Great to hear that John Piper gave Rick Warren a chance to speak and that they shared their lives with each other. It is about time someone did. Rick is far from perfect, but then aren't we all...especially those of us who serve in ministry.

Use the wrong word, or say something in the wrong manner these days and you will find yourself on the end of a rope. We need more of this in the American Church today. More listening, more seeking to understand before we criticize, more of this extending of grace. Yes, there is a point when heresy is heresy...but then, John said there was “a sin unto death and some we should just pray for.” Maybe instead of trying to be the ground breaker who wrote one more book on how wrong someone is, we could break ground on remembering that we are to be the people of grace.

I like Piper and Warren, though I don't agree with either on everything. But titling Piper's book "Thinking" give me a small rash. The insinuation is that if you don't think like Piper then you're not thinking. Those who think Piper is infallible should read Hayek's "Fatal Conceit". It's about economics, but he deals with pseudo-rationality in economics that I think applies to a lot of theologians who think of themselves as deep thinkers. Mark Noll should read it, too. He is no where near as intellectually unassailable as some think.

In true science, the scientist uses logic to arrive at theories. Then the practical scientist tests those theories against reality. A great deal of theology in some circles comes from theorizing by starting with an unassailable premise and moving through chains of logic to conclusions. However, as with the natural scientist, the theologian should be careful to check the conclusions of his reasoning against he reality of scripture using sound hermeneutics. Instead, I find a lot of theologians breaking important hermeneutical principles in order to crow bar the scripture into their logical conclusions.

Roger, I am sorry but Piper's book title in no way suggests that if you don't like Piper you aren't thinking. If anything, it simply functions as a noun - Thinking. It seems to say, in effect, "This book is a book about thinking and what thinking is." There is nothing that assumes all thinking must be the kind of thinking John Piper desires. Now if Piper presents a solidly comprehensive Scriptural case for what thinking is in Scripture, and Piper claimed that his book should function as the standard by which all thinking be judged, that would be another matter all together. There was no insinuation in that book title, just a title itself.