Read on Twitter
It's Friday & I want to indulge in a little conservative evangelical insider baseball: a 
https://twitter.com/sometimesalight/status/1319395100905164802
https://twitter.com/sometimesalight/status/1319395100905164802
How is it that Piper lands where he lands on Election 2020 when MacArthur, Mohler, Grudem, & Wilson don't? In other areas, especially gender debates, he partners w/ these guys & breaking w/ them now has taken folks by surprise.
(To be clear, this thread is nothing more than a fun mental puzzle, observations about conservative evangelicalism. Don't make it more than it is.)
First, I don't think Piper is breaking from other conservative evangelical leaders so much as Election 2020 is revealing underlying differences that have always existed. IOW, when you consider context, governing principles, & guiding values, everyone is acting true to form.
Second, while Piper shares space & cobeligerence w/ likes of MacArthur, Mohler, Grudem, & Wilson, he differs from them in a couple key ways:
Unlike others,
1) Piper is much more global in his thinking (Let the Nations Be Glad)
2) Piper has a particular vision of vocation that ties personhood strongly to role (Brothers, We Are Not Professionals
But most intriguingly,
3) He's a romantic (DESIRING God)
1) Piper is much more global in his thinking (Let the Nations Be Glad)
2) Piper has a particular vision of vocation that ties personhood strongly to role (Brothers, We Are Not Professionals
But most intriguingly,
3) He's a romantic (DESIRING God)
There's obviously enough overlap & points of connection for Piper to work w/ these other names. But these features of Piper's unique perspective means that he's going to write exactly what he wrote yesterday.
Trump as a candidate conflicts w/ his core sensibilities on so many levels: Saving America isn't the goal. Personal character is essential to the job. And despite strict gender roles, the male boor (strong man) =/= male hero (the knight in shining armour).
Also, Piper's *always* been very, very concerned with human affections & the pervasiveness of sin. Some would argue too concerned. But it's that very concern that makes Trump untenable. Affections are as significant to Piper as actions.
Obviously, I could be wrong about these specific observations, but the larger point I'm trying to make is this: People are conservative for a whole host of reasons & the differences between those reasons are important.
I'll leave someone else to parse what that means for those who've come to different conclusions than Piper.
A few additional thoughts I want to boost. Folks have mentioned:
1) Minneapolis context, blue state, downtown as shaping Piper's perspective vs. red contexts
2) His emphasis on God's ultimate sovereignty means that priority shifts away from pursuit of earthly power
1) Minneapolis context, blue state, downtown as shaping Piper's perspective vs. red contexts
2) His emphasis on God's ultimate sovereignty means that priority shifts away from pursuit of earthly power
