Theological Accuracy: 20/40 Why the low score? The question ought to be this: why the high score? The score is not lower because, for once, the low number of pages actually dealing with heaven helps him here. Surely he cannot err too many times in 16 pages?
Here's what makes grading this so difficult: how do you say to someone, "your experience was wrong"? You really can't. You can say, "Your experience is different from the experience of other, more trustworthy, people who claim the same thing you have." And that's what I'm doing here. The "other, more trustworthy" person in this case is the apostle John. But we can say Piper is wrong because when you say something different from what the Bible says (for example, the Bible is the Word of God, but so is the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, etc.), that is wrong. The Bible is the standard against which we measure our experiences. Scripture is the filter for experience; experience is not the filter for Scripture. In other words, the Bible tells us what our experiences in life mean. It is not "our experiences tell us what the Bible means," as is the mistake of so many.
Back to Piper. Here are my biggest peeves with his experience of heaven.
1) He believes there is no sense of time in Heaven. Apart from some philosophical objections to finite creatures living in a timeless existence, my concern is biblical. He writes, "I'm not sure if they actually said the words or not, but I knew they had been waiting and expecting me, yet I also knew that in heaven there is no sense of time passing" (25). Here he's speaking about loved ones who came to greet him in Heaven. Piper betrays his own conclusion about there not being a sense of time when he "knew" they had been waiting and expecting him, things no one can do without a sense of time. If we look in Revelation, we see more than once a sense of time: Rev. 6:10-11: the martyrs (in Heaven!) "called out in a loud voice, 'How long, Sovereign Lord, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?' Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed." See also Rev. 8:1 and every reference containing the word "then" (about 53 times in Revelation).
2) Piper believes there are no songs in Heaven about Jesus' death. "As I stood before the gate, I didn't think of it, but later I realized that I didn't hear such songs as 'The Old Rugged Cross' or 'The Nail-Scarred Hand.' None of the hymns that filled the air were about Jesus' sacrifice or death. I heard no sad songs and instinctively knew that there are no sad songs in heaven. Why would there be? All were praises about Christ's reign as King of Kings and our joyful worship for all he has done for us and how wonderful he is" (31). This has to be one of the most mind-boggling contentions in the whole book. A few notes here:
- There are indeed songs about Jesus' death in Heaven (Rev. 5:9-14). According to the song in Rev. 5, the reason Jesus is worthy to open the scrolls is "because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (5:9)!
- Every mention of Jesus appearing as a Lamb is a reference to his death (5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:3, 5, 7, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8; 15:3; 21:9 to name a few). Even if these are not songs, Jesus being the slain Lamb is a central theme in Revelation. Apart from the OT imagery of sacrificing lambs to atone for sins, this metaphor would not make any sense.
- How could there be songs about "all he has done for us" if those songs did not include his death for our sins? The greatest work of Jesus was done on the cross; "all he has done for us" is almost meaningless apart from the cross.
- Are songs about Jesus' death really sad? I would submit that songs about Jesus' death are some of the happiest, most joyful songs we sing. His death and resurrection is the good news!
Persuasion: 10/25 I am not persuaded because of two factors: 1) the glaring theological errors, and 2) the self-centered nature of the entire book. Yes, it's autobiographical. Yes, it's about experience. But at times it goes beyond "telling my story" to "promoting my story." Take this excerpt for example: "I'm writing about what happened because my story seems to mean so much to people for many different reasons. For example, when I speak to any large crowd, at least one person will be present who has recently lost a loved one and needs assurance of that person's destination. When I finish speaking, it still amazes me to see how quickly the line forms of those who want to talk to me. They come with tears in their eyes and grief written all over their faces. I feel so grateful that I can offer them peace and assurance" (128-129). Me, me, me, me, me, me. Forget the Bible, I'm just glad my story can help people. How arrogant! Mr. Piper, you can't truly give assurance of anyone's destination; how do you know?
There are other things about this book I just don't like, little statements here and there that get me bent out of shape. He says that "I've changed the way I do funerals. Now I can speak authoritatively about heaven from firsthand knowledge" (129). To me, this says, "I trust my experience more than I trust Scripture. I could never speak authoritatively just using the Bible." Doesn't that sound crazy? Later he talks about knowing that heaven is real because he's been there (195). Pardon me, but I know heaven is real because Jesus said it was. I knew it without having to go there first! Does Piper need to go to hell to know that it, too, exists?
Conclusion: I don't recommend this book to help people cope with death or uncertainty about Heaven. I recommend Scripture for that. It's a somewhat interesting read, but I grew weary of reading about how much pain he suffered in his leg and how depressed he was. I really grew weary of him describing how much he (not God) has helped people with his story.
Something happened to Don Piper that day, but I don't think it was a trip to heaven.