said that a man owned a fig tree (Luke 13:6–9)? He says that the fig tree didn’t bear any fruit for three years, so cut it down because it shouldn’t even waste the ground. And this unknown spokesman — whoever it is — says, “Sir, could we wait just one more year and put some fertilizer around it? And then if it doesn’t bear fruit, you can cut it down.” Now, what’s the point of that parable? I think it’s a double point. I think the first point is that Israel is close to being cut down, so they shouldn’t toy with him. He came offering them the gospel, and they should repent and bear the fruits of repentance, or else they are coming down. And the point of the parable is that there is an impulse of patience. Give them another year. Give them another visit. I don’t know the right time, but your heart will make it plain, won’t it?

That’s what we do every day. We plead with the Holy Spirit. We say, “Make me know when to talk and make me know when not to talk — what to say and what not to say.” The Bible simply does not give us all the specifics on how frequently to talk to an unbeliever or what we should say. It’s a both-and again.

Hoglund: We have time for two more questions. Julia is going to ask one about chapter 7 in the book, which talks about the difference between inward and outward worship as a New Testament concept.

Julia: I’ve spent two years at the Getty’s Sing! Conference. I’ve always come away greatly enriched by their vision of the church, corporate worship, global missions, and most definitely eternity. At the conference this year, you pressed into the doctrine of God as the foundation of our delight in him, which should flow forth in praise. In chapter 7 of Let the Nations Be Glad, you place a similar emphasis on passion for God and his glory in Christ as the foundation for inward affection that leads to outward worship. But you also make clear that in the New Testament, Jesus presents a new model for worship that does not necessarily imply corporate gathering; rather, Jesus emphasizes a posture of heart over form and outward expression. In light of these things, is it problematic that we refer to worship as “corporate worship” if worship is in fact a primarily inward action?

Piper: It can be problematic. If I’m in a conversation, I will listen to discern how people use the word “worship” — whether they mean a set of forms or whether they mean something in the heart. So yes, it can be a problem.

Here’s a little anecdote about the book. The only sentence anyone ever remembers in this book is the first sentence, which is, “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.” I had these worship leaders coming up to me saying, “I love this sentence. This is so great.” And it really did serve a lot of people who did international worship ministries. But I could tell they were taking my meaning to be worship service: “Missions exists because worship services don’t.” I thought, That’s not what I mean! The key that preserves the error from happening is Matthew 15:8, which says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me.” That’s the text that drives me in the essence of worship being in the heart. Forms and extensions and expressions of worship are external — singing, praying, kneeling, conversing, preaching. All those are forms, and they can be totally empty with zero worship happening in worship services. The Lord is holding his nose in the Old Testament during the solemn assemblies (Isaiah 1:13; Amos 5:21). Why is he holding their nose? They’re worshiping him. Listen to the language. They’re praising Yahweh. And he says, “They’re not paying their laborers.” So, I don’t like emphases on form.

What I mean by the New Testament being so different from the Old is that there are almost endless instructions about how to worship in the Old Testament outwardly. There are endless instructions on how to do it right. And there is almost nothing in the New Testament like that — almost. I don’t want you to say that Piper thinks there shouldn’t be corporate worship services. I make a case in my preaching book for that. I had a missionary write to me and say, “We have a lot of missionaries who don’t believe in preaching. Do you have anything to defend the normativity of preaching in worship services?” I said, “Yeah, I wrote a book about it. It’s called Expository Exultation. The first quarter of the book is about that.” I believe that you can read the New Testament carefully and know that you ought not to forsake the assembling of yourselves together, and there is enough evidence that you ought to sing and preach in those services.

So, let it be said. Sunday morning, I sit right over there, and I love it. My marriage has been saved by corporate-worship services. I’ve told Noël that. You have a squabble with your wife on Saturday, and you’re not talking. You’re emotionally ticked and you’re self-pitying. And then you come into a service and suddenly lift up — with four hundred or five hundred people — the bigness of God, the mercies of God, the kindness of God, and you feel like an idiot. You think, “Why am I wrecking this relationship with my piqued, emotional, self-pitying selfishness?” God has appointed corporate worship services to save marriages and other things. I love corporate worship, but I love real worship in the heart more.

James: I have a little bit of a hypothetical question for you. Suppose there is a young couple who is interested in missions and has been praying for a door to be opened for several years. Then suddenly a door opens before them. However, as they investigate this opportunity, they suddenly realize that being overseas would look quite different from what they had expected. Therefore, the couple is then split over what action to take. One desires to continue ahead, while the other is unsure that this is truly what they’re being called to do. What encouragement or advice do you have for this couple?

Piper: Someone said, “What was the most interesting question?” I say, “Let’s talk about complementarianism.” We have one minute. That’s not going to happen.

Some of you don’t even know what that word means. We’re complementarians — I am, and Bethlehem College and Seminary is happy to use that word. It simply means that when we read Ephesians 5, it says, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22), and, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church” (Ephesians 5:25). Husbands are called the “head” of their wives (Ephesians 5:23). So, we have the husband taking his cues from Christ, and we have the wife taking her cues from a glad, obedient, maturing church. And that’s what marriage is. The world doesn’t know that’s what marriage is. They don’t have any idea what marriage is. In the Bible, marriage is a parable, a drama, of Christ and the church. That’s what it’s for. It was conceived that way from the beginning in Genesis 2. That’s complementarianism. Husbands lead, provide, and protect, and wives are glad to have it so. They think, “Give me a man like that, a mature man that I can respect. He’s biblical. He’s Christlike through and through. I’ll go anywhere with him.” That brings us to your question.

I’ll bet everyone is assuming that the guy wants to go, and the woman is dragging her feet. In my forty years at this church, that’s not been the case mostly. It’s the woman who says, “Honey, let’s go,” and he’s saying, “I’m not sure. Maybe we didn’t have it right.” So let me just deal with both. What do you do? You have a wife who wants to go, and the man doesn’t — or maybe you have a husband who wants to go, and the wife doesn’t. Those are the two different scenarios, and I don’t think they are solved in exactly the same way. It’s the non-parallelism that makes you complementarian.

Let’s think about the guy first. He wants to go. He believes it’s God’s will for them to go to the mission field, and now she has seen enough that she’s saying, “I’m not sure about this.” What does a head do? This is where you have to be so careful and biblical. He remembers that he is like Christ, but he’s not Christ. He’s not infallible like Christ. He’s not sinless like Christ. And that’s enough to make him slow to take Christ’s place in her life. This woman has a direct line to Christ. That’s the priesthood of the believer. And she’s claiming that her sense of this is not so sure. And his sense is different. He knows that he’s not God. And therefore, he doesn’t preempt conversation. He doesn’t assume that he doesn’t need counsel and wisdom. He doesn’t assume that he shouldn’t pay attention to her. That’s crazy, not only because it is unprincipled biblically, but also because you have to have her on board. You can’t have her dragging her feet. You have to be together. It’s not going to work if she isn’t in this. And not everybody did that in history.

That’s the first scenario. It means that he’s going to say, “Tell me the problems,” and he’s going to take the time to listen, discuss, argue, read the Bible with her, and pray with her. And over time, he’s going to hope that they go together. And here’s the difference between this and the other situation. There may come a point where he discerns that she is strong enough and that even though she has these misgivings, it’s time. They’re going to go. He says to her, “You can do this.” And I think she should say, “You’re the man. I’m going.”

Now, what if she wants to go and he is saying, “I don’t know”? She’s not the head, and she wants to persuade him, and she ought to want to persuade him. That’s the way it is in 1 Peter 3. The wife is desperately trying to win him to Christ — or in this case, she is trying to win him to the missionary calling they once had and she thinks they still have. She’s going to do similar things. She’s going to pray. She’s going to talk. She’s going to give her reasons. She’s going to be patient and wait. But she will not, like him, come to the point where she says, “We’re going. Pack your bags, hubby.” That’s not going to happen in a complementarian marriage. But she can win him. And she needs to. They have to do this together. That’s the bottom line.

Maybe I’ll close with this. I stood at the front there for about thirty years, and people would come to me with the most intractable questions. I would think, “I don’t have any idea what the answer is to your question.” It seemed like a situation of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” It would seem like there was no way forward in a relationship with their dad, or their wife, or their employer. I would generally say, “I don’t know. But I do know there is a third way. God has a third way. He has a way that will be obedient and right. Right now, you can’t see it and I can’t see it. But God can see it. Let’s ask him.” I would say that. So maybe the woman would think, “This is deadlocked. This is going to be miserable for the next ten years.” Or maybe the man might say that. But I would say, “No, there’s a way. There is a way. God will show you a way. You’re going to have a happy, fruitful marriage of ministry together. He’s going to make that happen.”

Hoglund: Thank you, Pastor John. Would you join me in showing appreciation for Pastor John and for these students?

What is the difference between patriarchy and complementarity — and which is the better term for capturing the full vision of Christian manhood and womanhood? Most complementarians steadfastly avoid the word patriarchy, wanting to distance themselves from any associations with oppression and prejudice. On the other hand, critics of complementarianism are eager to saddle their opponents with the charge of defending patriarchy. The terms often function as a way of communicating, “I’m not that kind of conservative Christian” — to which the reply is, “Oh yes, you are!” So what is the most accurate term for those who want to recapture a lost vision of sexual differentiation and order?

Defining, to everyone’s satisfaction, terms like patriarchy and complementarity is nearly impossible. I’ll do some definitional work in a moment, but I don’t want this article to become a tedious, academic inquiry into the usage and history of these terms. I also don’t want to define the terms so that complementarity becomes a convenient gloss for “good male leadership” and patriarchy ends up meaning “bad male leadership.” To be sure, that distinction isn’t totally misguided, but if that’s all I said, my argument would be entirely predictable.

And a bit superficial. As I’ll argue in a moment, there is nothing to be gained by Christians reclaiming the term patriarchy in itself. In fact, reclaim is not even the right word, because I’m not sure Christians have ever argued for something called “patriarchy.” Complementarity is a better, safer term, with fewer negative connotations (though that is quickly changing). I’ve described myself as a complementarian hundreds of times; I’ve never called myself a patriarchalist.

Yet there is something in the broader idea of patriarchy — no matter how sinister the word itself has become — that is worth claiming. If the vision of male-female complementarity is to be more than a seemingly arbitrary commitment to men leading in the home and being pastors in the church, we cannot settle for a proper interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. Of course, careful exegesis is absolutely critical. But we need more than the right conclusions. We need to help people see that our exegetical conclusions do not just fit with the best hermeneutical principles; they fit with the way the world is and the way God made men and women.

Complementarity and Patriarchy

The idea of complementarity — that men and women were designed with a special fittedness, each for the other — is not new. The term complementarianism, however, is relatively recent. In their seminal 1991 work Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem deliberately termed their recovery mission “a vision of biblical ‘complementarity’” because they wanted to both correct the “selfish and hurtful practices” of the traditionalist view and avoid the opposite mistakes coming from evangelical feminists (14).

No one committed to intellectual honesty and fairness should treat traditionalist, hierarchicalist, or patriarchalist as synonyms for complementarianism. In coining the term complementarian, Piper and Grudem explicitly rejected the first two terms, while the third term (patriarchalist or patriarchy or patriarchal) is never used in a positive sense in the book. “If one word must be used to describe our position,” they wrote, “we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women” (14). Thirty years later, this vision of complementarity is still worth carefully defining and gladly defending.

The term patriarchy is much harder to define. Strictly speaking, patriarchy is simply the Greek word meaning “father rule.” There is nothing in its etymology to make the term an epithet of abuse. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are often called “the patriarchs” (Romans 9:5, for example). The spiritual leader of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. In a generic sense, every Christian believes in patriarchy because we affirm the rule and authority of God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

Despite these positive associations, as a sociological and historical category, patriarchy is almost always used in a pejorative sense. Here, for example, is the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry on patriarchy.

Patriarchy is an institutionalized social system in which men dominate over others, but can also refer to dominance over women specifically; it can also extend to a variety of manifestations in which men have social privileges over others to cause exploitation or oppression, such as through male dominance of moral authority and control of property.

In this one (long) sentence, we have a host of pejorative words: dominate, dominance (2x), exploitation, and oppression. No one is expected to read this definition and think of patriarchy as something good, or even something that could possibly be good.

In a recent longform article in The Guardian, Charlotte Higgins argues that at its simplest, patriarchy “conveys the existence of a societal structure of male supremacy that operates at the expense of women.” Higgins admits the patriarchy is virtually dead as an academic idea — too blunt and monolithic a concept to be useful — but in popular usage the term has experienced an unprecedented revival, one Higgins supports. “Only ‘patriarchy’ seems to capture the peculiar elusiveness of gendered power,” she writes. Higgins’s street-level definition is helpful insofar as it reveals that for most people, including most Christians (I suspect), patriarchy is shorthand for all the ways our world promotes male supremacy and encourages female oppression.

If that’s patriarchy, the world can have it. It’s not a term you’ll find in Christian confessional statements from the past. It’s not a term you’ll find employed frequently (or at all) in the tradition of the church as it defends biblical views of the family, the church, and society. As a conservative, Reformed, evangelical Christian, I applaud the vision of “equality with beneficial differences” and stand resolutely opposed to all forms of domination, exploitation, and oppression.

Cost of Dismantling Patriarchy

Why not end the article right here? Complementarianism is good; patriarchy is bad. Case closed. Enough said, right?

Not quite. We should be careful not to banish patriarchy to the ash heap of history too quickly. For starters, we should question the notion that patriarchy equals oppression. In his book Ancestors: The Loving Family in Old Europe, Steven Ozment argues that family life, even in the patriarchal past, is not wholly different from our own age. Parents loved their children, husbands performed household duties, and most women preferred marriage and homemaking to other arrangements.

History is complex and rarely allows for meta-theories and monocausal explanations. If women had fewer opportunities and rights in the past (almost everyone had fewer opportunities and fewer rights), women also lived enmeshed in stronger communities, and their roles as wife and mother were more highly honored. Accounting for differences in economic prosperity, it is entirely debatable (and, perhaps, ultimately unknowable) whether women are happier in the present than they were in the past. As Ozment puts it, “For every historian who believes that the modern family is a recent, superior evolution, there is another who is ready to expose it as a fallen archetype” (45).

Second, we should question the unstated assumptions that hold together the pejorative understanding of patriarchy. If sexual differentiation, subordination, and role distinctions are prima facie evidence of exploitation, then patriarchy, of any sort at any point in history, is going to be undesirable. Writing over forty years ago, Stephen B. Clark noted that feminist social scientists “apply liberally such terms as ‘dominance,’ ‘oppression,’ ‘repression,’ ‘inferiority,’ and ‘subservience’ to men’s and women’s roles.” These terms did not come from dispassionate historical observation. As Clark puts it, “This terminology, based on a political power model of social analysis derived from modern political ideologies, is designed to make all social role differences appear repulsive” (Man and Woman in Christ, 475).

The rhetorical deck has been stacked. To defend patriarchy, as presently and popularly understood, is to defend the indefensible. And yet, most complementarians do not realize that in rejecting patriarchy, they have, according to the contemporary rules of the game, rejected the very reality they thought they could reclaim by an appeal to complementarity.

Most importantly, and along the lines of the last point, we should be careful that in dismantling patriarchy we don’t end up kicking out the cultural ladder from underneath us and then hoping that people can reach the right conclusions by jumping to extraordinary heights.

One of my great concerns — which, sadly, seems to be coming more and more true with each passing year — is that complementarianism, for many Christians, amounts to little more than a couple of narrow conclusions about wives submitting to husbands in the home and ordination in the church being reserved for men. If that’s all we have in our vision for men and women, it’s not a vision we will hold on to for long. We need to help church members (especially the younger generations) see that God didn’t create the world with one or two arbitrary commands called “complementarianism” to test our obedience in the home and in the church. God created the world with sexual differentiation at the heart of what it means to be human beings made in his image. We cannot understand the created order as we should until we understand that God made us male and female.

Like and Unlike Adam

The creation story is so familiar to most of us that we overlook the obvious. God could have created human beings to reproduce on their own. God could have created every subsequent human being out of the ground, just as he created Adam. God could have created a group of male companions to hang out in Adam’s man cave so that Adam wouldn’t be alone. God could have given Adam a golden retriever or a gaggle of little Adams to keep him company.

But God created Eve. God made someone from Adam to be like Adam, and God made that same someone from Adam to be unlike Adam. According to God’s biological design, only Eve (not another Adam) was a suitable helper because only Eve (together with Adam) could obey the creation mandate. That’s why she was “a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18). Only as a complementarian pair could Adam and Eve fill the earth and subdue it. Different languages and cultures and peoples will come later in Genesis — and these differences will be, in part, because of sin (Genesis 11). But the differences between men and women were God’s idea from the beginning. To ignore, minimize, or repudiate the differences between men and women is to reject our creational design and the God who designed it.

“To ignore, minimize, or repudiate the differences between men and women is to reject our creational design.”

At the level of common sense, most people know to be true what social-science research and biology tell us is true: sex differences are real and they matter. There is a reason that humor regarding men and women has often been a staple of comedy — whether in sitcoms, in standup, or in informal conversation. Most people know by intuition and by experience that a host of patterns and stereotypes are generally true of men and women.

In his book Taking Sex Difference Seriously, Steven Rhoades argues that traditional patterns of male initiative and female domesticity have been constant throughout history because the most fundamental human passions — sex, nurturing, and aggression — manifest themselves differently in men and women (5). One-day-old female infants, for example, respond more strongly to the sound of a human in distress than one-day-old male infants. Unlike their male counterparts, one-week-old baby girls can distinguish an infant’s cry from other noise (25).

According to Leonard Sax, a medical doctor and PhD, no amount of nurture can change the nature of our sexual differentiation. In his book Why Gender Matters, he writes that girls can see better, hear better, and smell better than boys. Conversely, boys are hardwired to be more aggressive, to take more risks, and to be drawn to violent stories.

Sax — who is not a Christian (that I can tell) or even particularly conservative when it comes to insisting on traditional moral behavior — criticizes those who think sex differences are simply the result of prejudice. Sax chides gender theorist Judith Butler and her followers for showing no awareness of sex differences in vision, sex differences in hearing, sex differences in risk-taking, or sex differences in sex itself (283).

Moreover, these differences cannot be laid at the feet of environment and social engineering. “The biggest sex differences in expression of genes in the human brain occurs not in adulthood, nor in puberty, but in the prenatal period before the baby is born” (208). Or as Moses put it, “Male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

Embracing Reality

Everyone can see that, on average, men are taller and physically stronger than women. Most everyone agrees that men and women have occupied different roles in the home, in religion, and in the world for most (if not all) of human history. Virtually everyone would also agree that boys and girls don’t play the same or develop in the same ways. And nearly everyone would agree that men and women — taken as a whole — tend to form friendships differently, talk to their peers differently, and manifest different instincts related to children, sex, and career. Almost everyone sees these things.

What we don’t see in the same way is how to interpret these phenomena. The question is whether we view these distinctions as reflecting innate differences between men and women — differences not to be exploited or eradicated — or whether the distinctions we see are the result of centuries of oppression and ongoing prejudice. This brief article is written in hope that Christians might consider the former to be truer than latter.

In 1973, Steven Goldberg published The Inevitability of Patriarchy, a book he claims was listed as a world record in Guinness for the book rejected by the most publishers before final acceptance (69 rejections by 55 publishers). Building off that earlier work, Goldberg released Why Men Rule in 1993, arguing that given the physiological differentiation between the sexes, men have always occupied the overwhelming number of high-status positions and roles in every society (44). In other words, patriarchy is inevitable. Decades later, Rhoades said the same thing: “Matriarchies — societies where women have more political, economic and social power than men — do not exist; in fact, there is no evidence that they have ever existed” (Taking Sex Differences Seriously, 151).

We are told that dismantling patriarchy is one of the chief concerns of our time. Surely, Voltaire’s battle cry Écrasez l’infâme! (Crush the infamy!) is no less suitable for the ancient regime of father rule. Except that where patriarchy is already absent, dysfunction and desperation have multiplied. That’s because patriarchy, rightly conceived, is not about the subjugation of women as much as it is about the subjugation of the male aggression and male irresponsibility that runs wild when women are forced to be in charge because the men are nowhere to be found. What school or church or city center or rural hamlet is better off when fathers no longer rule? Where communities of women and children can no longer depend upon men to protect and provide, the result is not freedom and independence. Fifty years of social science research confirms what common sense and natural law never forgot: as go the men, so goes the health of families and neighborhoods. The choice is not between patriarchy and enlightened democracy, but between patriarchy and anarchy.

Observations like these sound offensive to almost everyone, but they don’t have to be. If patriarchy (as a descriptive rather than a pejorative term) reflects innate differences between the sexes, then we would do well to embrace what is — while fighting the natural effects of sin in the way things are — rather than pursuing what never will be. You can sand a piece of wood in any direction you like, but the experience will be more enjoyable — and the end product more beautiful — if you go with the grain. As Goldberg puts it, “If [a woman] believes that it is preferable to have her sex associated with authority and leadership rather than with the creation of life, then she is doomed to perpetual disappointment” (Why Men Rule, 32).

“Women were made to be women, not a different kind of man.”

Women were made to be women, not a different kind of man. The stubborn fact of nature, almost never mentioned, is that men cannot do the one thing most necessary and most miraculous in our existence: they will not nurture life in the womb; they will not give birth to the propagation of the species; they will not nurse an infant from their own flesh.

Deep down, men are aware of these limitations of manhood, which is why they feel the urge to protect women and children and why in every society, Goldberg writes, “they look to women for gentleness, kindness, and love, for refuge from a world of pain and force, for safety from their own excesses” (229). When a woman sacrifices all this to meet men on male terms, it is to everyone’s detriment, especially her own. Men and women are not the same, and if we want to acknowledge that in the home and in the church, we need to acknowledge it in all of life and in all of history. The biblical vision of complementarity cannot be true without something like patriarchy also being true.

Audio Transcript

Today we have an incredibly thoughtful and detailed question from a concerned dad. It’s anonymous. Here’s the question.

“Pastor John, my 14-year-old daughter read through the book of Job for the first time this year, and she is really struggling with how God is portrayed in that book. She has heard all of her life that God is loving and just, and cannot understand why God would allow Job and his children, wife, and servants to suffer such devastation. She’s deeply disturbed by the fact that God pointed Job out to Satan intentionally, thus drawing his attention to this righteous man, allowing Satan to take away nearly everything Job had. And for what purpose? Merely to prove a point to Satan and the host of heaven that Job’s reverence for God was unshakable.

“How would you explain this to a girl who understands the gospel intellectually, but who may not have had it applied to her heart? To her it seems that God was arbitrary and almost cruel to allow Job and everyone around him to suffer to ‘prove a point,’ or to perfect a man who was already more righteous than most of us. She wonders about the collateral damage to Job’s wife — including her faith, who suffered the loss of everything Job did, with the exception of her personal health. It does not bring her much comfort to think that following God could result in such devastation.

“I’ve talked with her about the fact that death and suffering is part of our human existence since the fall, and is a direct and indirect result of sin. We’ve talked about the fact that it was Satan’s cruelty that was the actual instrument of suffering, although within the sovereign will of God. And that this life and its suffering here on this earth is nothing compared to glory in eternity. We’ve also talked about how God himself has suffered on our behalf and bore our sins on the cross, and that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, although our sins grieve him. Pastor John, what else would you say?”

Well, I certainly want to commend this dad for the kinds of things he has patiently shown his daughter. That’s an amazing list of insights that he has shared with her. If he hadn’t asked me, “What else would you say?” I would have said what he said. Those are all solid biblical truths that he highlighted there at the end of his question. So what else — that’s what he’s asking — what else would I say? And keep in mind that if I knew her, I would try to take into account how to say them. But I don’t, and so I’ll do the best I can.

1. Recognize God’s superior value.

First, I would try to help her see what only a divine miracle can make her see — namely, that the value of God and his glory is infinitely greater than the value of all human beings who have or ever will exist. Until a person believes this and feels this — the superior value of God himself — much of the Bible will make no sense, including Job.

I’m thinking, for example, when I talk about this principle of the ultimate value of God, of words like Isaiah 40:15, 17. God says,

Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket,     and are accounted as the dust on the scales; . . .All the nations are as nothing before him,     they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

Now stressing this infinite difference between the worth of God and the worth of all other reality is not contrary to the love of God. It is what makes the love of God amazing. If you try to enhance the love of God by reducing the distance between his value and ours, you wind up replacing reality with imagination and destroying grace.

2. Begin with God’s priorities.

Second, this means that when we make judgments in this world about good and bad, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, just and unjust, we should never — this is what I would try to help her see — we should never start with our own sense of the good and right and beautiful and just, and then use them to judge the acts of God. Rather, we should start with the acts of God revealed in the Bible, and think our way out from there to what is truly good and right and beautiful and just.

I remember during the years 1979 and 1980, I wrestled for months with the logic of Romans 9:14–15, which goes like this:

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

And I just sat staring at that for months, saying, “How does that work? How does that logic work?” I wrestled month after month with biblical logic, saying, “I’ve got to get my head fixed. I’m not going to fix this text; this text is God’s word. My head is the problem, not this text.” And the second book I ever wrote, called The Justification Of God, was my answer to that one question — two hundred pages to answer that question. And it was driven home to me, “You will never grasp the truth of God, you will never understand the Bible, John Piper, if you start with yourself and judge God, instead of starting with God and judging yourself.”

3. Realize what we really deserve.

Third, hand in hand with this biblical, God-centered approach to reality goes the heartfelt conviction that human sinfulness — my sinfulness in particular — makes us all liable to God’s just judgment, or as Paul says, makes us all “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). In other words, every breath that every human takes is undeserved. It is another moment, another gift, of grace, and no suffering that any human receives from God in this life is more than what we deserve —ever.

“Until we feel the depth and horror of sin, much of the Bible will simply make no sense to us at all.”

Therefore, no injustice from God is ever done to any human. On the earth, everyone is treated by God better than we deserve — everyone. On the horizontal plane, in relations between humans, there are horrific injustices, which God hates because God hates sin. But we have not yet fathomed the greatness of our offense against God if we think that any suffering from his hand is undeserved.

This is why God was perfectly right and just to drown every single human being on the planet, old and young, except for eight people, in the flood of Genesis 6. He did no one any wrong; he was perfectly just in that judgment. Until we feel the depth and horror of sin like this, much of the Bible will simply make no sense to us at all.

4. Trust your benevolent Father.

Fourth, Job is in the Bible, like all other descriptions of suffering of the righteous, to help us be ready for our own suffering with confidence that it is not ultimately owing to caprice or to nature or to sinful man or to Satan, but it is in the hands of our all-wise, all-powerful, all-good Father.

This dad says of his daughter, “It does not bring her much comfort to think that following God could result in such devastation.” And my response to that sentence is this: God doesn’t expect us to be comforted by the suffering that following him will bring. He expects us to be comforted that all the suffering he appoints for us will be for our ultimate good, for the advancement of his wise purposes, and that he will keep us for himself through them all.

But it sounds like this young lady has not made peace with the promise that if Jesus suffered, his followers are going to suffer. That’s a promise. I’ve been struck with this again recently as I’m working my way through 2 Thessalonians for Look at the Book. Paul is speaking to new Christians — baby believers, several weeks old as Christians — in 2 Thessalonians 1:5, and he says this: “This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering.” Paul had said to these brand-new Christians in 1 Thessalonians 3:3 not to “be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this.” And now it has happened, and he calls it “the righteous judgment of God” to fit us for heaven.

“All the suffering God appoints for us will be for our ultimate good.”

Oh, how pastors and youth leaders need to teach the biblical doctrine of the necessity of Christian suffering in obedience to Jesus. They need to say to young people that Christ is not calling them to an easy life but to a life of serious joy, not silly joy, and that most of the things young people live for will vanish like mist in the face of real life — especially life in the service of a crucified Messiah.

5. Pray to see as God does.

So the last thing I would ask of our young friend is that she would pray with me, and with her father, the prayer that we all need to pray every day — namely, that the Lord would enlighten the eyes of our hearts to see God and to see the world and the way God does things in the world, in order that we might make wise judgments the way he does.