What do you think?
Rate this book
The Pied Piper: Is John Piper and New Calvinism Destroying the Church?
By the author of The Hedonism and Homosexuality of John Piper and Sam AllberryMartin Luther once said, "There is great danger in speaking of the things of God in a different manner and in different terms than God Himself employs."This book takes a scriptural look at John Piper, whose influence over the church in the past three decades has been immense. The author is a young Chistian who once read Piper's works and was captivated by the popularity and success of the movement which Piper is the undisputed father of, New Calvinism.Piper's greatest impact has been on the beliefs and actions of Christian youth. Famed for his support of the well-known Passion Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, Piper's philosophical doctrine of Christian hedonism (seeking pleasure in God) has enamoured hundreds of thousands of young people. His teaching has led to new attitudes on Christian holiness, sexual sin and Christian witness in the public square.For years now, Piper has been a controversial figures in church circles. Few are willing to challenge his authenticity, despite glaring inconsistencies in his life and doctrine. This book examines the doctrine and fruits of John Piper, in the context of the demise in true holiness in the church today.The AuthorEnoch Burke holds a Bachelor of Theological Studies (TNARS), a Masters in Education, and a BA in History and Politics (NUI Galway). He is the author of The Hedonism and Homosexuality of John Piper and Sam The Truth of Scripture (Burke Publishing, 2020).Enoch divides his time between Castlebar in the West of Ireland and the Irish Midlands. He has taught at second-level for over 10 years and is a former Auditor of the NUI Galway Christian Union.
- GenresNonfiction
120 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 15, 2017
15 people are currently reading
229 people want to read
About the author
Enoch Burke
2 books15 followersEnoch Burke holds a Professional Masters in Education (NUI Galway), a BA in History and Politics (NUI Galway), a Bachelor of Theological Studies, and a Diploma in Music (Royal Irish Academy of Music).
He currently resides in Castlebar in the West of Ireland and has taught at second-level for over 10 years. Enoch is a former Auditor of the NUI Galway Christian Union.
His most recent book was published in August 2020 and is entitled: The Hedonism and Homosexuality of John Piper and Sam Allberry - The Truth of Scripture.
Follow him on on Twitter @EnochBurke.
He currently resides in Castlebar in the West of Ireland and has taught at second-level for over 10 years. Enoch is a former Auditor of the NUI Galway Christian Union.
His most recent book was published in August 2020 and is entitled: The Hedonism and Homosexuality of John Piper and Sam Allberry - The Truth of Scripture.
Follow him on on Twitter @EnochBurke.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
January 20, 2021
My first thought was does the world need another book about the hedonism of John Piper. The answer is a definite yes. The contrast between C S Lewis and the church martyrs is convicting. I have seen, and been concerned, as celebrity pastors have welcomed Mr Piper to their events, the author rightly points out it is wrong.
January 16, 2021
I don't even know how to start reviewing this book.
He starts arguing that John Piper is progressive. I guess that's when he absolutely lost me.
He attacks John Piper and New Calvinism a lot for their theology but never really points out what points or issues he is bothered about.
He is sooooo agressive and sure that he's right and everyone else is wrong. He compares New Calvinism to the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century and he sees himself as a new Luther fighting against it.
I mean, I really don't like John Piper and New Calvinism. But this critique made me actually like them both a little more than before. What a fail of a book.
If I could give it 0 stars that would be more accurate. This book was for free on Amazon and it was still a waste of my resources. Yuk!
He starts arguing that John Piper is progressive. I guess that's when he absolutely lost me.
He attacks John Piper and New Calvinism a lot for their theology but never really points out what points or issues he is bothered about.
He is sooooo agressive and sure that he's right and everyone else is wrong. He compares New Calvinism to the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century and he sees himself as a new Luther fighting against it.
I mean, I really don't like John Piper and New Calvinism. But this critique made me actually like them both a little more than before. What a fail of a book.
If I could give it 0 stars that would be more accurate. This book was for free on Amazon and it was still a waste of my resources. Yuk!
June 13, 2018
It's been a long time since I read anyone who was so against all forms of sexual sin, any hint of Roman Catholicism, ecumenism, dancing, drinking, card playing, and even the association with people who do engage in these activities. My first thought was that Mr. Burke was just way too harsh on John Piper and that he had cherry-picked Martin Luther's quotes to make him seem more pure in his thinking than he actually was. I'm not used to reading such judgmental material.
However, I realize that his message, while overstated, is that we must look to God's Word and God's standard of purity to guide our behavior as Christians. We deny the power of God to overcome sin if we compromise on issues such as marital faithfulness, homosexuality, and any of the addictive behaviors that Christians are caving on today. Compromise is not the way. Jesus is.
However, I realize that his message, while overstated, is that we must look to God's Word and God's standard of purity to guide our behavior as Christians. We deny the power of God to overcome sin if we compromise on issues such as marital faithfulness, homosexuality, and any of the addictive behaviors that Christians are caving on today. Compromise is not the way. Jesus is.
October 10, 2021
This is not a serious book–though it’s painfully aware that the author believes it is. It’s actually 120 pages of misrepresentation and slander. Disagree with Piper all you want; find his teaching troubling even. That’s a defendable position. But the borderline obsession with drinking alcohol (though Piper himself is a teetotaler) and the author’s incessant mention of Piper being a neo-evangelical rather than a fundamentalist shows this is a polemical piece of fundamentalist propaganda, not a serious critique of Piper’s views.
There is so much wrong with the book I’d simply like to deal with most troubling and grotesque portion for it reveals the spirit behind the book. In the chapter, “Who is John Piper?,” Burke spends multiple pages narrowing in on Piper’s wife and children as themselves irreverent to God and heretical (p34-38). Two points here:
1) A man’s children being believers is out of that man’s hands, which I believe Burke would agree with as a Reformed Christian. So is it a point against Piper that one of his sons is an avowed and public atheist? What does this add to the argument against Piper? His lack of sovereignty over his children proved what exactly? Burke doesn’t say. He just throws mud on the public children and wife of Piper and moves on. Which makes sense seeing as they are pawns in his overall scheme and he has no genuine love for them as images of God.
2) Furthermore, Nöel, Talitha, and Barnabas are avowed and public believers. To assault their character and faith is beyond the pale. It is evidence of something far worse than Burke’s poor argumentation: it is slander and a malicious spirit. Burke clearly fails to appreciate the weight of words like heresy and “lack of reverence for God” (38). He questions their faith (at best) to score points against his imagined opponent. (I say “imagined” because throughout the book it becomes clear that the “John Piper” he is writing about is so far removed from reality he becomes only a figment of Burke’s sick imagination).
This part of the book should reveal enough about Burke to cause pause. Burke is clearly troubled and seems to be lost in the worst caverns of the sea of fundamentalism. I am astounded at his ability to write such things without any sense of conviction of their impropriety.
Beyond those troubling things, the presentation of Piper’s doctrine is simply inaccurate at best and even nefarious. This is a hit piece of a “book,” and a very poorly executed one at that. It doesn’t deserve serious engagement and this review has already given it more of that than it’s due. If you have read to this point, I ask that you join me in praying for both Piper and Burke.
There is so much wrong with the book I’d simply like to deal with most troubling and grotesque portion for it reveals the spirit behind the book. In the chapter, “Who is John Piper?,” Burke spends multiple pages narrowing in on Piper’s wife and children as themselves irreverent to God and heretical (p34-38). Two points here:
1) A man’s children being believers is out of that man’s hands, which I believe Burke would agree with as a Reformed Christian. So is it a point against Piper that one of his sons is an avowed and public atheist? What does this add to the argument against Piper? His lack of sovereignty over his children proved what exactly? Burke doesn’t say. He just throws mud on the public children and wife of Piper and moves on. Which makes sense seeing as they are pawns in his overall scheme and he has no genuine love for them as images of God.
2) Furthermore, Nöel, Talitha, and Barnabas are avowed and public believers. To assault their character and faith is beyond the pale. It is evidence of something far worse than Burke’s poor argumentation: it is slander and a malicious spirit. Burke clearly fails to appreciate the weight of words like heresy and “lack of reverence for God” (38). He questions their faith (at best) to score points against his imagined opponent. (I say “imagined” because throughout the book it becomes clear that the “John Piper” he is writing about is so far removed from reality he becomes only a figment of Burke’s sick imagination).
This part of the book should reveal enough about Burke to cause pause. Burke is clearly troubled and seems to be lost in the worst caverns of the sea of fundamentalism. I am astounded at his ability to write such things without any sense of conviction of their impropriety.
Beyond those troubling things, the presentation of Piper’s doctrine is simply inaccurate at best and even nefarious. This is a hit piece of a “book,” and a very poorly executed one at that. It doesn’t deserve serious engagement and this review has already given it more of that than it’s due. If you have read to this point, I ask that you join me in praying for both Piper and Burke.
May 25, 2018
This is hard to keep my remarks to just a few. In order to fully review, I feel like I would need to write my own book to counter. :) To summarize, I think this book will be polarizing. I think there will be a lot of 4-5 star reviews from those who already agree with his assertions, but there will be a lot of 1-2 star reviews from those who disagree with his conclusions.
As for me, I agree with some of his conclusions; however, I arrived at them for different reasons. And as to his scholarship, I wasn't impressed. Trying to keep my comments constructive, I will give 2 stars, as I have mixed feelings and opinions, but I'm not sure that I can honestly recommend it.
It's not a long read; even my husband, not a great reader, read this all in one afternoon. But I got too angry and had to put the book down several times. I began to realize that I couldn't read it in a bad mood or when I was in my editor mode, as I began to criticize every other sentence. And that's my fault.
Negatives:
The qualities I got angry about were his unloving delivery and illogical methods of assuming. The author is coming from a very conservative Fundamentalist view, which I grew up with but have been freed from in some ways. So many of his assertions (most of them without adequate proof) are just his judgmental opinions stated in a very dogmatic tone. There are also many assumptions made, one of which is that the reader already comes from a Fundamentalist worldview. Many of the first arguments he has against John Piper are indicative of the faults of Fundamentalism in general.
He used at least one verse out of context as the basis for an entire argument.
He rails on the unbalanced focus of Piper's followers as “likely to emphasize grace over law, love over obedience, and forgiveness over faithfulness” (p.56-7). However, the focus of this entire book has been to point out as many negatives as possible. It certainly hasn't helped me think about what is honorable, just, pure, lovely, worthy to be repeated, virtuous, or praiseworthy, as Philippians 4:8 commands us to.
He used very strong, negative language against Piper and his family, calling his son blasphemous and Piper himself a “heretic” (p.112) and of the devil (“not of God,” p.38-41). There is no graciousness, no attempt to love this brother back to the truth (Gal. 5:13-15; Gal. 6:1).
Before he even discussed Piper's doctrine, his judgmental attitude damaged his credibility with his name-calling of Piper as the face of neo-evangelicalism and ecumenism rather than gracefully and logically explaining the fallacies of New Calvinism. It almost seems that he tacked on New Calvinism to the subtitle just so that he could add his complaints about Tim Keller, Rick Warren, Billy Graham, and Carrie Underwood, as well as all Catholics.
Several examples were pure speculation (p.86), taken out of context (C.H. Spurgeon's example of Samson as a consecrated man without ever mentioning how worldly and impure Samson was [p.107]), or irrelevant (p.96 was irrelevant for everyone except the Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland).
Positives:
I do appreciate the author's focus on truth and “contending for the faith,” based on Jude. It is something that has been lost in many Evangelical circles. I agree that a true understanding of the grace of God should teach us to “deny ungodliness & worldly lusts...” (1 Tim. 2:12).
I also appreciated his insight on Matthew 24:12 (p. 57), that an increase of lawlessness is accompanied by the demise of love. It is very true that the way to love God is to obey His commandments (John 14:21; 1 John 2:4-6). But it is also true that the law of God could be summed up, in Christ's own words, in these two commandments: 1) love the Lord your God... and 2) love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40). I didn't see the author showing love to Piper anywhere.
The last couple pages were rousing and inspiring; however, practical ways to “fight, fight not for yourselves alone, but for the next generation” (p.116) were lacking. The last chapter is titled, “Taking Back the Church.” But the only two ways I could see that he recommended to take it back are to 1. leave your church if it's preaching New Calvinism and 2. vocally declare your stance against it. Not exactly the practical application I was hoping for.
I did appreciate and/or agree with a few nuggets, like:
“Today it is popular for pulpit and pew to profess their love for truth; it is far less popular, however, to contend for it” (p.15).
“Repentance that leads to salvation (2 Cor. 7:10) is no sentimental feeling, neither is it a fruitless intellectual endeavor” (p. 64).
“Fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are all topics about which parents should instruct their children in the right ways of the Lord, counseling them to conduct themselves in a way which honors Him” (p.87).
“A true allegiance to the truth is one which is sincere...'without wax'” (p.99).
(I received this book free, but the decision to write a review, as well as the opinions expressed in it, are all my own. I was not compensated, obviously.)
As for me, I agree with some of his conclusions; however, I arrived at them for different reasons. And as to his scholarship, I wasn't impressed. Trying to keep my comments constructive, I will give 2 stars, as I have mixed feelings and opinions, but I'm not sure that I can honestly recommend it.
It's not a long read; even my husband, not a great reader, read this all in one afternoon. But I got too angry and had to put the book down several times. I began to realize that I couldn't read it in a bad mood or when I was in my editor mode, as I began to criticize every other sentence. And that's my fault.
Negatives:
The qualities I got angry about were his unloving delivery and illogical methods of assuming. The author is coming from a very conservative Fundamentalist view, which I grew up with but have been freed from in some ways. So many of his assertions (most of them without adequate proof) are just his judgmental opinions stated in a very dogmatic tone. There are also many assumptions made, one of which is that the reader already comes from a Fundamentalist worldview. Many of the first arguments he has against John Piper are indicative of the faults of Fundamentalism in general.
He used at least one verse out of context as the basis for an entire argument.
He rails on the unbalanced focus of Piper's followers as “likely to emphasize grace over law, love over obedience, and forgiveness over faithfulness” (p.56-7). However, the focus of this entire book has been to point out as many negatives as possible. It certainly hasn't helped me think about what is honorable, just, pure, lovely, worthy to be repeated, virtuous, or praiseworthy, as Philippians 4:8 commands us to.
He used very strong, negative language against Piper and his family, calling his son blasphemous and Piper himself a “heretic” (p.112) and of the devil (“not of God,” p.38-41). There is no graciousness, no attempt to love this brother back to the truth (Gal. 5:13-15; Gal. 6:1).
Before he even discussed Piper's doctrine, his judgmental attitude damaged his credibility with his name-calling of Piper as the face of neo-evangelicalism and ecumenism rather than gracefully and logically explaining the fallacies of New Calvinism. It almost seems that he tacked on New Calvinism to the subtitle just so that he could add his complaints about Tim Keller, Rick Warren, Billy Graham, and Carrie Underwood, as well as all Catholics.
Several examples were pure speculation (p.86), taken out of context (C.H. Spurgeon's example of Samson as a consecrated man without ever mentioning how worldly and impure Samson was [p.107]), or irrelevant (p.96 was irrelevant for everyone except the Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland).
Positives:
I do appreciate the author's focus on truth and “contending for the faith,” based on Jude. It is something that has been lost in many Evangelical circles. I agree that a true understanding of the grace of God should teach us to “deny ungodliness & worldly lusts...” (1 Tim. 2:12).
I also appreciated his insight on Matthew 24:12 (p. 57), that an increase of lawlessness is accompanied by the demise of love. It is very true that the way to love God is to obey His commandments (John 14:21; 1 John 2:4-6). But it is also true that the law of God could be summed up, in Christ's own words, in these two commandments: 1) love the Lord your God... and 2) love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40). I didn't see the author showing love to Piper anywhere.
The last couple pages were rousing and inspiring; however, practical ways to “fight, fight not for yourselves alone, but for the next generation” (p.116) were lacking. The last chapter is titled, “Taking Back the Church.” But the only two ways I could see that he recommended to take it back are to 1. leave your church if it's preaching New Calvinism and 2. vocally declare your stance against it. Not exactly the practical application I was hoping for.
I did appreciate and/or agree with a few nuggets, like:
“Today it is popular for pulpit and pew to profess their love for truth; it is far less popular, however, to contend for it” (p.15).
“Repentance that leads to salvation (2 Cor. 7:10) is no sentimental feeling, neither is it a fruitless intellectual endeavor” (p. 64).
“Fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are all topics about which parents should instruct their children in the right ways of the Lord, counseling them to conduct themselves in a way which honors Him” (p.87).
“A true allegiance to the truth is one which is sincere...'without wax'” (p.99).
(I received this book free, but the decision to write a review, as well as the opinions expressed in it, are all my own. I was not compensated, obviously.)
April 8, 2018
I received this book from the author in exchange for a review.
Burke goes after John Piper and New Calvinism in a passionate well-written argument that Piper is leading people astray and away from the church. I agreed with Burke on about half of his argument. I do think our society has walked away from God's Word or have creatively interpreted to justify what they, and society, thinks God should say. God's Word doesn't change, we have. This such as sexual activity is viewed by society and the church so differently then it was 15-20 years ago. If you dare speak out loud what God's Word says regarding sex you are viewed as a right wing homophobe.
I do think Burke is a little harsh. We are all sinners and the Church is suppose to be a home for sinners. Hopefully they will develop their relationship with Jesus and they will change their actions as a result of knowing Christ. Burke is highly critical of Piper and his family for their actions. I hope Pastor Burke doesn't ever make a mistake.
Besides going after Piper Burke goes after Billy Graham and Rick Warren for their acceptance of Catholics and the Pope. Although as a Protestant I have theological disagreements with Catholics, I too think that Jesus is the way to heaven and the rest is really meaningless.
Burke is a good writer who makes a passionate thought provoking argument in an easy to read book that calls out issues that I hadn't even considered before. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I know I struggle with that at times.
Burke goes after John Piper and New Calvinism in a passionate well-written argument that Piper is leading people astray and away from the church. I agreed with Burke on about half of his argument. I do think our society has walked away from God's Word or have creatively interpreted to justify what they, and society, thinks God should say. God's Word doesn't change, we have. This such as sexual activity is viewed by society and the church so differently then it was 15-20 years ago. If you dare speak out loud what God's Word says regarding sex you are viewed as a right wing homophobe.
I do think Burke is a little harsh. We are all sinners and the Church is suppose to be a home for sinners. Hopefully they will develop their relationship with Jesus and they will change their actions as a result of knowing Christ. Burke is highly critical of Piper and his family for their actions. I hope Pastor Burke doesn't ever make a mistake.
Besides going after Piper Burke goes after Billy Graham and Rick Warren for their acceptance of Catholics and the Pope. Although as a Protestant I have theological disagreements with Catholics, I too think that Jesus is the way to heaven and the rest is really meaningless.
Burke is a good writer who makes a passionate thought provoking argument in an easy to read book that calls out issues that I hadn't even considered before. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I know I struggle with that at times.
February 10, 2021
I've never read a book of John Piper's and have no desire to. I do not believe that hedonism has any place in the Christian Life. I do think this book is worth reading but I do not agree with all the authors views.
February 18, 2021
This is by far the worst book I've read in a long time. I by no means think John Piper is above correction, but this attempt is completely misguided. If you need some examples, just look through my highlights from the book.
March 5, 2023
This is basically an attack on the Protestant ecumenist John Piper; Burke accuses him of “heresy” on the grounds of his ecumenism and his liberalism. While the archaic term “heresy” will be familiar, the term “Christian hedonism” is one I had never heard before (it conjures up images of the Fr Ted episode in which Fr Noel Furlong and his youth group enjoy a vigorous Irish dancing session in a caravan).
I had never heard of John Piper until I came across this book (his name is not quite up there with other celebrated leaders of Protestantism such as Calvin, John Knox, Wesley, Martin Luther, the Rev Ian Paisley, etc.) so I will preface this review by admitting that I still have not formed an opinion on John Piper’s alleged heresy, but that I have gained an insight into Burke’s own brand of Protestantism.
As a far-from-perfect Christian - indeed, a Catholic - I would probably be branded a heretic by Mr Burke. However, I respect his sincerity and would agree with him on several moral issues.
The thought process behind this book is probably incomprehensible to anyone who has not, at least once in their life, been a fundamentalist of some kind. I feel I am in a position to understand its premise based on the fact that, as a child, I suffered from “scrupulosity” (an intense form of Catholic guilt triggered, in my case, by a perfectionist mindset and a tendency to over-think issues such as justice and morality). My brief bout of religious extremism was quelled by the realisation that Christianity is about God embracing us despite our imperfections. At the same time, I share with Burke a dislike of the “Kumbayah” anything-goes mindset pervading all of the Christian denominations.
So I approached this book from the position of having a sympathy, if not full support, for puritanical Protestantism; I believe Puritans miss the point of Christianity, and that they fail to recognise the spirit and mysticism of faith (which is intrinsic to traditional Catholicism).
While any Catholic will find Burke’s general attitude to Catholicism offensive, we owe him the recognition that it comes from his own pure belief that he is right and that we are wrong, and out of his genuine intention to instil a moral compass in all of us.
Like a lot of fundamentalists, he relies, for his arguments, on the Apostolic letters and the vernacular translations of the Old Testament, ignoring Christ’s message - through words and deed - of tolerance (though he does point out that Christ already saved us).
However, it’s well written and eloquently makes the case against ecumenism and compromise.
Burke starts off by expressing his admiration for the martyrs of the Reformation. Regardless of any reader’s beliefs, and notwithstanding Burke's methods of bearing witness to his faith (in this book and through public campaigns), it is clear that Burke is earnest in his mission to be a true follower of Christ.
No fair-minded Catholic could disagree with him on the immorality of the sale of “indulgences” (a term which may not be familiar to anyone who has not read about Martin Luther King’s campaign against the practise of selling favours in order to apparently guarantee a place in Heaven - this is what triggered the Reformation); in modern terms selling “indulgences” could theoretically include holding a church fête.
Burke is also against Confession but does not explain why (surely it is good to examine one’s conscience and confess to one’s sins with the guidance of a trained spiritual leader?). He’s against pilgrimages (again, why?) and what he terms “worship of the saints” (this phrase of his belies a simplistic misconception of what Catholics do when we pray to a Saint; we ask them to use their sanctity to intercede for us, not because we can’t speak directly to God and certainly not like a litigant employing a lawyer to put their case in court as fundamentalist seem to believe, but because praying with the help of the saints is a way of showing our respect to God).
In common with evangelicals and fundamentalists in general, he also denigrates the Catholic (and indeed High Anglican) honour of the Virgin Mary. I find this to be a bizarre attitude in fundamentalists, given that they easily accept a literal narrative of the Creation. (Note re the Virgin Mary: Catholics and High Anglicans believe that the Mother of God is pure, we believe in the Trinity, and we believe that God is omnipotent, so it is not a great leap of faith for us to accept that the Mother of God incarnate, Jesus, is a virgin - no offence intended to non-virgins).
Burke’s ad hominem attack on CS Lewis is an example of the puritanical mindset; he mentions the man’s dissolute lifestyle and quotes the Bible “By their fruits shall ye know them” - to which I raise him: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and would caution him in his apparent sense of righteousness that pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
He regards the use of the vernacular versions of the Bible as perfect, and, as a pure Protestant, is dismissive of the weight traditional Catholics give to the worship of God through the medium of the ancient languages (which, for a traditional Catholic are an expression of the sacred; their sounds and the arrangement of words are poetic and cannot be translated into the prosaic without some loss of reverence). While I can see his point of view regarding the need to read God’s words directly, this is not possible since translations are an imperfect means of communication; languages were not created with other languages in mind.
It’s not clear how he (and other puritans) can dismiss as “idolatry” prayer accompanied by visual reminders in the form of statues, or make a blanket condemnation of music and dancing (he believes they are intrinsically “ungodly” and “pagan”). Re dancing: Burke blames Salome’s dancing for Herod’s decision to have John the Baptist beheaded; while it is, no doubt, true that Salome used her dancing and sensuality (Burke is also against sensuality) to corrupt Herod, it takes some imagination to make the leap between the Dance of the Seven Veils and a Ceilidh in a Northern Irish church hall (complete with diddly-eye music!). He doesn’t mention the Wedding Feast of Cana, at which there was no doubt much merriment, including dancing.
All of the above notwithstanding, I found the book refreshing in its honesty and admire Mr Burke and his family for their bravery, integrity and genuine goodness. I do not personally know the Burke family and bought this book on Amazon.
I had never heard of John Piper until I came across this book (his name is not quite up there with other celebrated leaders of Protestantism such as Calvin, John Knox, Wesley, Martin Luther, the Rev Ian Paisley, etc.) so I will preface this review by admitting that I still have not formed an opinion on John Piper’s alleged heresy, but that I have gained an insight into Burke’s own brand of Protestantism.
As a far-from-perfect Christian - indeed, a Catholic - I would probably be branded a heretic by Mr Burke. However, I respect his sincerity and would agree with him on several moral issues.
The thought process behind this book is probably incomprehensible to anyone who has not, at least once in their life, been a fundamentalist of some kind. I feel I am in a position to understand its premise based on the fact that, as a child, I suffered from “scrupulosity” (an intense form of Catholic guilt triggered, in my case, by a perfectionist mindset and a tendency to over-think issues such as justice and morality). My brief bout of religious extremism was quelled by the realisation that Christianity is about God embracing us despite our imperfections. At the same time, I share with Burke a dislike of the “Kumbayah” anything-goes mindset pervading all of the Christian denominations.
So I approached this book from the position of having a sympathy, if not full support, for puritanical Protestantism; I believe Puritans miss the point of Christianity, and that they fail to recognise the spirit and mysticism of faith (which is intrinsic to traditional Catholicism).
While any Catholic will find Burke’s general attitude to Catholicism offensive, we owe him the recognition that it comes from his own pure belief that he is right and that we are wrong, and out of his genuine intention to instil a moral compass in all of us.
Like a lot of fundamentalists, he relies, for his arguments, on the Apostolic letters and the vernacular translations of the Old Testament, ignoring Christ’s message - through words and deed - of tolerance (though he does point out that Christ already saved us).
However, it’s well written and eloquently makes the case against ecumenism and compromise.
Burke starts off by expressing his admiration for the martyrs of the Reformation. Regardless of any reader’s beliefs, and notwithstanding Burke's methods of bearing witness to his faith (in this book and through public campaigns), it is clear that Burke is earnest in his mission to be a true follower of Christ.
No fair-minded Catholic could disagree with him on the immorality of the sale of “indulgences” (a term which may not be familiar to anyone who has not read about Martin Luther King’s campaign against the practise of selling favours in order to apparently guarantee a place in Heaven - this is what triggered the Reformation); in modern terms selling “indulgences” could theoretically include holding a church fête.
Burke is also against Confession but does not explain why (surely it is good to examine one’s conscience and confess to one’s sins with the guidance of a trained spiritual leader?). He’s against pilgrimages (again, why?) and what he terms “worship of the saints” (this phrase of his belies a simplistic misconception of what Catholics do when we pray to a Saint; we ask them to use their sanctity to intercede for us, not because we can’t speak directly to God and certainly not like a litigant employing a lawyer to put their case in court as fundamentalist seem to believe, but because praying with the help of the saints is a way of showing our respect to God).
In common with evangelicals and fundamentalists in general, he also denigrates the Catholic (and indeed High Anglican) honour of the Virgin Mary. I find this to be a bizarre attitude in fundamentalists, given that they easily accept a literal narrative of the Creation. (Note re the Virgin Mary: Catholics and High Anglicans believe that the Mother of God is pure, we believe in the Trinity, and we believe that God is omnipotent, so it is not a great leap of faith for us to accept that the Mother of God incarnate, Jesus, is a virgin - no offence intended to non-virgins).
Burke’s ad hominem attack on CS Lewis is an example of the puritanical mindset; he mentions the man’s dissolute lifestyle and quotes the Bible “By their fruits shall ye know them” - to which I raise him: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and would caution him in his apparent sense of righteousness that pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
He regards the use of the vernacular versions of the Bible as perfect, and, as a pure Protestant, is dismissive of the weight traditional Catholics give to the worship of God through the medium of the ancient languages (which, for a traditional Catholic are an expression of the sacred; their sounds and the arrangement of words are poetic and cannot be translated into the prosaic without some loss of reverence). While I can see his point of view regarding the need to read God’s words directly, this is not possible since translations are an imperfect means of communication; languages were not created with other languages in mind.
It’s not clear how he (and other puritans) can dismiss as “idolatry” prayer accompanied by visual reminders in the form of statues, or make a blanket condemnation of music and dancing (he believes they are intrinsically “ungodly” and “pagan”). Re dancing: Burke blames Salome’s dancing for Herod’s decision to have John the Baptist beheaded; while it is, no doubt, true that Salome used her dancing and sensuality (Burke is also against sensuality) to corrupt Herod, it takes some imagination to make the leap between the Dance of the Seven Veils and a Ceilidh in a Northern Irish church hall (complete with diddly-eye music!). He doesn’t mention the Wedding Feast of Cana, at which there was no doubt much merriment, including dancing.
All of the above notwithstanding, I found the book refreshing in its honesty and admire Mr Burke and his family for their bravery, integrity and genuine goodness. I do not personally know the Burke family and bought this book on Amazon.
May 28, 2020
Positively, The Pied Piper is readable. Positively too, I share some of the author's concerns e.g. that Christians not be antinomian i.e. that Christians not live as they like but rather as God likes. However, I do not believe the author has proved his case, namely, that John Piper is a heretic. Rather than attack the man himself, Burke attacks his family which seems rather unfair. He also engages in 'guilt by association' (Piper appearing on stage with a singer who openly supports same-sex marriage) which seems hardly fair either. His understanding of holiness appears to consist of abstaining from alcohol (I also think it preferable for Christians to abstain from alcohol) and dancing. In attempting to show the evil of the latter he mentions the revelry of the Israelites when Aaron built the golden calf at Mount Sinai and Herodias' daughter dancing for Herod and then requesting John the Baptist's head. He conveniently fails to mention David dancing before the Lord. He writes off Piper's Christian hedonism without making any attempt to distinguish it from hedonism in general. I wonder what he makes of the scripture which says that God 'richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment' (1 Timothy 6:17)?
April 25, 2019
Insightful and incisive is the way I would describe this pointed expose of the very popular but biblically suspect John Piper and his deviation from classical Calvinism. Regardless of one's position on the issue of Calvinism v. Arminianism it behooves serious sdtudents of God's Word to read this important little book. The author convincingly exposes John Piper as being central to the spiritual ills of the day and not at all to be understood as anything like a remedy.
April 1, 2018
An unconvincing argument by an effective communicator especially concerned with holiness, who tries to pinpoint a reason for the decline of the church in a popular pastor.
Enoch Burke himself is a pastor with a passion for the holiness of God’s people and the right application of God’s word in their lives. He has seen the decline of the church in his nation for some time, and believes that the popularity of the ministry of John Piper is partly to blame. His premise is that Piper’s doctrine leads to a disregard for the study and application of God’s word in the life of the people who are influenced, directly or indirectly, by Piper. This may be entirely true.
However, Burke fails to make the case well. Through a combination of poor logic, poor exegesis, and a failure to establish the core elements of his argument, the author leaves the reader wondering what he has read besides a rant about cultural issues and certain public figures about whose associations Burke disapproves. As I say often, “No one thinks they are a legalist.”
One would think there would be a direct argument regarding Piper’s doctrine and how it leads to the results Burke sees. Unfortunately, though there is a chapter titled, “The Doctrine of John Piper”, we don’t really see that doctrine explained in any detail. Instead, Burke takes a few general statements, such as a one-line definition of “Christian hedonism”, and leaps into what it supposedly means without demonstrating that Piper actually believes the things of which Burke accuses him. In a book with over 120 endnotes, less than 20 are actual Piper quotes, and even some of those are Burke’s summary of something Piper said or did. Burke may be right about Piper’s doctrine, but we can’t tell from this book.
Burke also has the bad habit of using “guilt by association” as his evidence. Some examples:
John Piper’s wife is evidence of his bad doctrine, because she made a video showing nativity scenes…which, as you know, are used by ROMAN CATHOLICS.(35)
John Piper’s daughter is evidence of his bad doctrine, because she likes Harry Potter books…which include SORCERY.(36)
John Piper’s doctrine leads to sin, which is evidenced in his friendship with Mark Driscoll…who was FIRED BY HIS CHURCH. (78)
Piper clear has no discernment, because he called Mother Theresa a “Servant of God”…and she is ROMAN CATHOLIC. (53)
Piper’s doctrine encourages sexual sin, as evidenced by his participation in a conference that involved Carrie Underwood making a surprise appearance to help sing a single song about baptism…and, as you know, five years ago she ENDORSED GAY MARRIAGE. (61-63)
Piper’s can’t understand the Bible properly, because the minor in his undergrad degree exposed him to Dr. Kilby, who writes about CS Lewis, who appealed to NON-CHRISTIANS.(80)
These types of “evidence” are all through the book, even in the section describing problems in the UK that Burke doesn’t really even attribute to Piper. From a man clearly as intelligent and as effective a communicator as Burke seems to be, this line of reasoning is surprising. However, when he compares Piper’s conference space being shared for 6 minutes with Carrie Underwood to the Israelites taking forbidden Midianite wives (73), you realize – Burke’s position toward Piper isn’t built upon reason, but emotion.
Burke seems to struggle with exegesis when the result might contradict his presuppositions. For example, he quotes 1 Corinthians 14:8 (“a very uncertain sound”) to mean “almost true, the best kind of lie” (55), but that passage is talking about the practice of speaking in tongues, and is an admonition that without an interpreter, no one understands what is being said at all, not that it’s close to the truth.. Burke calls Mark Driscoll blasphemous for claiming that Christ, when he returns, will have a “tattoo”, but an honest reading of Revelation 19 indicated that Driscoll’s quip is certainly reasonable, even if incorrect.
Burke’s book is solidly in the long line of “fundamentalist” works blaming various people, doctrines, or practices for the inability of the church to accomplish the works the author thinks the church should accomplish, the way the author thinks the church should accomplish them. The book belongs on the shelf next to such polemics as Vance’s “The Other Side of Calvinism”, William Grady’s “Final Authority”, and David Wilkerson’s “Sipping Saints”. If you enjoy these works, Burke’s will be a worthy fit for your collection.
I received a copy of the book from the author to review, and appreciate the opportunity – I wish I could have rated and reviewed it higher in exchange for the book, but I know he would be disappointed with anything less than honesty.
Enoch Burke himself is a pastor with a passion for the holiness of God’s people and the right application of God’s word in their lives. He has seen the decline of the church in his nation for some time, and believes that the popularity of the ministry of John Piper is partly to blame. His premise is that Piper’s doctrine leads to a disregard for the study and application of God’s word in the life of the people who are influenced, directly or indirectly, by Piper. This may be entirely true.
However, Burke fails to make the case well. Through a combination of poor logic, poor exegesis, and a failure to establish the core elements of his argument, the author leaves the reader wondering what he has read besides a rant about cultural issues and certain public figures about whose associations Burke disapproves. As I say often, “No one thinks they are a legalist.”
One would think there would be a direct argument regarding Piper’s doctrine and how it leads to the results Burke sees. Unfortunately, though there is a chapter titled, “The Doctrine of John Piper”, we don’t really see that doctrine explained in any detail. Instead, Burke takes a few general statements, such as a one-line definition of “Christian hedonism”, and leaps into what it supposedly means without demonstrating that Piper actually believes the things of which Burke accuses him. In a book with over 120 endnotes, less than 20 are actual Piper quotes, and even some of those are Burke’s summary of something Piper said or did. Burke may be right about Piper’s doctrine, but we can’t tell from this book.
Burke also has the bad habit of using “guilt by association” as his evidence. Some examples:
John Piper’s wife is evidence of his bad doctrine, because she made a video showing nativity scenes…which, as you know, are used by ROMAN CATHOLICS.(35)
John Piper’s daughter is evidence of his bad doctrine, because she likes Harry Potter books…which include SORCERY.(36)
John Piper’s doctrine leads to sin, which is evidenced in his friendship with Mark Driscoll…who was FIRED BY HIS CHURCH. (78)
Piper clear has no discernment, because he called Mother Theresa a “Servant of God”…and she is ROMAN CATHOLIC. (53)
Piper’s doctrine encourages sexual sin, as evidenced by his participation in a conference that involved Carrie Underwood making a surprise appearance to help sing a single song about baptism…and, as you know, five years ago she ENDORSED GAY MARRIAGE. (61-63)
Piper’s can’t understand the Bible properly, because the minor in his undergrad degree exposed him to Dr. Kilby, who writes about CS Lewis, who appealed to NON-CHRISTIANS.(80)
These types of “evidence” are all through the book, even in the section describing problems in the UK that Burke doesn’t really even attribute to Piper. From a man clearly as intelligent and as effective a communicator as Burke seems to be, this line of reasoning is surprising. However, when he compares Piper’s conference space being shared for 6 minutes with Carrie Underwood to the Israelites taking forbidden Midianite wives (73), you realize – Burke’s position toward Piper isn’t built upon reason, but emotion.
Burke seems to struggle with exegesis when the result might contradict his presuppositions. For example, he quotes 1 Corinthians 14:8 (“a very uncertain sound”) to mean “almost true, the best kind of lie” (55), but that passage is talking about the practice of speaking in tongues, and is an admonition that without an interpreter, no one understands what is being said at all, not that it’s close to the truth.. Burke calls Mark Driscoll blasphemous for claiming that Christ, when he returns, will have a “tattoo”, but an honest reading of Revelation 19 indicated that Driscoll’s quip is certainly reasonable, even if incorrect.
Burke’s book is solidly in the long line of “fundamentalist” works blaming various people, doctrines, or practices for the inability of the church to accomplish the works the author thinks the church should accomplish, the way the author thinks the church should accomplish them. The book belongs on the shelf next to such polemics as Vance’s “The Other Side of Calvinism”, William Grady’s “Final Authority”, and David Wilkerson’s “Sipping Saints”. If you enjoy these works, Burke’s will be a worthy fit for your collection.
I received a copy of the book from the author to review, and appreciate the opportunity – I wish I could have rated and reviewed it higher in exchange for the book, but I know he would be disappointed with anything less than honesty.
February 13, 2021
I do not think it is just to say that Enoch Burke singularly seeks to edify the reader, nor is it fair to assume that Burke only has the ability to perceive the world around him through a very narrow lens. I think that there will likely be a number of readers that review this work and simply think that Burke is drawing his entire platform of thought from the "conservative" or "fundamentalist" point of view. These readers will likely find themselves giving Burke's work a modest one or two start review with some strong reviews to follow. On the other hand, there will be those that feel the way the church is becoming more of the world and less of the scripture. Inside of that expression of fear and concern, these readers will very likely harbor the same mortification of sin ideals that the author expresses and tend to build on such a thought in their perception of scripture, and Burkes's work alike.
With each of those sides in contention, I firmly lie somewhere in the middle. While fundamentalism runs deeply through my veins, and politically I find myself considering conservative politics over liberal - I also understand that Jesus firmly presses for each believer to remember the work of Jesus and use the life that Jesus led to press our faith forward unceasingly. In a nation that drives itself forward under a strict division of thought, Christianity has been explicitly influenced. Either you are a Calvinism or relish Arminianism. You either believe in the wrath of the Lord or see that his love will always prevail in each situation. Yet, when we step back it is easy to see that most of our arguments are lightweight folly in the context of scripture.
I do not know Enoch Burke personally. I was given an opportunity to read his works in exchange for a review. Given that he is an educated individual, I am a willing foolish layman willing to try and keep up. So I accepted the offer and read this work. Given that, Burke produced a wonderful dichotomy between John Piper (among many others) and scripture. Leveraging a thought that there is a satanic device driving Piper's "Christian Hedonism" and it is working to devour souls and press a change of scriptural interpretation. Of course, while use scripture as leverage there is always a question of interpretation and disagreement. While Burke doubles down on Piper's lack of authentic and scriptural teaching, he begins to press his own ideals of an individual without explaining what ideas he stands upon in the first place. Thus, the reader is left feeling that Burke seeks to persuade them into a train of thought, instead of expressing pure truth. Persuasive essays were never my preference in college, nor are they mine to read now. The moment I feel that I am trying to be persuaded, I am losing interest.
Given this silly rambling of an ignorant Jesus follower, I enjoyed Burkes's dichotomy. I enjoyed the many points of truth, and how he sees that scriptures are pervading through heresy. My enjoyment was stymied by the personal attacks and overall sense of hatred I felt from Burke. I do think hatred of sin is needed by believers, but a love for those afflicted by it is also needed. That is a difficult balance to master as a sinful person. Jesus did it perfectly...I am not worthy of even walking in his footsteps. Given that I do not have a problem with Enoch's thoughts and strong language. He is passionate about the direction of the church, fighting against Satan, and righting wrongs. You will have to read it to see if you agree with his views or not.
With each of those sides in contention, I firmly lie somewhere in the middle. While fundamentalism runs deeply through my veins, and politically I find myself considering conservative politics over liberal - I also understand that Jesus firmly presses for each believer to remember the work of Jesus and use the life that Jesus led to press our faith forward unceasingly. In a nation that drives itself forward under a strict division of thought, Christianity has been explicitly influenced. Either you are a Calvinism or relish Arminianism. You either believe in the wrath of the Lord or see that his love will always prevail in each situation. Yet, when we step back it is easy to see that most of our arguments are lightweight folly in the context of scripture.
I do not know Enoch Burke personally. I was given an opportunity to read his works in exchange for a review. Given that he is an educated individual, I am a willing foolish layman willing to try and keep up. So I accepted the offer and read this work. Given that, Burke produced a wonderful dichotomy between John Piper (among many others) and scripture. Leveraging a thought that there is a satanic device driving Piper's "Christian Hedonism" and it is working to devour souls and press a change of scriptural interpretation. Of course, while use scripture as leverage there is always a question of interpretation and disagreement. While Burke doubles down on Piper's lack of authentic and scriptural teaching, he begins to press his own ideals of an individual without explaining what ideas he stands upon in the first place. Thus, the reader is left feeling that Burke seeks to persuade them into a train of thought, instead of expressing pure truth. Persuasive essays were never my preference in college, nor are they mine to read now. The moment I feel that I am trying to be persuaded, I am losing interest.
Given this silly rambling of an ignorant Jesus follower, I enjoyed Burkes's dichotomy. I enjoyed the many points of truth, and how he sees that scriptures are pervading through heresy. My enjoyment was stymied by the personal attacks and overall sense of hatred I felt from Burke. I do think hatred of sin is needed by believers, but a love for those afflicted by it is also needed. That is a difficult balance to master as a sinful person. Jesus did it perfectly...I am not worthy of even walking in his footsteps. Given that I do not have a problem with Enoch's thoughts and strong language. He is passionate about the direction of the church, fighting against Satan, and righting wrongs. You will have to read it to see if you agree with his views or not.
July 26, 2019
The publisher allegedly wanted honest reviews for this book so they ran a giveaway on LibraryThing. I was interested to read on the topic so I entered and I won. Although my address is automatically sent to publishers when I win, they requested my address again and asked to make sure I would give an honest review. I said I would and waited. Then they sent another email asking about my religious beliefs, which is not a part of the giveaway and was not mentioned as a stipulation. So right there red flags went up. Now, months later, no book. I guess my refusal to share my beliefs with them disqualified me from reading the book. In other words, they don't want honest reviews, they want tailored reviews to their own belief system.
Be warned, if a publisher is unethical in how they seek reviews (the LibraryThing giveaways make clear that if a reader wins the giveaway they are to receive the book, but this publisher has no qualms about disregarding the rules put in place on that site, thus unethical at best) and refuses to honor their agreement (again, the LibraryThing giveaway agreement and, by extension, the agreement with winners of the giveaway), then they must be either ashamed of their book or they want to skew reviews by screening who reviews it. If they want to screen reviewers then try being honest about it and don't run a giveaway on an open site and just distribute copies to friends, family, and selected like-minded people.
Judging by the reviews that have been posted, apparently by people who at least admit to having the same belief system, this book is both theologically suspect and lacking in any type of sound argument. Maybe I should thank them for not sending a copy, I tend to be too fair sometimes and might not have been as harsh as the other reviewers have been.
So, again, beware of both this publisher and this book. They are unethical and dishonest under the guise of seeking "fairness."
Be warned, if a publisher is unethical in how they seek reviews (the LibraryThing giveaways make clear that if a reader wins the giveaway they are to receive the book, but this publisher has no qualms about disregarding the rules put in place on that site, thus unethical at best) and refuses to honor their agreement (again, the LibraryThing giveaway agreement and, by extension, the agreement with winners of the giveaway), then they must be either ashamed of their book or they want to skew reviews by screening who reviews it. If they want to screen reviewers then try being honest about it and don't run a giveaway on an open site and just distribute copies to friends, family, and selected like-minded people.
Judging by the reviews that have been posted, apparently by people who at least admit to having the same belief system, this book is both theologically suspect and lacking in any type of sound argument. Maybe I should thank them for not sending a copy, I tend to be too fair sometimes and might not have been as harsh as the other reviewers have been.
So, again, beware of both this publisher and this book. They are unethical and dishonest under the guise of seeking "fairness."
June 21, 2019
Reading Mr. Burke's The Pied Piper was an interesting experience. Prior to reading the book, I had not been aware of John Piper or his teachings. I had also considered myself to be somewhat conservative in some respects.
Having said that, I found myself with the thought that some of Mr. Burke's views are a touch inflexible. That finding may stem from a personality that, while having faith, finds itself questioning everything.
I have also tried (both successfully and not) to let everyone hold their own opinions and faith and to not let my own belief systems interfere with others (sometimes more successfully than others). What I took away from reading the book (others may have an entirely different take on it) is that Mr. Burke seems to believe that there is only one way to live and that's it. While I don't entirely disagree with his sentiment, I think there is room for other viewpoints as well and that each person should judge what is right for him or herself.
With regard to the subject of John Piper, while I have not found his teachings to be agreeable in nature to me based on what was put forth in the book, I would have to look further afield before forming a final opinion. This would be only due to wanting to have information from multiple sources rather than one and not that I would simply wish to disagree with the information Mr. Burke has put forth.
The Pied Piper is written with a certain target audience in mind and was written with well document subject matter.
Having said that, I found myself with the thought that some of Mr. Burke's views are a touch inflexible. That finding may stem from a personality that, while having faith, finds itself questioning everything.
I have also tried (both successfully and not) to let everyone hold their own opinions and faith and to not let my own belief systems interfere with others (sometimes more successfully than others). What I took away from reading the book (others may have an entirely different take on it) is that Mr. Burke seems to believe that there is only one way to live and that's it. While I don't entirely disagree with his sentiment, I think there is room for other viewpoints as well and that each person should judge what is right for him or herself.
With regard to the subject of John Piper, while I have not found his teachings to be agreeable in nature to me based on what was put forth in the book, I would have to look further afield before forming a final opinion. This would be only due to wanting to have information from multiple sources rather than one and not that I would simply wish to disagree with the information Mr. Burke has put forth.
The Pied Piper is written with a certain target audience in mind and was written with well document subject matter.
June 3, 2025
I think there are some good points made in this text, and some of the things Piper has said do raise some eyebrows. However, I think the author cherry picks quotes and assigns Piper theological positions that I don't think he actually espouses.
I would need to do more research before blanketly assuming everything everything he writes about is accurate (as there were some things I know are misrepresentations), but I think it is a good call to ask - what theology do popular preachers espouse, and how is it influencing the church? How much culture influences our message and how much scripture?
I appreciate the author's absolute loyalty to the scripture. But there is a spiritual pride under the guise of 'carrying the banner of Martin Luther' that leads to some flippant conclusions.
I would need to do more research before blanketly assuming everything everything he writes about is accurate (as there were some things I know are misrepresentations), but I think it is a good call to ask - what theology do popular preachers espouse, and how is it influencing the church? How much culture influences our message and how much scripture?
I appreciate the author's absolute loyalty to the scripture. But there is a spiritual pride under the guise of 'carrying the banner of Martin Luther' that leads to some flippant conclusions.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews