Are you not more valuable than the frogs?

About that John Piper tweet

John Piper has done it again! He has twisted the panties of internet Christians everywhere. Color me floored, flabbergasted, and otherwise flummoxed. John Piper, after all, is not known for saying anything that the Twitter-verse would ever consider inflammatory.

I think Sproul briefly paused from spinning in his grave over the Ligonier and St. Andrew’s debacles just long enough to flash Piper a broad, satisfied grin. Sproul could probably power Reformation Bible College with all the rolling over he’s been doing lately.

But back to Piper.

I met Piper once. I was in the audience of the-conference-which-must-not-be-named. I saw him from a small distance, maybe around five miles away from the nosebleed section. In the middle of thousands of other pastors who, along with me, paid an outrageous sum to enter the Kentucky International Convention Center, Piper looked me dead in the eyes for about a half second. It was predestined to happen. And don’t try to tell me he was looking at one of the other thousands of pastors sitting around me! He was obviously looking at me! The elect! Ok?

To be fair, Piper had some great advice about longevity in ministry. I’ve always respected him highly. His book, Brothers We Are Not Professionals, is on my top shelf, which isn’t saying much because I’m dreadfully short. Also, anyone who, in response to the question, “What keeps young men from the ministry?” writes an article entitled “Missions and Masturbation” about how pleasuring oneself keeps men from the ministry, has my undying respect.

---

Origen would subscribe (maybe?)…

Ancient Christian answers for our culture’s most profound questions. Subscribe for regular articles in your inbox.

---

That being said, I am not a Calvinist.

That’s not for a lack of trying on the part of many of my friends and even some of my mentors. There always seems to be a bearded IPA-drinking chain-smoking cage-stager behind every bush lately. Honestly, they often make the best theological sparring partners and even better lifelong friends. So out of respect for them, I’m not going to go out on a limb and try to prove whether or not most Calvinists would agree with Piper here. I’m simply going to respond to the tweet as is. Or the X. Whatever the youth call it nowadays.

The original statement Piper posed has issues, but not necessarily the ones he points out. Let me explain.

“God didn’t die for frogs. He died for humans, implying we were worth the sacrifice.”

Piper sees issues with the second half of the statement about the value of sinful humans. We’ll get to that soon enough. But my issue is actually with the first part of the statement, “God didn’t die for the frogs.”

Piper would claim that “God did not have to die for the frogs,” or, put simply, the frogs do not need the sacrifice of Christ. After all, they didn’t sin. Right? And yet, God did die for the frogs. I really think Piper should have caught this. In fact, I think it would fit into his theology like a warm hand in a sweaty glove.

For in [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

— Colossians 1:19-20

This is not a technicality. This is the whole point of God’s providential plan. That the Father so loved his Son that he would give him as an inheritance the entire cosmos, and all things would be reconciled in the person of Christ. Christ, in his death and resurrection, is not merely sacrificing himself in our stead, but is claiming that inheritance as his own.

When Adam fell, all of the cosmos was thrown into sin. When Christ rose again, he claimed the cosmos as his rightful inheritance. Frogs included. They will ribbit “holy, holy, holy” for all eternity alongside the saints and under their dominion, redeemed from the brokenness we brought upon them. That’s why all creation groans, or croaks, awaiting our resurrection bodies.

So yes, frogs do need to be saved and not just the gay ones.

But as we approach the more controversial part of the tweet, let’s be clear: a frog cannot merit God’s wrath because, unlike a man, a frog is not a moral agent. The frog can only do what God has programmed the frog to do. The innocence of a frog is not innocence in any moral manner of speaking. Therefore, frogs are not actually more holy than humans.

Were a frog to kill a man somehow, it may be blamed for resurrecting the overly-sophisticated show 1000 Ways to Die, but no one would suggest that the frog was morally culpable of murder. The frog has sinned neither in the sight of God nor man because the frog, again, is not a moral agent. He is just a frog—a frog who happened to kill a guy.

Regardless, I think Piper here misunderstands the original statement, “He died for humans, implying we were worth the sacrifice,” or else he equivocates “worth” here with “deserving” later.

Of course, apart from Christ’s ministry, our good works merit no smile on God’s face. Without Christ, we are completely incapable of earning grace. But Piper overstates the matter. In effect, Piper is saying, “God didn’t save us because we were worth saving. After all, we are less deserving than the frogs.” A non-sequitur.

Man may be utterly sinful and still be of immense worth. Whether or not man deserves salvation has no bearing on whether we are worth saving. Piper assumes that if grace is really grace, then man must be spoken of as though he has no worth to begin with.

But that is against the nature of love. Love itself is the recognition of worth in another and the self-giving pursuit of that person’s good in a manner fitting their worth. And God’s love is the measure of God’s valuation of humanity and our redemption. And not only of our redemption but of the whole creation.

You were worth it to God. You. Broken sinner. Rebellious creature. Miserable wretch. Yes. But also the Image of God. Jewel of Creation. Inheritance of the Son. Christ’s death on the cross is the ruler by which God measures your worth. You are of inestimable value. How do we know this? Because the blood of an eternal God was shed on your behalf.

I think there is a certain masochism in some (Not all, calm down) Calvinist circles, which is probably a reaction to the self-love culture that denied any teaching of depravity and held modern evangelical Christianity in its grip for much of the late-20th century and into the 21st century. I say this as a non-Calvinist who will shamelessly ignore my own weaknesses for the present moment.

But depravity, while affecting the whole man, does not render man valueless. The image of God may be disfigured, but it is still an image of God. While we must recognize the depths of our sin and our utter helplessness apart from God, we must never abandon the wonder that is the love of God for us, the love that both reveals and expands humanity’s worth.

Even with our sin, the whole of our being is far “more good” than frogs, which have not sinned. Why? For a simple reason. We were made in the Image of God. Frogs weren’t. We are worth far more than many sparrows. Or frogs. I cringe at a theology that would make the alternative practical in everyday life.

Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

— Matthew 6:26

Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

— Matthew 10:31