Daily Archives: August 18, 2021

Every Wednesday morning, Artnet News brings youThe Gray Market. The column decodes important stories from the previous weekand offers unparalleled insight into the inner workings of the art industry in the process.

This week, testing the line between talking about it, and being about it

Corralling the publics attention for anything is murderously hard in the neverending monsoon of distraction that is life in the social-media-and-disinformation era, and the challenge only increases in the art world, where nearly everything is subjective. In short: godspeed you, art press pros. And to your many clients and in-house employers: I understand why youre alchemizing increasingly elaborate preview events, video walkthroughs, and other spectacles to try to focus attention on your program. When the competition cranks the volume, the obvious response is to amp up your own output.

Amid this sound clash, its all the more noteworthy when two New York art dealers with significant solo track records announce their new joint gallery with not much more than a passing remark and a shrug. That was how the art world at large learned about Egan and Rosen just four days before the premiere of its inaugural exhibition on July 29. The Upper East Side project is an alliance between Mike Egan, the founder of the bleeding-edge gallery Ramiken, and Meredith Rosen, whose namesake space has toggled between tech-forward world-building, conceptual provocations, and of-the-moment themes expressed in traditional media.

Its plausible that even some plugged-in readers are only learning that Egan and Rosen exists right now because its partners tossed most of the conventional How to Launch a Gallery in 2021 playbook into the gutter. The founders decided to open in whats traditionally seen as a sweat-soaked dead zone on the art-world calendar.Then they messaged it via a single email with no follow-up (or at least none that Im aware of).

The email included one small embedded image, a few line items of basic info (location, hours of operation, etc.), and a two-sentence description of their debut exhibition, Otto Dix / Andra Ursua. The show pairs a selection of Dixs wartime sketches (one of them anticipating his revered Der Krieg cycle) and portraits of Weimar Germanys trauma-haunted hedonism with drawings from Ursuas Man From the Internet series, adapted from online images of a decaying victim of Russias war against Chechnya in the 1990s.

Andra Ursua, Man From the Internet 73 (2016). Courtesy of Egan and Rosen, New York.

The gallerys website hosts even less content. In comparison, the 12 posts on its Instagram as of publication time feel like acts of lurid exhibitionism, which is even more ironic given that several are accompanied by either no caption at all or just the hashtag #ottodix. The account had 277 followers when I filed this piece, meaning 276 other than me. If I didnt know better, I would have bet the gallery would have attracted hundreds, if not thousands, more virtual fans based purely on the presence of Ursua, whose most recentshow of ethereal sculptures with Ramiken was one of the most universally admired New York exhibitions of 2019. (The artist signed with David Zwirner last summer.)

(If youre wondering, Ramikens Instagram has an audience of more than 3,000, and Meredith Rosen Gallery has just shy of 31,000, meaning only a splinter group of the cofounders pre-existing fans have followed the trail of breadcrumbs to Egan and Rosens social presence to date.)

The week of the partnerships debut, I reached out to Rosen to confirm whether it was a full-on merger of her gallery and Egans, or a new venture that would co-exist independent of her namesake space and Ramiken. Her answer was the latter (which I noted in that weeks edition of the Back Room). After another two weeks passed with Egan and Rosen seeming satisfied to continue hiding in plain sight, curiosity prodded me into seeing if they would elaborate on what, exactly, theyre up to with their space on 78th Street. The result is the interview below, conducted by email over the weekend. (Questions and answers have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.)

It should surprise no one that Egan and Rosen were selective about the details they divulged. But I think their answers at least bring the gallery into soft focus as a shape-shifting child of productive internal tensions and mutual disinterest in the rote professionalization that has defined too much of the art world lately. In other words, Egan and Rosen seems intent on being a gallery where the bestand nearly the onlyway to understand whats going on is to actually go. In an art trade that too often feels like a high-velocity, high-decibel assembly line clamoring for your attention, theres more than a little wisdom in that approach.

Otto Dix, Grenade Crater in a House (1916). Courtesy of Egan and Rosen, New York.

Lets start here: Instead of a full-fledged merger that marries your two programs together in all aspects, Egan and Rosen is a separate venture the two of you are operating independent of Meredith Rosen Gallery and Ramiken. It has its own space and (unless Im missing it) no gallery roster to speak of. How would you define the parameters of, and the concept shaping, Egan and Rosen? In other words, whats the overall vision, and how do some of the organizational details work (e.g. Will every show be a joint programming decision? Will you team up for art fairs or offsite projects? Do you just share all costs and sales proceeds equally?)

Meredith: Every show is a joint programming decision. We plan to do it all, fairs included.

Mike: I went diving to look at these pre-Roman sculptures, submerged off the coast of Naples, and it turned me on to a certain kind of algal existence, and I thought about how we could be like that algae, and as time floods our existence with meaning, perhaps we have to start breathing water, and grow on this shipwreck we call civilization. In ancient sculpture from the Ukraine river valleys, the goddess culture where the sculpture itself is the real thing, there is no representation or false movebecause representation leads to perfectionism.

So we do represent artists, but were not going to list them online. Now with these things in mind, a lovely punk gallery with charming manners and a thirst for blood makes a lot of sense on the Upper East Side right now. Everybody is going to love it. The gallery is set up so we can do the shows we want to do. I feel that Met energy, that Neue Galerie breakfast magic.

Each of you are now running two businesses: Egan and Rosen, and then your pre-existing spaces yourselves. That seems to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom that teaming up with another dealer is valuable in large part because it allows you to share resources and costs to make the very hard job of running a gallery somewhat easier. Why did you decide that this arrangement was the best way to join forces?

Mike: We both agreed that there were certain things that were becoming necessary to do, and this was going to be the gallery to do those things. We share some of the same hallucinations. Similar delusions too. Different pathos. Different addictions, but complementary: coffee vs. psilocybin. Economically, its very simple, and we both like the math of paid artists.

Andra Ursua, Man From the Internet 72 (2016). Courtesy of Egan and Rosen, New York.

Boring question, but Im required by journalistic law to ask: Did the pandemic and its after-effects play any role in convincing the two of you to launch Egan and Rosen when and where you did? If so, how? If not, why did you feel this summer was the right moment?

Mike: I was on the mainland when the vid popped off. Luckily, I got out, and Meredith saved me, pulled me out the gutter, and showed me this space with leopard print carpet that I fell in love with, and I really just dont want to disappoint her. So Im gonna work really hard, and Ive shared all my client info with her. And it turns out we both sell to the exact same 300 people.

Is the current Egan and Rosen space on 78th Street going to be the gallerys permanent location, at least for the time being? Either way, what aspects convinced you both it was the right location? Its obviously right around the corner from your gallery, Meredith, but the U.E.S. is a very different context than people tend to associate with Ramiken, Mike.

Meredith: Yes, 11 East 78th Street is the permanent location for Egan and Rosen.

Mike: Im not killing giant rats anymore like I was in 2009 down on Clinton Street. I had a gallery in Nichols Canyon in Los Angeles that was perfect, but only seven people came. Then I was squatting in a penthouse on 81st Street for a year and a half, but the parties got too big.

The Egan and Rosen space is perfect. Meredith found it. When it comes to galleries, the space just has to come at the right time and do the shows it was meant to do. Our vibe is: Go to the Met, then come to Egan and Rosen. Thats an art experience I can believe in.

Mike Egan, Lo peor es pedir (2021). Courtesy of Meredith Rosen Gallery, New York.

Meredith, this spring you did a solo show of Mikes artwork, a polaroid series of Lana Del Reys face that he warped by contorting his body while wearing a t-shirt with her image. What was your relationship like prior to that exhibition? How, if at all, do you think the experience of working together on a dealer-to-artist level has (or will) factor into your partnership as co-dealers/co-exhibitors? (Mike, this question is just as much for you as Meredith. It was just weird to introduce it differently than this.)

Meredith: Artists whole lives are continuous with their work. Mike as an artist informs Mike as a dealer. We had a great experience working together on Lana. The show sold out very quickly and had an unbelievable response from the public. Im looking forward to his next show at M.R.G.

Mike: I can be a difficult person, but every second of my show at Merediths gallery was joyful. I desperately need to learn how she does that. I was a big fan of Tina Braeggers paintings, and that made me want to show with Meredith. A gallery show next to the Met is a dream come true for every artist.

Technically speaking, Egan and Rosen qualifies as an expansion of sorts in a gallery business that has for years now gravitated toward the idea that the default solution is bigger, faster, more. At the same time, based on what I know of you and your respective careers, I suspect expansion is a somewhat lazy way of framing what youre aiming to achieve with the new venture. What do you think working together on Egan and Rosen can help you do first and foremost for the artists youll work with, but also for your own goals, in the art world as it exists in 2021?

Meredith: Working with artists is the thing I love about being an art dealer. Egan and Rosen is a space without constraints: secondary, primary, historical, special projects, just good shows. There are no rules, and we thrive on that. Its exciting to me to create something new, something that doesnt fit in pre-existing categories. The great thing about working with artists is theyre always pushing themselves to the next frontier, and I feel the same way as a gallerist.

Mike: Im a collector, and this job feeds my need to acquire. I have a Dix etching from Der Krieg and a Man from the Internet next to each other in my apartment. This gallery is how I form my collection philosophy, and working with Meredith on the gallery puts the art I want in reach.

If theres a goal other than to do the shows we each want to see, its to make a gallery that people love, or love to hate. I care about the work. I also care about the artists and the love of their fans. I dont have any other goals. All the structures in the art world are less than a hundred years old, and in a hundred years there will be completely different ones. Were supplying the future with the raw materials for their new art world.

Otto Dix, Reclining Female Nude, Half Figure (1929). Courtesy of Egan and Rosen, New York.

Can you give me any hints of whats coming up for the gallery in the future?

Meredith: In September, were opening a show of two paintings from the mid-90s by Takako Yamaguchi from her Smoking Women series.

And there you have it, folks. A small part of me wishes I could give you some grander takeaway about what to expect from Egan and Rosen, but the larger part of me is convinced that my inability to do so is the most promising sign of all.

Thats all for this week. Til next time, remember: show, dont tell is advice that applies to more than just writing and making movies.

Read more from the original source:

Coffee and Psilocybin: Why Two Seemingly Very Different Art Dealers Just Went Into Business Together (and Other Insights) - artnet News

The romance of music and film is one of the finest love stories around. Just like bed and breakfast or fish and chips, this audio-visual duo has been an award-winning partnership since the dawn of time. The relationship between cinema and music can be traced by historians right back to the amphitheatres of ancient Greece and Rome.

Humanity has clearly always been aware of the deeply emotive impact of audio-visual experiences, as the number of times music and acting have come together over the course of history is innumerable. Since the advent of film at the onset of the twentieth century, the relationship between it and music has been explored extensively. The number of iconic films that equally classic scores or soundtracks have matched is dizzying.

Auteurs such as AlfredHitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Michael Mann have all been masters of putting music to film. In fact, the latters use of green and blue and an atmospheric soundtrack in his 1986 masterpiece,Manhunter,exemplifies the meaning of diegetic. Moreover, Hitchcock and Kubrick were early masters in western cinema of understanding the impact of music in augmenting a visual experience.

If we cast our minds back, many classic examples spring to mind. Tim Burtons work with Danny Elfman has been a defining element in establishing his unusual cinematic universe, and Hans Zimmers work in the blockbusters of Christopher Nolan and Ridley Scott have majestically matched their directors visual expenditure.

Furthermore, Steven Spielbergs long partnership with composer John Williams has been nothing short of ground-breaking. In fact, Williams contribution to cinema has been so impactful that franchises such as Harry Potter and Star Wars would not be the same without their iconic audio reference point.

Of course, outside of film, there exist many musical acts whose music can best be described as cinematic and whose work has gone a great way in enlarging the impact of cinema. One would argue that the definitive example of cinematic music isRadiohead. Initially teasing their cinematic journey on their sophomore album,The Bends,in 1995, the band built on this sentiment with each release. Come 1997, with the release of what many regard as their magnum opus,OK Computer,the band would truly heed their cinematic clout and even explicitly mention it with Exit Music (For a Film).

Following the turn of the millennium, Radiohead would utilise technology to craft cerebral and forward-thinking music. Of course, this adherence to constantly pushing the boundaries has earned them many fans from across lifes spectrum, including in cinema. Most famously, they have a long-standing relationship with celebrated American director Paul Thomas Anderson (PTA), with the colourful director even filming a couple of the bands music videos. On the flip side, Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood has returned the favour by penning the award-winning soundtracks to some of Andersons best-loved films, includingThe Phantom Thread, Inherent Vice and There Will Be Blood.

However, there have also been countless occasions where other filmmakers have used Radioheads music to a great effect. This is a trend that shows no signs of abating, as it seems everyone agrees that Radiohead and cinema are a match made in heaven.

Join us then as we list the five best moments Radiohead made films better.

Alfonso Cuarns 2006 sci-fi action thriller is widely respected as a brilliant film. Not only is it hailed as the best film of 2006, but it is revered for its cautionary twists and visceral camera work, namely its single-shot sequences. Starring Clive Owen and Michael Caine, the hit was equally as inspired by KubricksA Clockwork Orangeas it was Pink Floyds 1977 album,Animals.

Considering it was taking partial inspiration from such a classic album, who can be surprised that the film utilises music to a brilliant effect. Cuarns use of sound and music perfectly captures the films themes of dystopia, social unrest, loss and global infertility. Using a wide range of music from King Crimson to Aphex Twin to Kode9, the film continues to find new fans owing to its use of music.

However, the films stand-out audio-visual pairing comes when Radioheads Life in a Glasshouse from 2001sAmnesiacis quietly played amidst the banal chit-chat between Clive Owens protagonist Theo and Michael Caines weed dealer, Jasper. As Theo tries Jaspers new strain of weed, the two discuss the worlds impending doom. The use of the song perfectly matches the distortion/disassociation felt by Theo as the effects of the green plant coarse through his veins when he curses: fuck me, thats strong. The unhinged melody of Thom Yorkes vocals and the horns sliding atonality match the films suspicious themes and the feelings embodied by its characters.

Canadian directorDenis Villeneuveis a self-proclaimed number one fan of the Oxford outfit. He has used Radiohead in two of his films, 2010sIncendiesand 2013sPrisoners. It was in the former that his use of Radiohead really caught our attention. His inclusion of You and Whose Army? and Like Spinning Plates in the middle-eastern based drama,Incendies,has now entered a somewhat classic bracket.

The films opening scene uses You and Whose Army? to such a great effect that the two are almost now inextricably linked. Critic David Ehrlich wrote that the film expertly exploits Radiohead tracks for the multiplicity of their meaning, empowering the image by dislocating viewers from it. Villeneuve even admitted that he had written the song specifically into the script of the emotive drama to make it clear to the viewer that it would be a westerners point of view about this world.

The haunting montage of the films introduction, backed by the subterranean feel of the song, will stay with you for days.

This entry isso1995. The inclusion of Radioheads acoustic version of their 1995 hit Fake Plastic Trees perfectly captures the ubiquitous alternative spirit of the era. This contemporary take on Jane Austens 1995 classic novelEmma,is hailed as an iconic coming of age comedy for many reasons.

One of these reasons is its self-awareness. Yuck! The maudlin music of the university station is what Alicia Silverstones protagonist Cher proclaims to herself as the downbeat redux of the melancholic original is played. The song and film are definitive reflections of the era, and together they make a classic coupling. Radiohead were, at the time, considered one of the hottest alt-rock acts around, a moniker they would do everything in their power to ditch over the coming decade. But that doesnt make their inclusion here any less poignant.

The song soundtracks the everso nineties conversation between Cher and Paul Rudds Josh about being cool, something that today seems laughably outdated. Flannel shirts et al., the Dinner with Josh scene is a classic throwback to a bygone era where pop culture was at its height. Radiohead also pops up in the film again with their classic grower, My Iron Lung.

The 2001 American sci-fi-come-psychological thriller byCameron Croweis an ambitious yet incoherent take on the original Spanish film, Alejandro Amenbars 1997 offering,Open Your Eyes. A fast mixture of science fiction, warped reality, and a sprinkling of romance, its most memorable part is its opening.

The opening scenes are a visual montage brilliantly matched by the icy futurism of Radioheads Everything In Its Right Place from 2000sKid A. Crowes then-wife, Nancy Wilson, who scored the film, said she spent nine months working on the films music, which was done through experimentation with sound collages. She said: We were trying to balance out the heaviness of the story with sugary pop-culture music.

Wilson managed this to a great effect in the films introduction.

Featuring Tom Cruise amongst the urban iconography of New York, the repetition of the line open your eyes is a perfect nod to the films dystopian and unconscious themes, set out effectively by Radioheads hypnotic masterpiece.

Originally released as the B-Side to Radioheads 1996 single Street Spirit (Fade Out), Talk Show Host was popularised by Baz Luhrmanns inclusion of it in his cult classicRomeo + Julietin October that year. Although Nellee Hooper remixed it for the soundtrack, its inclusion is nonetheless effective.

Talk Show Host is a brilliant song in itself and in the way that it bridges that gap betweenThe BendsandOK Computer,just as Blow Out had done in hinting what was to come onThe BendsafterPablo Honey. The trip-hoppy feel of the song perfectly matches the hazy, modern film adaptation of Shakespeares classic tragedy.

The beat is slow-burning, and it reflects the hedonism inherent to the film and the era in the mid-nineties. It wraps you up in the excitement of the romance between our star-crossed lovers.

Thom Yorkes lyrics also capture the modern spin on the destructive war between the Montague and Capulet families: You want me? / Fucking well come and find me / Ill be waiting / with a gun and a pack of sandwiches.

Read the rest here:

Five times Radiohead made films better with their music - Far Out Magazine

On a crisp November night in 2016, I stumbled upon a message from John Piper that changed my theological and ministerial trajectory forever.

I was an eager high school senior with a passion for (what I perceived to be at the time) Big God theology. At this point in my life, I had spent a year following Jesus and serving my local church. I had been powerfully converted the summer before despite having grown up in a flagship independent Baptist church in Fort Worth.

It was my earnest and genuine goal to tell as many people as I could about what God had done for me in snatching me from the pit of legalism and dead religion. While I continued to have a cordial relationship with the pastor of this church, I openly admitted that I was grateful that God saved me not only from my sin, but from much of the ruinous theology of the fundamentalist movement.

On that November night, I was walking around praying and thinking on these things when I pulled out my phone and saw the following sermon in one of my podcast feeds: Helping Each Other Endure to the End. It is still one that I will listen to whenever I have lost sight of the vision of the ministry to which I believe God has called me.

The sermon was preached by John Piper at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis on Jan. 15, 1984. It is an exposition of Hebrews 3:12-14: Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called today, that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

It was in this sermon that I was first exposed to the works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This would eventually lead me to discovering the Bekennende Kirche, the Barmen Declaration, and the works of Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Jrgen Moltmann.

Commenting on Bonhoeffers compelling vision for a united Christian community, Piper remarks, These words about life together have the ring of authenticity for us because they were written not at the nerve center of comfort but on the brink. They have the taste of radical commitment that all of us dream about, many of us crave, and only a few pursue.

It was then that I was firmly convinced that Jesus truly meant what he said and said what he meant.

For the next few years, I imbibed Piper daily. His Ask Pastor John podcast, his Sermon of the Day, and his Look at the Book video series all regularly made their way into my eyes and ears. He even answered one of my questions months before I graduated high school. As time passed, my theological trajectory continued to change ever so slightly with each passing college course, small group or personal discovery. I no longer identified myself as a Christian Hedonist or consumed content from DesiringGod, but, in my navet, I had a deep respect for Pastor John.

Nearly five years have passed since that night, and now one thing has become heart-wrenchingly clear to me: As I slowly drifted away from fundamentalism, John Piper dived in headfirst.

As I slowly drifted away from fundamentalism, John Piper dived in headfirst.

In my fundamentalist upbringing, for example, I had been taught that women do not have authority over their own bodies. This was not only a misquotation of Scripture, but a blatant deletion of words from 1 Corinthians 7:4: The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

In my fundamentalist upbringing, I had been taught that God intended for all the races to be separate. This could be seen easily in the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 and the Mark of Cain in Genesis 4. And besides, marrying across the races was just asking for trouble! Conspicuously absent from this racial discourse was the Apostle Johns vision of Heaven recorded in Revelation 7:9: After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.

I learned about American exceptionalism and the precious foundation on which our country was built. Psalm 32:12 was cited often: Blessed is the nation whose god is the LORD. And yet it would be many years before I finally learned that such exceptionalism was antithetical to the gospel we claimed to believe because, The LORD detests all the proud of heart (Proverbs 16:5a). It also seemed particularly convenient that national calls to repentance included expositions on the sinfulness of abortion and homosexuality, but unjust wars, racism and the plundering of the poor and the earth remained unaddressed.

I soon felt horror when I learned what Piper infamously said of wives being abused by their husbands. He quipped, If its not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night.

I soon felt horror when I learned what Piper infamously said of wives being abused by their husbands.

I was shocked when I discovered that Piper does not believe it is biblical and within the confines of complementarian theology for a woman to pray or read Scripture in church. This is despite the fact that the Apostle Paul makes provisions for it in 1 Corinthians 11.

I was revulsed when Piper suggested that while there is something sexually stimulating about muscular women, it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.

So then, I was entirely unsurprised when Piper recently published a 1,200-word apologia of his slaveholding hero, Jonathan Edwards. At the risk of redundancy (or worse, self-plagiarism), I must admit that my assessment of his piece is identical to my previous assessment of similar remarks regarding slaveholders from another Baptist theologian: It is as tone-deaf as it is misguided. It reeks of a paucity in percipience.

Piper writes of Edwards, No one had lifted my view of God as high as Edwards had. And as far as I could see, this vision of God served to crush my own bent toward self-exaltation. It was unfathomable to me that anyone should think I was being set up by Edwards to have the mind of a slaveholder.

Pipers defense of Edwards is, most fundamentally, an exercise in utilitarian and egoist ethics.

Truly this statement is, as Piper himself concedes, the epitome of wishful thinking. Pipers defense of Edwards is, most fundamentally, an exercise in utilitarian and egoist ethics. Pipers justification for his designation of Edwards as a humble slaveholder is grounded in Pipers own personal experiences with the Edwardsian corpus, and not the objective nature of morality and the classical Christian ethical criterion of the inherent goodness of an action.

But you need not take my word for it, for this is Pipers own admission:

I do not wish for one of my heroes to be more tarnished than he already is . Whatever explanation I might give for why Edwards did not see his way clear to the renunciation of slaveowning at his moment in history, one thing I cannot deny: Fifty years of reading and pondering Edwards has been for me more heart-humbling, more Christ-exalting, more God-revering, more Bible-illuminating, more righteousness-beckoning, more prayer-sweetening, more missions-advancing, and more love-deepening than any other author outside the Bible.

In other words, it cannot possibly be the case that Edwards was as deviant and problematic as our minority brothers and sisters have cried out in reply to his appellation of Precious Puritan. Why? Because of John Pipers personal benefit. The ethical criterion by which we determine the goodness of a thing is self.

This, however, should not come as a surprise, particularly because Pipers entire philosophy of ministry is inextricably linked to his personal feelings a Christian strain of Hedonism. After all, God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. Does it bring you spiritual satisfaction? Then it must be good!

This, however, does not even begin to unearth his theological rot. Piper steps to depths lower than these.

Par for the course for a Baptist minister, I will shamelessly alliterate this as Pipers perennially postmodern pet project. This, however, does not even begin to unearth his theological rot. Piper steps to depths lower than these.

Piper opines later in the piece, The New Testament ordered human relationships in Christ in such a way as to transform the master-slave relationship into something so different from owner and property that what remained was no longer recognizable as slavery in the traditional sense. And yet, Piper alleges that although the New Testament ethic was transformative, it did not say in so many words, There are no more master-slave relations in the church.

Piper has demonstrated grave errors in his theological judgment. Chief among these is that his rhetoric is identical to those of chattel slavery apologists. Because (so goes the argument) an explicit call to abolition never was given in the New Testament, but explicit instructions to masters and slaves do occur in the household codes, slavery is a divine hierarchical relationship that must be righteously ordered.

Pipers assertion would be cogent were it not for the fact that it is a bald-faced lie. The simple fact of the matter is that the New Testament does, in fact, not only abolish the master-slave distinction in the church, but annihilate it.

Pipers assertion would be cogent were it not for the fact that it is a bald-faced lie.

How Pipers reasoning stands up to the witness of inspired Scripture is beyond me. The Apostle Paul wrote Galatians 3:28 under the inspiration of the Spirit, There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. He, with the authority of the Risen Christ, commanded the Corinthians not to become slaves of men because they were bought at a price (1 Corinthians 7:23). Enslavers were condemned as not according with sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10).

But these words do not matter to Piper. One of the great, tragic and lasting ironies of Pipers ministry is that his voluntaristic view of God and utilitarian ethics are every bit as self-exalting, God-demeaning and theologically myopic as the caricature of Arminianism he claims to reject. I say this as a minister in the broad stream of the Reformed, Evangelical and Baptist traditions.

For Piper, the game is over before it has even begun. His theological assumptions and hermeneutical presuppositions yield a foregone conclusion of hierarchy wherein image-bearing Black and brown human beings and abused women are unwitting victims of Providence. To demand dignity and equality is an affront to the order of a capricious God in whose unstable and whimsical hands we must place our lives.

This is why he believes wives should endure being beaten by their husbands. It is why the slaveholding legacy of his heroes is so insignificant to him. It is why he has defended the new president of Bethlehem College and Seminary, who believes empathy is a sin. And, ultimately, it is why the church he served for all those decades saw his successor resign in the wake of elders accusing him of preaching a social gospel after the death of George Floyd.

His destructive theology is, at present, paying the piper.

Like his old friend in Louisville, John Piper has sold his proverbial birthright for a bowl of porridge. Like his hero Jonathan Edwards, his legacy is tainted and his theology is forever compromised by his personal failings. Pipers abysmal lack of care and empathy will perpetually enjoin him to that ever-growing list of Christian celebrities whose fall will bring immeasurable hurt to innumerable sheep in Christs fold.

Tragically, any good a person may derive from his voluminous theological and pastoral contributions is hidden behind an insurmountable pile of double-speak, hypocrisy, compromise, innuendo, inconsistency and incoherence. In the words of Frederick Douglass, Pipers religion is the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land.

What started my journey with John Piper has now ended my journey with John Piper.

What started my journey with John Piper has now ended my journey with John Piper an intense desire to embody and participate in the presence-mediating, kingdom-furthering and world-renewing redeemed community of Jesus Christ.

Bonhoeffers theology has stood the test of time and continues to tower above the pygmies because he understood something Piper has yet to grasp: So often Christians, especially preachers, think that their only service is always to have to offer something when they are together with other people. They forget that listening can be a greater service than speaking. All that remains when hierarchy replaces compassion and order replaces empathy is empty spiritual chatter and clerical condescension which chokes on pious words.

No truer words have been spoken about Pipers abysmal finish in Christian ministry. And so, I bid him farewell.

David Bumgardneris known to those attending this years SBC annual meeting as The A/C Guy because of his moment of fame at a microphone. He is a 22-year-old senior at Texas Baptist College, theologian-in-training, evangelist and content creator from Fort Worth, Texas. He is passionate about gospel-focused theology and Christ-centered expository preaching. He is a member and minister at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, where Dwight McKissic is pastor. Follow him on Twitter@david_bumg.

Related articles:

John Piper blames abuse of women on egalitarian myth

Mohler endorses Trump while Piper disses Trump and feels the backlash

Of all topics, why did John Piper choose to focus on the propriety of women teaching men? | Opinion by Kate Hanch

Six ways American Gospel is small-minded and abusive |Analysis by Rick Pidcock

See the original post here:

It's time to pay the Piper Baptist News Global - Baptist News Global