Mel, I updated your thread title (by updating your original post title), to alert topic title readers what’s being discussed here – you might pick up more readers and commenters this way. You can tweak that title some more yourself, of course, if you want. (I think any member can do that for their own posts, although I’m not entirely sure; but any member can ask an admin or mod to do so, and Mel has mod powers already. Which he knows, I’m just explaining for other members in case they might want to try that themselves sometime.)
Setting aside the question of whether God would be selfish to insist on His glorification, I really don’t mind JP appealing to that because (1) he is after all appealing to pretty clear scriptural testimony; and (2) it ends up radically undermining any non-universalistic soteriology. 
To put it briefly, any God-glorification soteriology which doesn’t end up with all rebels coming to truly glorify God, is totally self-contradictory.
So Calv annihilationists (who appear to be growing in significant numbers in the past few years) who propose that God annihilates some rebels before they come to truly glorify God, or worse that God annihilates some persons who truly glorify God, propose that God acts finally against His own glorification as part of a soteriology or theology based on the importance of God’s insistence on being glorified.
Whereas Calv ECT proponents, like John Piper, propose instead that God not only accepts unrighteous and rebellious glorification of Himself by impenitent sinners, or else an ultimate and total refusal to glorify God, to be proper glorification of Himself, and indeed the only way He can be fully and most truly glorified; but also that this final result was God’s original intention all along. Which is not only principally self-contradictory, but runs up against a number of important scriptural testimonies to the effect that God does not accept sinful attempts at glorifying Him as real glorification.
Dr. Piper just isn’t thinking out the implications of what he is saying far enough. I absolutely love it when Calvs lean on God’s glorification while trying to defend a final result of God’s non-glorification. 
As much as I love it when Arminianistic Christians (and even some Calvs, weirdly) lean on God’s respect for free will while trying to defend a final result of destruction of free will (either by the sinner or by God).
Now, beyond that I could write about how if trinitarian theism is true, God’s self-glorification isn’t actually selfish but rather grounds all self-sacrificial giving, such that even God comes not to be served but to serve, giving His own life for the raising up of the many. And this would end up at Christian universalism, too, but it would take a lot longer and be far more technically detailed (and also not of much use to non-trinitarian Christians, though it ought to be something fellow trinitarians like John Piper line up with – but don’t.) A possibly over-simple way to put it, though, would be that there is no way for a trinitarian God “to vindicate His righteousness” which in Biblical language as well as theological metaphysics must mean “to vindicate His fair-togetherness” (between persons), if any persons, whether creatures or the Persons of God, end up acting toward fulfilling non-fair-togetherness between persons – which any non-universalism necessarily involves.
Similarly, Dr. Piper can talk all day long, as far as I’m concerned, about “the massive rock of God’s unswerving commitment to promote the praise of His holy name”, and more power to him (and to Him)! But when he turns around and tries to tell us that God is also just as equally and unswervingly committed to promote the non-praise of His holy name, then John Piper has flung himself wildly off the rails into theological madness. The natural result of which will be that some people, thinking this is the best theology that can be offered, will refuse on principle to praise God’s holy name. Thanks John Piper!–I guess you’ve succeeded in your commitment to promote the non-praise of God’s holy name, just like you think God is committed! 
However, even on the most merely selfish notion of mere monotheism that could be imagined, even on a Satanic level of selfish monotheism, such a God would be acting directly and utterly against His own insistence on being glorified by acting to bring about a final non-glorification of Himself. Such a logic of ‘salvation’ doesn’t even rise to the level of coherent Satanism! 
To which I could add that unless we’re orienting ourselves to acknowledge and respect and follow the ground of our existence as our highest authority, then at best we aren’t sinning yet, and more likely we’re in rebellion already somewhere. But we have at least a logical obligation to glorify God whenever we’re finally led to recognize the ground of our existence as our highest authority. That isn’t really optional, so I don’t mind when non-universalists try to bring it up.
I just mind when they bring it up in ways that are not only ultimately non-trinitarian (especially when they themselves are supposed to be trinitarian theists), but aren’t even competent monotheism, even on the hypothesis of Satanic monotheism. It wouldn’t even be competent mere polytheism in an ultimately atheistic reality!
