John Piper’s Moral Reasoning Capabilities Hit the Fan
By: Cody Libolt
Tags: Election 2020, Christianity, Politics, John Piper, Trump

If I ever tell you I can’t vote against a baby-killer because the only way to do that would be to “vote for arrogance,” you have permission to hit me over the head with your copy of Desiring God.

When it comes to political matters, most pastors and theologians are not serious people. I would prefer to listen to someone who knows something about the topic, and that person is clearly not John Piper.

This is not the first time John Piper’s moral reasoning capabilities have hit the fan (see our past coverage here and here) but today’s article has surprised even the cynical in a year that just keeps giving.

John Piper’s latest shipwreck is called: Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin: Pondering the Implications of the 2020 Election. The article argues (I think) against voting either for Biden or Trump. While there may be fair arguments for such a position, you will not find them in Piper’s article. The position itself is not repulsive. But the reasoning is.

Piper’s claim seems to be that the toxicity of Donald Trump’s personality is equally damaging to health of the nation as the policies of the Democratic Party, and when faced with the choice between voting for murderers or men who are as arrogant and “toxic” as Donald Trump, it is better to abstain from either option.

Who has John Piper been listening to? His article lacks interaction with the writers to whom we could have hoped Piper might pay attention, ranging from Wayne Grudem to Doug Wilson. But the article lacks something else: Interaction with principled thinking as such. To think in principle, John Piper would have needed to do something like the following:

State that he will not vote for someone with mostly godly policies but poor character, if that poor character crosses a specific line.

State where he thinks that line is and why he thinks that’s where the line should be.

Sadly, many non-Christians tend to be better at moral reasoning than leading evangelicals. For instance, here is an outstanding video from Ben Shapiro explaining his moral reasoning about voting for Trump. Many people did not vote for Trump in 2016, but plan to vote for him in 2020.

Shapiro’s reasons could be summarized:

In 2016, Trump’s policy was unclear and it seemed like it might be horrible, but it is more clear now, and it has been pretty good so far. In some ways, Trump’s election in 2016 changed the conservative movement for the worse. That has already happened. The damage has already been done. The Democrats are much more dangerous in 2020 than they were in 2016, and the difference in the consequences of a Trump/Pence victory vs. a Biden/Harris victory to the moral, economic, and geopolitical wellbeing of the nation is completely clear.

Murderers are on the loose, and we can’t vote for the other guy because he’s mean on Twitter?

That was how AD Robles summarized John Piper’s argument:

AD Robles provides more analysis here:

Other voices on Twitter shared similar disappointment in John Piper’s article:

Piper’s Arguments

Piper writes:

“I will explain to my unbelieving neighbor why my allegiance to Jesus set me at odds with death — death by abortion and death by arrogance.”

In the article, Piper seems (through grossly vague and artificial language) to be claiming that he will not vote for either Biden or Trump.

I will not interact much with John Piper’s “arguments” in this article, because there is not much there, besides what I quoted above. Piper believes the harm done to the nation via having an arrogant president is comparable to the harm done by having a president whose every policy opposes God.

I would not morally condemn someone for choosing not to vote for Trump on the basis of a conviction that only Christians should be supported for the office of President, or similar reasoning. I would strongly disagree. But I would not criticize them in that case.

But that was not Piper’s argument. Instead, Piper suggested that there is a moral equivalence between arrogance vs. baby-killing. No other conclusion is possible: God has made John Piper stupid.

“Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked,” says Proverbs 25:26. If there were a group of evil men wanting to destroy your family, take away everything you own, murder infants, and mutilate children, would you stand against them? What would stop you from voting for a man that wants to stand against them? His attitude of arrogance?

A Better Moral Calculus

Jacob Brunton has just released a full-length discussion on the question of voting. In this video, he argues that the Democratic and Republican Parties should be judged by their explicit policy statements.

By the standard of God’s Word the Democratic Platform is in every way immoral and godless, while the Republican Platform manages at every point to be righteous — or at least far superior to the alternative. Moreover, now that we have seen Trump in office for four years, we know that he actually believes in his party’s platform.

When I abstained from voting for Trump in 2016, it was in view of my incorrect assessment of Trump’s policies and aims. I thought he was deceiving his supporters and would rule as a leftist.

But, having seen a Trump presidency, I know that one option on the ballot (Biden/Harris) is wicked, while the other (Trump/Pence), while flawed, is oriented toward righteous values such as liberty, security, and individual rights, which are the only purpose of the government.

Who is to say what has happened to John Piper? But at least he has given us his best. And by that, his best, Christians may determine whether he is a serious man.