After the John Piper tornado debacle which began two days ago, he finally issued a “clarification.”  This was a perfect opportunity for saying “I was wrong.”  But, instead of doing that he basically decides to say that everyone who is criticizing him missed his main point, or in other words – the people who are criticizing me do not know how to read properly.  Well, that may be so, but I take offense at that.

Let’s do a little rhetorical analysis here and see if this is a clarification, or if the message has been changed.  And, if the message has been changed maybe this will highlight what critics were drawing upon for calling Piper out.  If Piper had to change things, then maybe we didn’t miss the main point after all.  In addition, let’s see what stays the same.  First, what changes:

1. Now, tornadoes are metaphorical.  His cancer was a tornado (I really do feel sorry that he had prostate cancer and wish he had not brought that into all of this.  But, my sympathy cannot deter the fact I think he is dead wrong here).  We are all going to have tornadoes. This is very much different than his last post, which was entitled The Tornado.  He was talking about a particular tornado, and I don’t think it was being used as a metaphor.  I do not think that anyone misinterpreted him by missing that he was talking about calamities in general.  If he was talking about calamities in general, the title of his post should have said “Tornadoes” not “The Tornado.”
2. Now, it is “me and all of us” instead of “the ECLA and all of us.” Again, he is trying to say that his main point was about all of our calamities.  Yet the title of his previous post was “The Tornado, The Lutherans, and Homosexuality.”  Titles should indicate focus.  His previous post was not about “me and all of us.”  It was about “Lutherans” and “homosexuality.”  The way the “all of us” part came in was that we better all repent because look what God just did to the ELCA.  The previous post singled out one group on one issue as the title indicates.
3. Now, sunny days and bad weather are equated (see his comment about Romans 2.4). If I was a resident of an affected area here is where I would probably start to get pretty angry.  How dare Piper equate tornadoes and sunny days!  My experience of God should be the same in a tornado and on a sunny day?  Do I ever get to question God (e.g. like the Psalmists) instead of just repent?   Wow! What a concept of a relationship!  Does God ever just send us sunny days for enjoyment?  Or, does everything have to be for repentance?  Again, he is trying to make matters more general by saying repentance is always God’s message, but in doing so I think he inadvertently belittles what anyone affected by a tornado may be dealing with right now.

Finally, I would like to look at the one thing that remains the same.   It is still the ELCA’s tornado.  Notice in the first paragraph of the “clarification” he says, “God’s message to me in my tornado was essentially the same as to the ELCA in theirs” (emphasis added).  He has tried to change a number of things to make matters more general, but his language once again betrays him, whether consciously or subconsciously.  He still thinks this is the ELCA’s tornado.

It may well be so that I cannot read properly; however, it may also be the case that there is merit to the criticism that Piper is receiving.  Or, maybe Piper is just not a good writer.  If I wanted to write a post about calamities in general, I probably wouldn’t have titled it “The Tornado, The Lutherans, and Homosexuality.”