O CTO B E R 2 5, 20 1 6

Open Bibles, Burning Hearts

A Response to Andy Stanley

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Article by John Piper
Founder & Teacher, desiringGod.org

Now that Andy Stanley has responded so fully and helpfully to the critics of his
sermon “The Bible Told Me So,” we may be able to sort out a few things about his
method more carefully. My aim here is to state what I think Stanley is commending to
preachers, and then suggest some questions that young preachers should ask before
embracing Stanley’s method. He has important things to teach us, and I was helped by
reading his rejoinder to his critics.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 (Note: Andy and I corresponded about this article before publication. Just so you know
where he is on it, he gave me permission to quote him: “Your response is gracious,
thorough, fair, and inspiring. The last two paragraphs made me want to shout,
‘AMEN.’”)

Should We Say, “The Bible Says”?

In a recent conversation with Russell Moore, Stanley made the case that, in preaching
to unbelievers and Christians who are struggling with doubts, you can help them get
more traction with the truth of Scripture if you do not say, “the Bible says,” but
rather say, for example, “as Luke says, who researched everything carefully,” or “as
Paul says, who hated Christians, but who died spreading the very message he once
hated.”

In the recent sermon, Stanley was making the point that the children’s song, “Jesus
loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so,” is an inadequate foundation for faith
as students head off to college. Then, he devotes the lion’s share of his message to
giving historical arguments for the credibility of the New Testament writers.

So instead of saying, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so,” it is more
helpful, according to Stanley, to say something like the following:

Jesus loves you, this you know for John, who watched him die and had
breakfast with him on the beach, tells you so. Jesus loves you, this I know, for

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Luke, who thoroughly investigated the events, wrote them down meticulously,
and interviewed eyewitnesses, made sure it was so. Jesus loves you, this I
know, because a Pharisee who hated Christians, who was going to arrest
Christians, who was going to singlehandedly stop the Jesus movement, became
a Jesus-follower and risked his life traveling all around the Gentile,
Mediterranean rim to make sure that you’d know. Jesus loves you, this we
know because his original followers were martyred believing it was so. Jesus
loves you this you can know, for the early church defied an empire and the
temple because they were convinced it was so.

So Stanley is suggesting that we not quote the Bible as “Bible” but rather refer to its
contents by citing its authors along with some historical context that lends credibility
to what the author says.

Stanley’s Underlying Viewpoints

Behind Stanley’s decision to move away from “the Bible says” in preaching, and to
move beyond “the Bible tells me so” in discipling our young people, lie three pivotal
views: 1) a view of culture, 2) a view of how the Bible illustrates contextualization, and
3) a view of how redemptive events behind the Bible relate to faith and preaching.

A View of Culture

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 First, with regard to culture, he cites the Barna Group that “48 percent of Americans
qualify as ‘post-Christian.’” This is different from “non-Christian.” The post-
Christian “has been there, done that, and has a closetful of camp T-shirts to show for
it. . . . For post-Christians, common sense, science, philosophy and reason are the go-
tos for worldviews and decision-making. Post-Christian ‘nones’ have a low tolerance
for faith-based answers to fact-based questions. . . . This presents a unique challenge
for us in terms of apologetics and evangelism. It requires a new approach.”

In particular the post-Christian view of the Bible is not what it was in Sunday school.
Quoting again from the Barna Group,

With each passing year, the percentage of Americans who believe that the
Bible is “just another book written by men” increases. So too does the
perception that the Bible is actually harmful and that people who live by its
principles are religious extremists.

Therefore, Stanley concludes,

Appealing to post-Christian people on the basis of the authority of Scripture

has essentially the same effect as a Muslim imam appealing to you on the basis
of the authority of the Quran. . . .

Close to half our population does not view the Bible as authoritative either. If
you’re trying to reach people with an undergraduate degree or greater, over

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 half your target audience will not be moved by the Bible says, the Bible teaches,
God’s Word is clear or anything along those lines.

That is the cultural part of Stanley’s rationale for moving away from citing the Bible
per se as our authority to citing witnesses and events behind the Bible.

Insights from the Preaching of Peter and Paul

Second, Stanley argues that putting biblical authority in the background and putting
the resurrection in the foreground is founded on Scripture itself. In fact, one of his
reasons for responding to his critics was to make clear his commitment to the
authority and inerrancy of the Bible:

I believe the Bible is without error in everything it affirms. I believe what the
Bible says is true, is true. . . . So for anyone out there who is still a bit
suspicious, I affirm The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Therefore, Stanley points out how the Bible itself shows that Peter and Paul used
Scripture differently when preaching in different contexts. For example, when Peter
preached in Acts 2 to the Jewish crowds on the day of Pentecost, he explicitly cites
Scripture and its authors. This was common ground with his audience. But when he
preached in Acts 10 to the Gentile gathering at Cornelius’s house, he mainly narrated
events in Jesus’s life that had recently happened, rather than developing an argument
from Scripture.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Similarly, Paul preached in Acts 13 to the synagogue by unfolding Scripture, but in
Acts 17 he preached to the Athenians without quoting Scripture.

Stanley observes that what was common to all these sermons was the reality of the
resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Then he says,

This is why I’m absolutely convinced of the following: In the marketplace —

not the church — in the public square, in the classroom, we must shift the
debate away from whether the entire Bible is true and focus the debate on
whether Jesus rose from the dead.

Moving Behind the Bible for Authority

Third, Stanley’s approach to preaching is rooted in a view of what is more compelling:
arguments from events and witnesses behind the Bible, or arguments from the Bible
itself as the point of authority?

He says that about eight years ago he changed his method of preaching:

As part of my shift, I stopped leveraging the authority of Scripture and began

leveraging the authority and stories of the people behind the Scripture. To be
clear, I don’t believe “the Bible says,” “Scripture teaches,” and “the Word of
God commands” are incorrect approaches. But they are ineffective approaches
for post-Christian people.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Behind this shift in what authority will be “leveraged” is the historical conviction that
“the Christian faith does not exist because of the Bible (any more than you exist
because of your birth certificate).” Rather,

the Bible exists because of the Christian faith. . . . Before the Old and New
Testaments were combined and titled “The Bible,” Christianity had already
replaced the pantheon of Roman, barbarian, and most Egyptian gods and was
the state religion of the Roman Empire.

The reason for this, he says, is that “for the first 300 years the debate centered on an
event, not a book.”

It is the events, not the record of the events, that birthed the ‘church.’ The
Bible did not create Christianity. Christianity is the reason the Bible was
created. . . . I will continue to insist that the foundation of our faith is not an
inspired book but the events that inspired the book. (his italics)

The implication he draws for preaching is to put the events and stories in the
foreground and the Bible (understood as an authoritative book) in the background.
Hence, instead of “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so,” we say
something like, “Jesus loves me, this I know for John, who watched him die and had
breakfast with him on the beach, tells me so.”

A Surprising Twist
Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 This third foundation of Stanley’s approach to preaching has a surprising twist. It’s
surprising because what he wants to foreground is the reality of events behind the
Bible. But as part of his defense of the resurrection, he insists that some other events
recorded in the Bible need not have happened for the resurrection to still be true.

He mentions, for example, the splitting of the sea at the exodus and the falling of the
walls of Jericho. He claims, “Even if those events never occurred, it does nothing to
undermine the evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus and thus the claims he
made about himself.”

Holding to our faith in the risen Christ, we should not believe, “Everything rises and
falls on whether . . . all the Bible is true.” Thinking that way is “unfortunate and . . .
absolutely unnecessary.” If we stake our faith on the whole Bible being true, then
“Christianity becomes a fragile house-of-cards religion, when we hear that perhaps
the walls of Jericho didn’t come tumbling down.”

He fleshes it out like this:

[Some argue that] if the entire Bible isn’t true, the Bible isn’t true. And if the
Bible isn’t true, Christianity comes tumbling down. So consequently, during
your whole lifetime and my whole lifetime, Christians have felt compelled to
defend the Bible. Because the only way to defend the Christian faith is to
defend the Bible. And what your students have discovered, and if you read
broadly you’ve discovered, is that it is next to impossible to defend the entire
Bible.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 He concludes that if your Christianity hangs on the whole Bible being true, “you may
be able to hang onto it, but your kids and your grandkids and the next generation will
not. Because this puts the Bible at the center of the debate.”

My Response in Four Parts

I have four responses to the kind of preaching Stanley is commending and the way he
makes his case. I would like to put them as questions for younger preachers to
seriously consider.

1. What Is Faith, and How Is It Awakened Through

Preaching?
Since Christian preaching aims to bring about faith in the hearer, two fundamental
and decisive questions behind all views of preaching are: 1) What is the nature of
saving faith? And 2) what are the necessary grounds of saving faith? I say “grounds,”
rather than “ground,” because there are different kinds of grounds: like historical
facts, true interpretation of those facts, understanding of that interpretation, the Holy
Spirit’s illumination, and more.

We want people to hear our preaching and be saved and built up in the faith. So we all
have some view of what saving faith is, and what we need to give people in our

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 preaching to make well-grounded faith possible.

I don’t know Stanley’s answer to these two questions. But I do see what he
emphasizes in the kind of preaching he is commending. He emphasizes the event of
the resurrection of Jesus. And events in general. “I will continue to insist that the
foundation of our faith is not an inspired book but the events that inspired the book.”

But as he shows, it is not the bare event that serves as the foundation for our faith.
Rather, evidences for the event must also be provided. Otherwise we don’t know what
the event was, or have any confidence that it happened.

We must shift the debate away from whether the entire Bible is true and focus
the debate on whether Jesus rose from the dead. That is the issue. And that is
an event for which we have overwhelming evidence. And no, our evidence does
not come from the Bible. Evidence for the resurrection comes from the
eyewitness testimonies of Jesus’ first-century followers who documented not
what they believed but what they saw.

A Happy Emphasis

I am happy for this emphasis on the historicity and verifiability of the bodily
resurrection of Jesus. It does surprise me, though. Because it means Stanley, at least
on this point, is circling around behind postmodernism to the kind of historical,
rational argumentation that marked my days in school, fifty years ago. If that is what

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 he is doing, I think he is right, because I doubt that the vast majority of human beings
have ever been so postmodern that they don’t care about whether something really
happened or not, and how we can know.

So what Stanley wants preachers to do is shift the focus away from grounding faith by
reference to a Book, and rather ground it by reference to an event. To provide evidence
for that faith-grounding event, the preacher goes behind the Book and refers to
historical arguments for the credibility of the witnesses and the factuality of the
event.

What Is Faith?

That is a long-tested apologetic method for helping people come to a well-grounded

faith. It is legitimate. But let me challenge young preachers to be aware of the
limitations of this approach and to test it against their own view of the nature of faith
and its necessary grounds.

Here’s what I mean. Saving faith is not the persuasion that the resurrection of Jesus
rose bodily from the grave. That persuasion is essential to saving faith, but not the
essence of it. The devil knows that Jesus rose from the dead, and he is not saved (see
also Luke 16:31). The essence of saving faith is seeing the supreme beauty of Christ in
the meaning of the event, and embracing him as Savior, and Lord, and the greatest
Treasure in the universe. Satan does not see the crucified and risen Christ as

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 supremely beautiful, and he does not treasure him. But believers do. That is the
essence of saving faith.

You can see this in 2 Corinthians 4:4: “The god of this world has blinded the minds of
the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of
Christ, who is the image of God.” Satan’s aim is not primarily to keep people from
believing Jesus rose from the dead. His aim is primarily to keep people from seeing
“the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” There is a spiritual “light” that shines
through the gospel, and it is the light of the “glory of Christ.” This is what a person
must see if he is to be saved. It is seen with “the eyes of your hearts” (Ephesians 1:18),
when the Holy Spirit lifts the veil from our minds (2 Corinthians 3:16).

What Are the Decisive Grounds of Faith?

If that is the essence of saving faith, what are its decisive grounds? To be sure, the
historical realities of the death and resurrection of Jesus are essential. But what Paul
focuses on is “the gospel” — “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” The
gospel is more than the events of crucifixion and resurrection. It is a God-given
narrative of what the events meant (as in 1 Corinthians 15:3, “for our sins”). It is not
merely the assembly of events and evidences. It is a divine interpretation of their
meaning. “The gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not
receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of
Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11–12).

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 What young preachers need to be clear about in deciding how they will preach is how
God planned for the glory of Christ to be revealed to more and more people as the
centuries pass. When Stanley says, “For the first 300 years the debate centered on an
event, not a book,” that’s not quite right. The debate centered very largely on which
written witnesses provided a trustworthy interpretation of the event. The church
realized immediately that everything hung not just on whether the event happened,
but on what it meant: What were its roots, and accomplishments, and implications for
life and eternity? Who was this man, Jesus? Whom can we trust to tell us? How then
shall we live? Who can tell us this with authority? That was the issue, not just the
event.

God was kind enough to bring those authentic, long-trusted Gospels and Epistles
together in the New Testament in due time. But their trustworthiness and authority
were functioning from the middle of the first century onward. And the most
significant reason God provided these Gospels and Epistles from the beginning was so
that the compelling beauty and worth of Christ would shine through these God-given
writings. That is how people came to faith. They saw the glory of Christ shining
through the writings God had given — or the oral heralding or reading of them.

Therefore, what I am suggesting is that in our present New Testament we have the
consummation of God’s demonstration of the beauty and worth of Christ. It is God’s
own complete portrait of the glory of his Son — the meaning of his work from
eternity to eternity, and its implications for human life.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 What Does This Imply for Faith and Preaching?
First, it implies that the testimony of God in Scripture to the truth and beauty and
worth of Christ is self-authenticating. That is, the decisive cause of saving faith is not
human argument (as crucial as that is). The decisive cause is described in 2
Corinthians 4:6: “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our
hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ.” God creates a real illumination of our hearts by lifting the veil so that we can
see the glory of what is really there in Scripture.

Second, it implies that God’s portrait of Christ, as he is presented in the inspired

Book, is the God-ordained means of creating saving faith.

Third, it implies that preaching that hopes to be used by God to create saving faith
will not assume that there is a more compelling portrait of the glory of Christ behind
the text of the New Testament, in the historical reconstructions of the preacher.

Fourth, it does not imply that a preacher must say “the Bible says,” or “God’s word
says,” or “ . . . for the Bible tells me so.” It implies that the depth and breadth and
beauties of God’s inspired word will be so richly unfolded and applied to the
consciences of the hearers, in the power of the Spirit, that people will encounter the
living God, self-authenticated in his word. It is the divine word, not just the historical
event, where the glory shines.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 2. Do We Rescue One Generation at the Expense of Five?
A second question young preachers should ask is whether Stanley’s way of trying to
rescue one generation might result in losing the next five.

Stanley knows that there are believers who doubt some of the events in the Bible. He
mentions the falling of the walls of Jericho, for example. He wants to rescue those
believers. One of his ways of rescuing them is to say, “Even if those events never
occurred, it does nothing to undermine the evidence supporting the resurrection of
Jesus and thus the claims he made about himself.” He wants those doubting believers
to reject the notion that “everything rises and falls on whether . . . all the Bible is
true.”

Such a notion is “unfortunate and . . . absolutely unnecessary.” Unfortunate because

“it is next to impossible to defend the entire Bible.” Unnecessary because the
resurrection still stands, and “if you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ,
that’s all I need to know. And in light of what’s at stake, in light of who is at stake,
perhaps that’s all you need to know as well.”

I am encouraging every young preacher to think this through very carefully. I am not
suggesting that every sermon must be accompanied by an apologetic for the inerrancy
of the whole Bible, nor even that this conviction needs to be named every time we
open the Scriptures. I have already said that the Bible carries its own self-
authenticating power when its meaning is seen for what it really is.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Rather, what I am suggesting is that Stanley’s view might rescue a doubting believer,
and at the same time establish in churches and families a view of the Bible which
undermines the faith of the next five generations. In view of what Jesus and the New
Testament writers say about the complete trustworthiness of the Old Testament
(“Scripture cannot be broken,” John 10:35), I doubt that generation after generation
of teenagers could read that and yet believe at the same time that it does not matter
for my faith whether the events of the Old Testament really happened.

Notice, I am not saying that a person can’t be saved without believing in the inerrancy
of the Bible. I am saying that making that possibility an apologetic strategy for
making Christianity more plausible to one generation will backfire in the next.

I think that over time Stanley’s fabric of “evidence supporting the resurrection” will
unravel as more and more people think that the Old Testament does not need to be
completely trustworthy. The evidence for the trustworthiness of the witnesses of the
resurrection is too interwoven with the evidence for the inerrancy of the whole Bible. I
think Stanley is mistaken to think that in the coming generations the edifice of
evidence for the gospel can remain standing while surrounding buildings of evidence
for the Scriptures collapse.

3. What Are the Differences for Inside and Outside the

Church?

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Third, I would encourage young preachers to think seriously whether the way Stanley
works out his method inside and outside the church is best for the health and power
of the church over, say, a century.

Here I speak with some hesitation since I do not know the way that teaching the
whole counsel of God happens at his church. My question, nevertheless, is how
Stanley fleshes out the following statement:

I’m absolutely convinced of the following: In the marketplace — not the

church — in the public square, in the classroom, we must shift the debate
away from whether the entire Bible is true and focus the debate on whether
Jesus rose from the dead.

Clearly, he has a distinction in his mind for how we speak “in the marketplace” but
not “the church.” I think this is absolutely right. Stanley’s argument from how Peter
and Paul preached differently in different contexts in Acts is compelling.

But the sermon that stirred up so much criticism for Stanley (“The Bible Told Me So”)
was preached in his church, not in the marketplace. Now here is where my ignorance
may be relevant. Stanley may view his weekend services as marketplace events rather
than services of worship for the gathered church.

If so, I would simply encourage young preachers to think seriously about whether that
is wise. If a preacher takes all the assumptions and methods which shape his approach
to “non-Christians” and “post-Christians,” and then makes them normative for how

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 he speaks regularly in worship with God’s people, will this build a people with enough
biblical understanding and strength and ability to suffer joyfully, so that the church
can stand for a century of faithfulness and fruitfulness?

4. Why Are Our Young People Leaving?

Finally, I would encourage younger preachers not to blow off what Andy Stanley says.
Consider this: in this long article I am probably not defending what Stanley is
rejecting. I am asking you to question whether his alternative to what he is rejecting is
the best alternative.

1) For example, I am not saying we have done a great job in bringing our young people
from a simple trust in what Momma said (“The Bible Tells Me So”) to an intellectually
credible faith that will weather the university challenges. But I would draw out the
truth of something Stanley said which shows how complex this issue is. He explained
why so many young people leave the faith like this:

Like most of us, they aren’t exactly on a truth quest either. They’re on a
happiness quest. Many walked away from faith because faith didn’t make them
happy. That’s never a presenting reason. Nobody wants to appear that shallow.
But scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find the quest for happiness plays a
big role. When faith is viewed as an impediment to happiness, goodbye faith.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 That’s true. Which means — and I’m sure Stanley would agree — that the issues in
the family and in the youth ministry are not only epistemological, but deeply personal
and spiritual and relational. Children walk away from the faith in the best and worst
of families. They leave the faith in the best and worst of churches.

So yes, let us do better. Let us always do better. What that better looks like is what this
article is about. It may not be telling the teenagers that Old Testament events need not
have happened for faith in the resurrection to stand. It may be a richly relational
engagement with the best arguments for the truth of all Scripture between the ages of
13 and 18.

Another Way Not to Say “The Bible Tells Me So”

2) Nor am I defending any particular way of referring to biblical authority when you
preach (“The Bible says” or “God’s word says”). I suppose in my own preaching I
have most regularly said, “Paul says,” or “Matthew wrote,” or “Jesus said.”

What I am defending is that it is possible not to sound naïve or childish in taking a

text — smack dab in front of a “post-Christian” audience — and opening it in the
power of the Holy Spirit with such insight into human nature, and such displays of
God’s wonder, and such love for lost people, that all their “post-Christian” defenses
fall to the ground, and they sense that God is in this place.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 I am arguing that a God-breathed, inerrant Bible, with Jesus Christ at the center, is
explosive with its own intrinsic and self-authenticating glory. The joyful experience of
this glory is what every human heart in the preacher’s audience was made for. This is
what Paul was getting at when he said that every human being (including post-
Christians) knows God: “Although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or
give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking” (Romans 1:21). Everyone
in the preacher’s audience knows God.

It may be that the Spirit-empowered heralding of the glory of this God, from the very
text of Scripture, will cut through the “futility” of their thinking, and their suicidal
love affair with sin (which they also know about, Romans 1:32), and authenticate itself
as true. Many Bible-rejecters have testified to such an experience. The Bible itself has
often proved to be more powerful than any argument for the Bible.

I think Stanley is only half right when he says, “Appealing to post-Christian people on
the basis of the authority of Scripture has essentially the same effect as a Muslim
imam appealing to you on the basis of the authority of the Quran.” He is right in that
this happens. God’s inspired word is sometimes heard with no effect. But not always,
and not usually. It is different from the Quran. It is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). It
is not preached in vain — especially not when, in the hands of a Spirit-filled preacher,
the truth and beauty of its depths and heights are spoken with clarity and conviction
for what they really are.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Paul said that “all Scripture is . . . profitable” (2 Timothy 3:16). He said that the blood
of the Ephesians was not on his hands because he “did not shrink from declaring to
you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Vast and glorious stretches of Scripture
await the preacher’s exposition for God’s people. This is a great calling, and a great
and joyful burden, for every pastor.

Connect the Voltage

So my concluding suggestion is this: join Andy Stanley in caring deeply about winning
“post-Christians”; join him in moving beyond simplistic and naïve-sounding
shibboleths; join him in cultural awareness and insight into your audience; join him in
the excellence of his teaching and communication skills; and join him in his belief in
the complete truthfulness of the Bible. And then spend eight years blowing your
people’s post-Christian circuits by connecting the voltage of every line in the book of
Romans with their brains.

When it comes to preaching, nothing is more powerful and self-authenticating than

the Spirit-anointed, passionate, expository exultation over the inspired text of
Scripture. If you don’t believe that, perhaps you have never seen such preaching.

John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem
College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis,

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books, including Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian
Hedonist and most recently Providence.

New Resources
in Your Inbox
A digest from Desiring God

Email Address Subscribe

3315.5 px

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 LO O K AT T H E BO O K A RT I C L E

First the Church, The Safest Man for

Then Marriage Women
Follows How Christian men treat sex, whether married
or not, sheds light on Christ for all to see, or
The model for the first marriage was modeled obscures and slanders him.
after Jesus and his Bride; not vice versa. This is
the meaning of marriage.

John Piper Marshall Segal

God is most glorified in us WAYS TO FO L LOW

when we are most

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 satisfied in him
Learn more about Desiring God
N E W R ESO U RC ES I N YO U R I N BOX

Email Address Subscribe

Translations Permissions Privacy Give

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD