It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad. CS Lewis
Dee's latest bluebirds
I approach this story with trepidation because it is so easy to misunderstand my motivation in exposing this complex story. However, I cannot get this story, along with the issues that are raised, out of my mind and believe they are worthy of discussion and pondering.
It is important to realize that I have a grown daughter who suffered with brain cancer as a small child and was subjected to two massive neurosurgeries. I also spend time with severely handicapped teens and adults who have extremely limited comprehension and need 24/7 help with the most basic things in life.
I say this not to toot my own horn but to explain I have great empathy for the couple, Ian and Larissa Murphy, that we will be discussing. I admire Larissa’s selfless dedication and love for Ian. I respect and honor Ian’s patient acceptance of his serious disability.
It is vital to note that Larissa has gone public with this story. I would imagine that Ian has some comprehension of the publicity, albeit how much is uncertain. I admire her willingness to tell their story because it opens up her life to minute inspection. I respect her enough to raise the issues presented by the story.
John Piper has pushed this story on his site and the Gospel Coalition has joined in along with Sovereign Grace Ministries. So, the cat is out of the bag. The issues raised by this story are fascinating to explore, particularly the issue of spiritual authority.
Synopsis:
Ian and Larissa were planning on becoming engaged when they were 22. Ian, on the way to work, was in a terrible car accident in which he nearly died. He received a devastating brain injury. The medical care that he received was wonderful but he needed to undergo several neurosurgeries and has been left limited.
Many folks are unaware of the serious issues involved in traumatic brain injury. Here is a link to Wikipedia, which does a good job of explaining the medical problems surrounding this sort of injury.
My daughter was 3 when she underwent surgery. A child’s brain is not yet fully developed and is quite elastic, which allows other areas of the brain to take over function for parts that are injured or removed. Although there is some elasticity in adults, it is far more limited.
After hospitalization, Larissa moved in with Ian’s parents to learn how to be his caretaker. This went on for several years. However, another tragedy struck. Ian’s father was diagnosed with brain cancer and eventually died. He expressed hope that Larissa and Ian would marry. One year, after his death, they did. However, they needed to get the permission of a judge to do so. They are members of a Sovereign Grace Church in Indiana.
Here is their video, which was first presented at Desiring God, John Piper’s site
Ian has obvious, serious mental and physical disabilities.
I used to do discharge planning for a hospital in Boston. We would regularly have patients present with serious and disabling injuries and diseases. Occasionally, physicians and social workers would judge these individuals as being unable to adequately make independent life decisions (surgery, residence, etc.). In such cases we would have to go before the court to appoint permanent or temporary guardianship. It is also important to note that judges are loathe to take away such rights unless the individual is truly at risk.
In the video we learn that Larissa, along with her pastor, had to go before a judge to be granted permission to be marry Ian. This means that Ian was judged incapable of making that independent legal decision. The Her.meneutics blog at Christianity Today here adds that Ian's brother, Caleb, spends 40 hours a week, presumably caretaking Ian when Larissa is at work. He needs 24 hour supervision and help.
Is this video an infomercial for John Piper’s book, This Momentary Marriage?
Why is Piper's book prominently featured in the video and in other comments that Larissa has made? I find this apparent attention to his book a bit disturbing. Frankly, I feel it should have been left out of the video because it gives the appearance of advertising. But, I believe Piper is involved for a more serious reason than simple marketing.
When Carolyn McCulley, Sovereign Grace Ministries, John Piper and The Gospel Coalition join forces in pushing a story, we should ask if there is an agenda.
From the True Woman blog here we learn that Ian and Larissa attend a Sovereign Grace Church in Indiana. Also, we are told that Citygate Films, which is directed by Carolyn McCulley, produced the film for John Piper’s Desiring God website. Carolyn McCulley is an ardent supporter and member of SGM and will also be one of the speakers for the upcoming Resolved conference. The Gospel Coalition’s Justin Taylor featured this video on his blog, and an opinion essay was featured by TGC here.
There is a clear agenda – spiritual authority. Ian has it and Larissa does not.
So here is the scenario. Larissa must do just about everything for Ian. She works, cares for the home, etc. She holds his head while he throws up, and she interprets what he is saying. She is in charge.
No, she is not, according to the Calvinistas. This story is quite threatening to the patriarchal movement. It is obvious the Larissa is in control and has authority but that is an anathema to their “authority” definition. So, this situation has been reinterpreted to put Ian back in the driver's seat. Here are some quotes.
From the Her.meneutic blog (see above for link) we learn:
“In the video, Larissa speaks about Ian’s spiritual leadership. From the outside looking in, most people would see only Ian’s disability. Larissa certainly sees the disability, and yet she also sees Ian’s ongoing abilities. She differentiates (following John Piper in his book This Momentary Marriage(another plug) between primary and secondary things within marriage: “Ian can’t do many of the secondary things, like working or making a meal for me. Everything that’s primary, though, he can do, which is leading me spiritually. Ian always comes back to the foundational truths of who God is and kind of reels me back in from my emotions.” For instance, when Larissa asked Ian if he was tempted to curse God, she writes, “[he] answered easily, ‘No, because God has been nothing but good to me.’ ”
“Ian’s brother Caleb, who spends 40 hours a week with him, also testifies to Ian’s spiritual maturity: “So, the best way a husband can serve his wife is by caring for her spiritual condition and seeking her sanctification. This is the most obvious way Ian serves Larissa, and he does it well.”
From the above linked Gospel Coalition essay we learn
“Yet Larissa Murphy is finding God more than faithful. Larissa says that although her husband cannot do the secondary tasks common to marriage, he still does the primary one, which is to provide spiritual leadership. And Larissa is providing something just as striking: an example of Christ-like love.”
From another blog link we read this quote, "He's a profoundly solid and simple leader. Because of that, it's usually a joy to follow his direction."
Is the phrase “the offense of the Cross,”the new “biblical” or “gospel” adjective?
In the same TGC article we read, “We talk about "the offense of the cross." What's offensive about it? Simply this: The cross tells us that we are lost, ugly, helpless sinners whose only hope is in the grace and mercy of a God who took the punishment that we richly deserve. Our pride is offended when we learn we contribute nothing to our own rescue.”
Many of our readers are aware that we believe words such a “gospel” and “biblical” can be misused in order to “prove” that some Christians are real Christians. Take for example the name “The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The word “biblical” means that their views on issues such as patriarchy are correct. Those of us who disagree with their particular interpretation are obviously “not biblical”.
Recently, I have been hearing the newest Calvinista phrase “the offense (or scandal) of the cross”. Here is how this could work out. We are not allowed to question the very real issues surrounding Larissa and Ian because The Gospel Coalition says we are questioning the CROSS if we do so. If we question the cross, we might not be one of the elect. That folks, is dirty fighting, Calvinista style.
Just so you know, this sort of phrasing using the word "offense" is cropping up everywhere in Calvinista circles whenever Ian and Larissa’s story is told. At Seth’s Oasis link link you see this blatantly spelled out. He calls this the offense of the selfless love and ties it to faith. If you have questions, you obviously know nothing about selfless love and marriage, you idiot.
"Another reader, “Bethany E.,” expressed doubt whether the marriage of Ian and Larissa is really a joining of equals: “It’s hard to get that . . . from watching the video, as the only time we see Ian talking, he’s expressing things that an 8-year-old with Down syndrome could express. There’s a huge difference between knowing that God loves you and having the mental and emotional capabilities to be a spiritual leader, as Larissa says Ian is.”
“What’s behind this unease? Certainly no one praising Larissa says her radical act of love is required by God for everyone facing similar circumstances. We have different gifts and callings, after all.
Such discomfort about Ian and Larissa may reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian marriage. The Bible portrays marriage—especially when entered into by believers—not as a contractual agreement between two parties, but as a covenant relationship before God. Ian and Larissa Murphy know this.
“We know that we have made a covenant to each other, just as Christ made to the church,” Larissa says. “The church that he made that covenant with is so imperfect, and sorrowful, and disabled. Just like our marriage. This church, and this marriage, are hemmed in by Jesus and eagerly long for heaven. He is their author and sustainer.”
Do you see how the editor questions a valid comment? Do you see how Bethany’s comment is now marginalized and her faith subtly called into question? Such tactics are found in spiritually abusive situations in which the idea leaders want everyone to shut up and believe what they are told. Bethany’s question about spiritual leadership is valid. However, these leaders do not want that perspective to be open for discussion. If it is, there is a possibility that some may question the underlying assumptions of male spiritual authority
My observations
There is little question in my mind that Ian and Larissa’s marriage is being used by a number of loosely allied groups to push a patriarchal agenda. Their marriage is extremely threatening to the idea that only men can hold spiritual authority or headship. It is obvious to many readers that Larissa is making the decisions and running her family, no matter the serious attempt at spin.
The involvement of Calvinista leaders in this story is worrisome. There is no question that they believe that complementarianism is an “A” issue. The allusion to the Cross to trump any sort of valid questioning demonstrates this. Could it be that there is undue pressure being applied to a young woman who is obviously self-sacrificing and loving? If so, then these groups ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Being There, starring Peter Sellers, is a movie that I highly recommend to our readers. Wikipedia here says
"Chance (Peter Sellers) is a middle-aged man who lives in the townhouse of an old, wealthy man in Washington D.C. He seems simple-minded and has lived there his whole life tending the garden. Other than gardening, his knowledge is derived entirely from what he sees on television. When his benefactor dies, Chance is forced to leave and discovers the outside world for the first time."
"Chance, quickly rises to national public prominence as leaders interpret Chance's remarks about how the garden changes with the seasons as economic and political advice."
Chance is then used by political leaders and opportunists to shore up their agendas.They even propose him for President. With the clips that are included in the video of Ian and Larissa, it is difficult to assess Ian's full level of functioning. It is my greatest hope that neither Ian or Larissa will be used by Calvinista opportunists as the poster children for their patriarchal agenda. I will continue to follow this story to see how, or if, Larissa’s views on authority change through the years. However, my guess is that she will be inundated with theologians "covering" her.
Lydia's Corner: Daniel 11:2-35 1 John 3:7-24 Psalm 122:1-9 Proverbs 29:1
This is only partly related to this story, but to see how much Ian has changed since before his accident, check out this web series entitled: “Drowning Melville”.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9DB904865F28DDCB&feature=plcp
Ian stars as “Tom Sanders” and made it with a friend back in 2005-06. The series was used as promotional material for SGM’s New Attitude 2006.
Nat
Thank you for that link. It makes me sad to see the change on Ian. I am grateful that one day he will be made whole, along with the rest of us.
Ian with severe physical and mental disabilities can exercise spiritual authority over his wife, so you with healthy limbs and a functioning brain have no excuse. Now go pound that woman into submission!
It never ceases to amaze me the dark depths some will go to in an effort to promote an erroneous agenda. The same goes for the rote parroting of words they’ve been taught by those same wolves. How very tragic.
I’ve not read any comments, so I am writing this from my heart and my life, in something of a vacuum. Here goes…
I know something about “momentary marriage”. I know what it means to vow “for better, for worse; in sickness and in health”. I know that on the day we make those vows, few of us imagine that God will hold us to them.
He did me.
In 2001, the year my Mom died, and our youngest was married, my Husband began to show signs of terminal illness. Our 25th Wedding Anniversary would be in December. By our 29th, he would be gone from bulbar-onset amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS (Lou Gehrig disease). Rather than the illness beginning in his arms or legs or hands, it began in his speech and swallowing. So whilst he looked perfectly healthy almost until the very end he wasn’t. First he bit his tongue. The he slurred his speech. He drooled, he couldn’t talk. He stopped kissing me. He couldn’t chew or swallow his food without choking. It is a horrific disease as there is no cure, little treatment beyond palliative care.
Rick was a career pilot. First in the Air Force, then as a commercial pilot. We had just built our dream house, the one we would retire in, when we recognized something was very, very wrong. It was just after our 26th Anniversary. We saw many, many doctors and he underwent much medical testing until we landed at the Cleveland Clinic. Yet, still, the course of his disease was so unusual, an actual diagnosis wasn’t made until six months before he died. Better…worse…health…sickness. Through it all, the strength of our marriage vows, the love of God that flowed through us and to each other, kept us going. It wasn’t long before Rick’s speech was unintelligible. So he was grounded. He was able to get a data processing job to supplement his disability pay. He drew closer to God as we drew closer to each other. The trials were intense; the blessings were sweet. All those years we had promised ourselves, each other, “when retirement comes” were gone…so we tried to do as much as we could under the circumstances. We took a Family Trip and had a great time! We finished the house and loved it. He bought me my dream car…
But it was all ashes in my mouth. I’ve learnt to not squander time.
As the days rolled by, we soon found ourselves taking much more care of him. His neck muscles gave way and we had to hold his head to brush his teeth. Bathe him, shower him, aid him in dressing as, now, his left hand was bothering him. Hospice was called and our home was transformed as 24/7 medical care entered into the picture. His breathing became affected. And there is something known as “the bulbar affect”. Our married Daughter discovered she was pregnant with her first child. Rick’s response? “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the Name of the Lord”. In December, she had a son. Pops had been gone six months by then.
Finally, in June, Rick needed hospital care. He flew away one bright Spring morning to meet his Saviour. That was seven years ago. Through the drives to Cleveland and the feeding tube and the constant care and the hand-held speech device and the stress and fear and eventual acceptance…and the overwhelming grief…I discovered something profound: God loves me. God has always loved me. I don’t need to do anything to earn or keep God’s love for me since He has loved me since before the beginning and He will not stop.
I just need to love Him back. And like a marriage relationship, where the boundaries of marriage is built between two people, my relationship with God is also built between me and Him. Not me and a concept or a theology or an idea. A Person. A Trinity of Persons. I love Him best when I build my love in a way that is consistent with how He desires to be loved.
Christ was always the head of our home. Rick and I equally shared, for almost 29 years, the dance that was our marriage…loving, caring, giving, being given, fighting, negotiating, forgiving, confessing, forgiving some more. For better, for worse; richer, and poorer; in sickness and in health; forsaking all others until death… We taught each other. Equal and different. OneFlesh. Together. We weren’t just Husband and Wife, we were Brother and Sister, co-heirs in the Kingdom of God which dwells within us.
God wrote this in the breath of our hearts. Memory eternal.
David
It is disconcerting, to say the least.
Victorious
There is no possibility for compromise, even in serious situations. That is the level of this debate. It is not simply a debate on a secondary issue. This is reaching the level of the Nicene Creed with some of these folks. I am truly flummoxed.
@ Laura:
Thank you for the wonderful story.
Laura
Thank you for your heart wrenching, yet God honoring comment. You shared a testimony unmarked by an agenda and that is what makes it so touching. I thank God for your 29 years of a blessed marriage. Many would give much to experience your marriage, even with the hard final years.ALS is such a hard disease. I am so glad you got your care at the Cleveland clinic. It is a wonderful hospital. You can be assured your husband got the best medicine has to offer.
Thank you for sharing God’s love through your story. It will take me a while to get rid of my tears.
My first impression of the video was that it was a marketing tool. With the book referenced and displayed and then the credits and “purpose” of Desiring God Ministries at the end, the video came across like a marketing tool. I find this disturbing. I hope that Ian and Larrisa were paid well by Desiring God for their services. If not . . . hmm? If this was meant as a testimony, then they ruined it with the book and marketing. The book shouldn’t be what informed Ian and Larissa’s decision to marry anyway.
I’m not sure what informed Ian’s decision, since a judge had to be involved with the decision. Clearly the state did not believe that Ian was capable of making a decision himself. This leads me to question his ability to discern things spiritually. Can he really do that? Why are Larissa and her spiritual leaders saying that Ian is the spiritual leader in the relationship then? I think it is a wonderful testimony of love for Larissa to have chosen to marry Ian and care for him. But it seems far fetched to say that Ian is spiritually leading this relationship.
These are just my thoughts from what I see in the 8 minute video clip. I would think that the “best” moments were put forth though. I do pray for continued recovery for Ian and a very happy marriage for them both. The clip would have been a better testimony without Piper’s book and Desiring God’s two cents at the end. That only dilutes the testimony and brings attention to the book and Desiring God’s ministry INSTEAD of what God is doing in Ian and Larissa.
My first thought is — WHY DOES IT MATTER so much who is “spiritually” in charge of the relationship? Really…why?
This story touches me on one level – my husband and I were sweethearts long before we married. Had something like this happened to either one of us I do believe the other would have done the exact same thing Larissa did. So the depth of her love for him is very touching to me.
In light of that…why on Earth does it matter who is “in charge” of anything?
We major in the minors, and by we…I mean the little “c” church on Earth.
And FYI I’m questioning the comps on why it matters, not us here at TWW 🙂 I know what we all think!
For another perspective, Wendy Alsup addressed this on her blog yesterday: http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2012/06/thinking-too-hard-on-meaning-of.html
Sigh. I saw this happening on Facebook. I read the postings, watched the video and saw and “sharings” and I seemed to be the only one who wondered if there was more to the story.
I noticed the glaring product placement of Piper’s book and had a look on Amazon to see when it had been published, since I had not heard of it. I noticed, and copied 🙂 the sales information. Four hours later I checked again, curious to see if it had changed. And it had!
This was May 8th, the day the video hit Facebook.
Product Details
Hardcover: 192 pages
Publisher: Crossway Books; 1 edition (April 3, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1433507129
ISBN-13: 978-1433507120
Product Dimensions: 8 x 5.2 x 0.7 inches
Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: 4.9 out of 5 stars See all reviews (22 customer reviews)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #121 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#12 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Christian Living
#25 in Books > Religion & Spirituality
Barely four hours later, VOILA!
Product Details
Hardcover: 192 pages
Publisher: Crossway Books; 1 edition (April 3, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1433507129
ISBN-13: 978-1433507120
Product Dimensions: 8 x 5.2 x 0.7 inches
Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: 4.9 out of 5 stars See all reviews (22 customer reviews)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #95 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#8 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Christian Living
#19 in Books > Religion & Spirituality
So putting a video out really does affect sales! And surprise, surprise, There will be a new version out in September.
“This Momentary Marriage (Paperback Edition): A Parable of Permanence by John Piper and Noël Piper (Sep 30, 2012) ”
I hope that Piper is giving a boatload of the profits to Larissa and Ian for his future care.
Anon wrote:
Well, the blog does not address the objection raised by dee, which is John Piper’s not so shameless plug of his book and ministry interwoven into the story which really should be about God, Ian, and Larissa, not about John Piper.
Lindsey-Great comment about majoring in the minors. Seriously why in the world would this be even brought up. How ridiculous and opportunistic.
OTHERS- I wouldn’t exactly refer to it as marketing, since Piper does not see a dime from any of the books sales. That being said, I could get on board with calling it propoganda. Piper we get it you see Male Headship as a key gospel issue. That being said, I think Piper used to be more nuanced than this. I thought this would be an exception to the rule. Also, it seems quite gnostic to me to define spiritual leadership in terms of only spiritual activities.
My heart goes out to Ian and Larissa and I am unsettled to the details of their story and challenges but I am disgusted by people outside of this family taking advantage of their story and using it for their own agendas.
Piper is exploiting this couple for financial gain.
There ought to be a law against what he’s doing… and I can’t help wondering if, in fact, there is one. (Or more than one.)
I did not watch the videos, as I’m not certain that I want to deal with the emotions I know they will raise.
@ DB:
I find this very unsettling, too (as in, how and why they got married). Did she do this because she felt she *had* to?
Is it morally OK for someone not judged mentally competent to make the decision to marry to actually *get* married?
Tag on my last post: I would not be at all surprised if someone from an SGM church believed it was God’s will/their destiny to *have* to marry someone who had become so severely disabled as to be unable to actually participate in a partnership of (presumed) equals.
If they had already been married, that’s one thing… but they were not.
I am not questioning either Larissa’s or Ian’s character here. But the fact that they *did* get legally married raises some very disturbing questions (imo) re. SGM’s patriarchal slant and how it has directly affected Larissa.
“Chuckle Of The Day…”
>>>—–> need we ask if there is an agenda?
-snicker-
It would seem,”Calvinista is ‘biblical’ state of mind…”
Well, I guess you just have to get use to “Being There”
rubber boots, umbrella and all…
(grin)
…♪♫♪”Gravity is working against me,bring me down,
Oh, twice as much ain’t twice as good,
And can’t sustain like one half could!
It’s expecting more of life that’s gonna send me to my knees!
…♪♫♪”Whoa gravity, stay the heck away from me,
Whoa gravity has taken better men than me,
(Now how can that be?)
…♪♫♪”Just keep me where the light is, Lord,
Keep me where your light is…
C’mon keep me where, keep me where the light is!
…♪♫♪”hum, hum,hum…
S㋡py
___
Comic relief: “Being There Or Being ᴴ?”
Bonus: “John Mayer – “Gravity” “ Songwriter: John Mayer; Lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC (lyrics above reflect parody adaptation, disclaimer: U.S. Title 17 infringement unintended.)
Wow Heather, that was some incredible research! I am impressed. 😀
Sopy,
Thanks for the clip from Being There. I enjoyed seeing the Biltmore House in the background. My family went there several years ago at Christmas, and it was decorated so beautifully!
I marvel at your creativity.
Theoblogue said:
” Piper does not see a dime from any of the books sales.”
Yes, I believe that is true. However someone, some entity, does receive an income from the sales of these books. I believe that profit is not the bottom line. Influence is. Which is why this book is available online free, too.
However, I doubt that there is anyone more influential in all of this than Piper himself, and no-one else more able to affect money decisions.
I really don’t care about the books, the money, who profits or does not. I care a bit about people I have never met being used as pawns to grab the emotions of viewers of the video, but I understand that happens. And Larissa and Ian have backgrounds in video production so they are not likely to have been unwilling participants.
I do care about the Christians who do not bother to be discerning. I want them to find freedom from the blindness of thinking that all Christians are nice guys and worth listening to, and worse, following. I have seen that in all aspects of Christian life and in the long term the result ain’t pretty.
When I saw this on Facebook I did watch it. I do not agree with much of what Piper teaches, but I try to be willing to consider the message instead of just the source. And I cannot interact with my friends about what they are reading and watching if I ignore what they post. My first spidey sense alarm went off when I saw how detailed the film of the wedding was. It was like no wedding vid I have ever seen. I began to wonder if it was a reenactment, but it seemed too complex. I heard the story, which is dramatic and touching in many ways, not least because I can relate to some of the details. But the tingling kicked in again when I saw the pre-marital session under the trees, with blue skies and green grass – and an obviously place book cover. Uh uh. Was this a story that was for the edifying of the church, for the building up of the body, or a well crafted commercial for an obscure book?
Deb, this was accidental. I was interested to see if the book sales would change given that the video was popping up all over my radar. I copied and pasted to an email so that I could see any change and kept it in my drafts. I din’t even know if Amazon updated sales that quickly. Imagine my surprise when you talked about this today!
Heather,
It must have been P-R-O-V-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L . . .
It seems to me that Piper, and his Desiring God blah blah blah, has a much more evil agenda than ‘spiritual’ authority. I sense his true agenda is making money. It’s a shame that he’s taken this tragedy, and is using it to market his ‘ministry’. I don’t know which is worse, the marketing issue or the god-like following that Piper, Beth Moore, and others of their ilk, seem to promote. What is it that makes people so desperate to worship these people and their teaching. What is missing in the Body of Christ, that people are so dependent on their teaching. Men, and women who run around and beat everyone up spiritually with their personal interpretations of the Word? I don’t get it? To me, it speaks to an entire culture of spiritual abuse, which is enslaving people in a cult-like lifestyle! What’s happening?
Anon
I read her review. She missed the boat on the spiritual authority stuff. I have no problem that Ian and Larissa are married. I have a problem about how it is being used for a barely concealed agenda.
theoblogue wrote:
Can you expound further on this, Theoblogue?
I have concerns myself about how Piper and Mahaney both make strong appeals to their listeners’ emotions.
Piper seems to be marketing “male spiritual headship.”
Hmm, this is a tough one. Ian and Larissa’s story is very moving, and Larissa’s decision to marry Ian is one I don’t think a lot of people could go through with. But putting an ad for Piper’s book in the video cheapens the whole thing.
Then there’s the fact that, really, Larissa deserves amazing praise for her sacrifice and devotion to Ian, yet the story is spun the opposite way. It just makes me wonder, what are the makers and promoters of the video and wider comp/patriarchy movement so afraid of that they can’t praise the incredible strength and sacrificial devotional faith of a woman?
@ Laura:
I lost my father to ALS one month before I was married. My heart and sympathy go out to you.
@ jack:
Hi Jack,
I have been reading the post and the comments and I came to your comment and something got me going from what you said. 🙂
It also may not be just the money thing, there is the prestige thing about being looked up to that has appeal. It also affirms the whole ‘system’ in a neat and tidy way. So it becomes a win-win situation.
Yes, when Christians put so much stock in trends and names then you begin to wonder if there are Christians who actually think for themselves??!! It is always easier to ‘follow the crowd’. So in certain areas there is this trend and in that area another topic is the ‘seller’. My, oh my!
@ jack:
Yes, and your comment: “To me, it speaks to an entire culture of spiritual abuse, which is enslaving people in a cult-like lifestyle! What’s happening?”
Interesting tie in ‘entire culture’ + spiritual abuse + cult-like lifestyle!
I think you nailed it!
@ Pam:
Yes, it certainly does take away and draw the compass needle to another magnetic attraction–than the couple’s story!
@ Laura:
Laura, My dad died of ALS in 1972 when I was young so I could relate to the progression of the disease you describe in your story. I watched my mom give up everything to be by his side for 3 years, the man who was her partner, her equal and biggest cheerleader for her aspirations. If Jesus Christ has not been the spiritual leader of our home during those sad days, I do not know what would have happened to us.
Another interesting aspect to this is that I recall this sort of situation being brought up on many blogs focused on debating the comp doctrine about 5 years ago. Incapacitation of the “spiritual leader” was a big issue that was debated ad nauseum. Looks like they found their poster couple.
But it all begs the question. How is he the spiritual leader? This specific question was hard to answer for those operating with all their faculties. When you tried to pin them down, it was always something like leading the family in bible study, modeling Christ, etc.
The question had to be answered for patriarchy to survive which it is having a hard time doing these days. And now they have the poster couple for it.
I would caution folks on saying this is about money when it comes to Piper. (Mahaney, I could agree with) That dog won’t hunt for a lot of reasons I won’t get into here. For Piper, male headship and masculine Christianty is the Gospel. There might well be physical or psychological reasons for his Jesus + masculinity salvation teaching. My guess is that it lies inbetween those two things. For those who have met Piper in person might know where I am coming from.
I agree with the person above who said this:
“Also, it seems quite gnostic to me to define spiritual leadership in terms of only spiritual activities”
I think a lot of what is coming out of the Calvinista movement is Gnosticism.
“Men, and women who run around and beat everyone up spiritually with their personal interpretations of the Word? I don’t get it? To me, it speaks to an entire culture of spiritual abuse, which is enslaving people in a cult-like lifestyle! What’s happening?”
Jack, I think it is what we see warned about in the letters to the churches in Revelation. God has no patience for the Nicolaitans. And warns the churches about them.
Nicolaitan simply means: Nico (conqueror) lait (people)
Conqueror of the people. These are wolves or hirlings who want and seek many followers.
It truly is amazing how many followers these men have outside their churches. If Piper says it, I am blown away at how many people believe it without even thinking twice about it. I see this especially on blogs where YRR guys hang out. He is their icon. Their hero.
“There ought to be a law against what he’s doing… and I can’t help wondering if, in fact, there is one. (Or more than one.)”
Numo, You bring up an interesting aspect and if this has been covered somewhere, forgive me in advance.
Ian has to have a “legal guaridan” and I am assuming it is Larissa for financial and medical reasons. I mean this is standard if he is receiving SSI or any other sort of disability income and medical treatment. Nevermind that blows the whole “male authority” position out of the water. So, with this in mind, wouldn’t Larissa be the one who had to give permission for all this publicity with Ian? To sign off on the papers, etc?
Heather
I think what you observed with Facebook and Amazon was very important. With the re-release of that book coming in September, it started me thinking. The Wartburg Tingle tells me that this has to do with the upcoming Here Is Our God conference. Perhaps that will be the topic John and Noelle will discuss. They could show the video and pre-sell the book. What a great marketing opportunity!
Here Is Our God is fast approaching!
Dee and Deb,
Where is this idea of the husband or man caring for a woman’s spiritual condition and sanctification coming from? Can you direct me to some resources please. Admittedly, it makes my skin crawl. I keep hearing this from certain camps, and nowhere in the New Testament is there ANY indication that a husband is responsible for a wife’s sanctification. What about a single woman? The entire point of Christianity is the personal relationship each person has with a Jesus, not that any other can bring that person to into heaven.
The other problem that I have with this, is that certain cultures and religions use this idea of the husbands role being lorded over the woman to justify horrific atrocities ranging from abuse to burnings, torture, and even murder sometimes. When you work with abused women from various cultures, this is the same thing with a different coat of paint, but it is still rancid.
Anon 1 @ 3:33AM,
I could not agree more!! There is a level of abuse and enslavement in this type of movement that makes me sick! I am not talking about this case, but I am seeing young couples (born and raised in the U.S.) adopting some frightening behaviors with serious long term implications.
Laura at 6:07pm on June 15th….
Yours is a true picture and example of what marriage is all about…thank you for sharing!
Heather wrote:
Nothing diabolical here, Heather. The reason for the unusual wedding video is that Ian and his best friend David A. were and still are film makers. They have a video production company called Vinegar Hill (http://vinegarhillcreative.com).
Barb
That is what disturbs me. This couple’s story was not the focus. It appeared to be used for a specific agenda. And that agenda was spoken loud and clear on all of the blogs affiliated with the groups behind pushing the story. It detracted from the power of the film.
I agree with whoever said in the comments earlier about hoping the couple got paid for their infomercial for his book.
That would have been a wonderful thing for desiringod to do–bless them with a huge gift. Sure hope Piper did that.
Piper has a disabilities conference coming up in November. He states in the promo video that disabilities are God’s good design. Wow–don’t know how I feel about that statement…but I guess the subject of disabilities is his hobby horse now. (It would seem we all need to be enlightened, as none of us really understand the purpose of disabilities.)
Amy wrote:
Amy, I think the idea may come from Ephesians 5:25-27 where Paul says that husbands are to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her…without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” They may think that since marriage is a picture of Christ and His Bride, then the husband is responsible to sanctify his wife just like Christ does the church. One little problem, though – husbands are not Christ or the Holy Spirit, although they might like to think they are.
Anon1
I addressed the book in the film because it was highlighted. McCulley is not known for subtlety so it was meant to be noticed. In the post, I rejected the money angle by saying this ran far deeper. The book symbolizes Piper’s view of gender roles within in a marriage context. This couple would seeming refute the issue of male spiritual leadership and that is an anathema to Piper who obviously believes such doctrine is primary and within the primary doctrines, one that must be emphasized along with God’s sovereignty.
I believe Piper needed this situation to promote his belief that there is NEVER any ambiguity to spiritual authority.It must be pushed at all costs. I had never thought about your angle before. There appears to be something going on in his life that would cause him to be so focused on this issue.
I constantly try to get people to tell me what they mean by spiritual authority in some practical way. If authority is so important, there must be some practical manifestations. I reject that such an “important” doctrine should be defined by its adherents as “when there is a conflict that can’t be resolved, we default to the husband.” To me, that is silly. They spend days at conferences and writing books and this is all the rank and file adherents can come up with?
Another argument is the male head has the right to speak for the family and represent them in legal situations. Well, it is obvious that Ian cannot do so, so merely being a “spokesman” or representative doesn’t fly, at least according to the Piper, SGM, TGC definition.
I believe we are left with an amorphous doctrine with very little practicality involved.
Here is a situation that I found myself in and I decided to stand my ground. I was in a group a few years back in which discussion centered around a series of verses. There was no question that the verses were being misunderstood and misapplied, by any standard. I stated my case and I was shot down by the male leader. There was no question about the meaning of these verse. So, a few minutes later I reiterated my point and said that I stood by my point. At this moment, several other people got involved and started looking up the meaning in their study bibles and I was proven correct. In Piper’s world, I would be condemned to keeping my mouth shut since it was speaking, in their silly lingo, “with authority.”
I have no idea what they mean by “with authority” but I can say this. I don’t care if it is a male or female who is making a mistake. As long as I correct with kindness and thoughtfulness,regardless of gender, I am going to do so. Secondly, I have studied the Bible and I have as much to say as any man or woman. Am I to shut up just because I have a uterus? A man can learn from me and it will not cause him some eternal condemnation.
One of my pastors, a number of years ago, asked me to teach a course on the Reformation. I replied that I was a woman so I couldn’t, could I? He laughed and asked me to tell him something about the Reformation that I thought he might not know. So I told him a funny story about Martin Luther. He said that I had just taught him something. So, he queried, what did I suggest he do? Confess to the elders he learned something? That was the day that I began to question this stuff. And, I went on to teach, by myself, a course on the Reformation to a mixed gender class. Comps are gasping in disbelief.
Diane,
That’s very interesting about the upcoming Desiring God conference focused on disabilities. Thanks for alerting us!
Dee,
Let’s not forget that John Piper’s father was an evangelist who was away from home most of the time during Piper’s formative years.
Diane
If Piper saw the folks I read to on a regular basis, he would need to be very careful in how he uses the term “God’s design.” These folks cannot speak, are fed by tubes, have desperately limited comprehension, seizures and discomforts that would cow any of us. I believe that such disabilities are the result of the fall and not a God who specifically designed such a difficulty. God can redeem the situation and I believe these folks will be in heaven. They teach me much about “abiding” and waiting for the world to come.They, too, are created in the image of God.
Amy
For a quick view on this, go over to The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. There is enough stuff there to keep you going for days if you don’t get irritated which I do.
The single woman, according to these folks, should put herself under a spiritual authority such as an elder. Then, singles are to “serve” families which usually means give up your Friday nights and babysit for free. We have a number of single women who comment on this site who have been used in such a manner.
It is also important to note that Carolyn McCulley (who is not married and produces these films), got her start in SGM. She talks, on her blog, a lot about serving families. I believe she may have once said that she cannot make any judgment about the male leadership in her church (SGM) because she is a woman.No wonder they use her for these sorts of films. She will never deviated from the script.
Dee,
It may be a while before Amy can do any research over at CBMW.
Remember – their website went down about a week before ours did. They are doing some major reconstruction and appear to be in no hurry to resurrect it.
With the SBC Annual Meeting, Here is Our God conference, and the final Resolved conference coming up in the next couple of weeks, who could blame them? There is some highly inflammatory information in the archives.
They do have a few blog posts up.
Raising Gospel-Centered Children
A dozen lessons I learned from my dad on Biblical Manhood
Summer reading for men
Summer reading list for women (Of course Mary Kassian’s book is recommended.)
Self-promotion and self-glorification at its finest…
Call me cynical, but part of me thinks that the only reason an SGM pastor went to bat for Ian and Larissa was so they could use it to push their ungodly views, views that Jesus himself did not hold, on women and children. In fact, I am quite sure that is exactly what they did. There is always an agenda for everything done by SGM.
Freedom,
Given the close relationship Al Mohler and C.J. Mahaney have had for at least the last decade (Mahaney started giving $$$ to SBTS in 2002), I can’t help but believe that SGM has been Mohler’s testing ground for his extra-biblical teaching – courtship, young marriages, babies babies babies, submission, etc.
So how’s your cultural experiment going, Al? So well that you had to rescue Mahaney and SGM and relocate them to Louisville?
Like Dee, I can’t quite get the life story of Larissa and Ian out of my mind. I read this post, watched the video, and read most of the blog articles and comments linked to here. In drawing together the comments here, it seems to me there are several key points emerging that I had observations on.
1. “BIBLICAL” VERSUS “THEOLOGICAL.”
@ Anon 1 said: “Another interesting aspect to this is that I recall this sort of situation being brought up on many blogs focused on debating the comp[lementarian] doctrine about 5 years ago. Incapacitation of the “spiritual leader” was a big issue that was debated ad nauseum. Looks like they found their poster couple. But it all begs the question. How is he the spiritual leader? This specific question was hard to answer for those operating with all their faculties. When you tried to pin them down, it was always something like leading the family in bible study, modeling Christ, etc.”
I’d suggest that complementarians demonstrate a deep problem with their doctrine when they cannot specify exactly what “spiritual leadership” is. That is a crux point for their entire system. And if it isn’t clearly stated in the *biblical* text itself as a series of prescriptions as noted by imperatives, then they are promoting their own *theological* opinion of what the words mean.
Understood, this is the theological task we all are involved with as everyday disciples: reading Scripture and seeking to parse out the meaning, based on historical, linguistic, and cultural studies; along with comparing a Scripture with the whole of Scripture; and making sure we do not overlook or reject *biblical* texts that are clearly relevant to the issue. But, if complementarians cannot clearly specify from the Bible what “spiritual leadership” is, then they’re overriding biblical meaning with their own theological meaning. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be more accurate to call their perspective “THEOLOGICAL Manhood and Womanhood” rather than “BIBLICAL Manhood and Womanhood”?
The distinction is important, I believe, because it seems those who produced and posted this video are attempting to use it to support their theological view, but are suggesting that it is THE “biblical” view. And their theological perspective provides flavor for the soup in which Ian and Larissa’s story is presented.
2. PERSONAL STORIES ARE “SPIRITUAL TOFU.”
@ Pam said: “Hmm, this is a tough one. Ian and Larissa’s story is very moving, and Larissa’s decision to marry Ian is one I don’t think a lot of people could go through with. But putting an ad for Piper’s book in the video cheapens the whole thing. Then there’s the fact that, really, Larissa deserves amazing praise for her sacrifice and devotion to Ian, yet the story is spun the opposite way. It just makes me wonder, what are the makers and promoters of the video and wider comp[lementarian]/patriarchy movement so afraid of that they can’t praise the incredible strength and sacrificial devotional faith of a woman?”
I find the account of Larissa’s and Ian’s love, and especially her devotion and service to her husband, truly moving. But, like all personal stories, this one is “spiritual tofu” – it picks up flavors from whatever context it is presented in. And though it was presented by John Piper’s organization and others in his camp to illustrate a complementarian perspective, it could just as easily be read in an opposite vein simply by putting it into a different context … one flavored by the language of “mutuality.”
After all, isn’t Larissa actually an amazing example of determining how a couple can best conduct married life according to the abilities and availabilities of each spouse? Ian is unable to work; Larissa can. So, haven’t they switched the “spiritual authority” of conventional gender roles as dictated by complementarian theology?
In fact, how Larissa obviously has taken the lead in certain ways in their relationship actually fits with one of the specific application points drawn by Christians for Biblical Equality: “4. In the Christian home, spouses are to learn to share the responsibilities of leadership on the basis of gifts, expertise, and availability, with due regard for the partner most affected by the decision under consideration.” (See page 2 from CBE’s statement: http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/men-women-and-biblical-equality .) So, their story could just as easily illustrate mutuality and patriarchy, couldn’t it?
Of course, mutuality may not be the kind of perspective that Ian and Larissa intended. And perhaps that is the larger point here. The moment a slant is picked and a story is packaged, it changes the ways the narrative is read. It doesn’t merely provide a frame that fits the picture of their lives, it crops the picture to fit a pre-existing size of frame. So, it is also possible that the larger context of commercial enterprise regarding John Piper’s book is not quite what Ian and Larissa intended. But there it is anyway, a story of dedicated service and provision by a wife on behalf of the husband she loves and cares for.
The way we ask our question preconditions the answer; the context we set for a product preconditions how we want it to be received … And so, it is our responsibility as readers to as questions; to observe, analyze, discern, and interpret the context and not just the content. And the context and slant given to the story of Larissa and Ian smells fishy, even if the uncut story itself was originally as pristine and absorbing as spiritual tofu …
Deb
You are right. I forgot.
Freedom
They are all joined at the hip and march in lockstep. I do not believe this was simple story showing “the scandal” of self-less love. There is a scandal here. It is the “scandal of selfish” promotion of secondary doctrine.
Dee said-
“I believe that such disabilities are the result of the fall and not a God who specifically designed such a difficulty.”
That’s what I have come to believe as well.
My confusion stems from Piper’s phrase-God’s design. Will he teach at his conference that all disabilities are God’s purposeful doing-designed by Him?…or that God’s good design is that He uses all things (disabilities) for His glory?…or that God uses disabilities for our good and for our sanctification and that is what he means by God’s good design?
Can he claim to know exactly what God’s good design is?
All I know is that I play the hand I am dealt…doing the best I can with the word of God as my guide. So, we have one view that says disabilities come from or are designed by God…other Christians view disabilitis as not your best life now…and others view disabilities as sin or attacks from the devil (wofers ala Copeland, etc.) Which is it? lol—crazy isn’t it? All I know is that people need to be loved no matter their disability–and we all have a measure of disability. And I leaver the eternal destination of others to the Lord- Who is a just judge as well as loving and full of mercy. 🙂
Dee, I completely agree with your “…God can redeem…” statement. To me, the fact that He chooses to enter our pain and suffering, from living in this fallen world, and makes something precious and of eternal value, speak of His greatness and power. And in no way diminishes His power or greatness.
I don’t know why people have to attribute things like tragedy, and disabilities to Him in order to see Him as “God”. Not sure I’m being very clear. I just wonder what kind of world John Piper REALLY lives in to preach such garbage? What pain is he trying so desperately to cover in his own life that makes him inflict so many others with the toxic sludge he calls ‘faith’?! @ dee:
“Can you direct me to some resources please. Admittedly, it makes my skin crawl. I keep hearing this from certain camps, and nowhere in the New Testament is there ANY indication that a husband is responsible for a wife’s sanctification. What about a single woman? The entire point of Christianity is the personal relationship each person has with a Jesus, not that any other can bring that person to into heaven.”
Here is what is so scary about this. About 8 years ago, the only place you could find online teaching that a husband was in charge of his wife’s sanctification was in the Dominionist camp. The fringe of Christendom. The guys who are always encouraging people to stock up grain. I have watched this teaching on women creep more and more into what used to be thought of as more mainstream groups….Especially the Calvinist camp. From Voddie Baucham to Paul Washer to CJ Mahaney/John Piper to Russell Moore/Bruce Ware at SBTS. It has also been characterized by women being made in the “indirect” image of God….a derivative. Seriously. That has been taught by these guys who also claim in the next sentence women are equal. Orwell would be jealous of such obvious examples.
“Piper has a disabilities conference coming up in November. He states in the promo video that disabilities are God’s good design. Wow–don’t know how I feel about that statement…but I guess the subject of disabilities is his hobby horse now. (It would seem we all need to be enlightened, as none of us really understand the purpose of disabilities.)”
This is why I have such a problem with the “Calvinist” god. This is a determinist god who made sure some were born with disabilities or became disabled to show His glory? I am trying to figure out how this view of god is different from the determinist god Allah?
Fact is, we are born in corrupted bodies that die into a corrupted world because of sin. This view does not make The One True God less Sovereign at all as the Calvinistas claim. As Arce is always saying, it means God is Sovereign over His own Sovereignty.
John Piper’s relgion is a despairing one that turns God into a monster who is the author of evil. His god chooses some to be born disabled, some babies to get cancer and young men to be in accidents. The only way around this is their doublespeak about God. God directs every single thing in this world and you have no input at all or ability to respond yet you are responsible for your sin. It is really illogical and one of the many reasons I think Calvinism is Gnostic. To get to their view, one has to read the bible always in a very literal and wooden way which can be scary because this view does not take the historical lens into account. There is no room for Hebrew Poetry or the hyperbole used in the Psalms. One wonders why they aren’t saying imprecatory prayers all the time! Well some of them do like Doug Wilson.
Brad, You are so right about spiritual tofu. But so much of what Piper has twisted over the years is spiritual tofu…emotional pablum packaged as Gospel. Excellent points as this story could have so easily been spun as a mutualists story. (More credibly, I might add)
@ Anon 1:
And I have to wonder if exactly that disparity between the way their story has been spun to endorse patriarchy and the way it seems to have a better fit with mutuality will eventually spark the kind of ah-ha moment needed to shift the paradigm flavor away from Mr. Piper, et al. Hence, Dee’s wise comment at the end of her post: “It is my greatest hope that neither Ian or Larissa will be used by Calvinista opportunists as the poster children for their patriarchal agenda. I will continue to follow this story to see how, or if, Larissa’s views on authority change through the years. However, my guess is that she will be inundated with theologians ‘covering’ her.”
Meanwhile, disparity between the supposed ideal and the real … isn’t that really how most change happens? It may take a long time, but there may indeed be a shift in paradigm/perspective here over time.
OK, this is going to be a long one. Sorry.
But both Dee and Brad/futurist guy have pointed out a problem with the complementarian doctrine. It’s exactly the problem that I have found ever since I started thinking about this kind of thing: You just can’t pin down what complementarianism is.
When you discuss complementarianism with a complementarian (from here on ‘comp’), you’ll find that the insist that it’s not about a man getting to make all the decisions; that a man has to sacrifice himself for his wife and put his wife’s desires, needs and preferences first, and so a man leads by serving. Well fine, you counter. That’s a good thing. But:
1) That’s not leadership. It’s sacrificial servanthood. And
2) Women are expected to do the same for their husbands.
The implications of this definition of complementarianism are these:
1) A marriage where both parties are mutually putting the others preferences, needs and desired ahead of the other is a marriage of mutuality, not male authority/female submission (ie, complementarianism). And,
2) When husbands and wives are doing the same things for each other but you are saying that the man is ‘leading sacrificially’ and the woman is ‘submitting’, you are attaching a label of active, Christ-like heroism to the man and a label that implies a kind of passivity to the women. I don’t think that’s fair, and I also think it has more in common with the view of the sexes that Aristotle took than the view the Bible would like us to take.
So then complementarians say no, there’s more to it than that. Sometimes they explain that a man is expected to ‘do the difficult things’. Well shut my mouth, there I was thinking that childbirth (ie, something only women are called to do) was a difficult thing, but it turns out that it’s a lot easier than being the ‘king and priest of a home’! Or comps will say ‘men are called to greater sacrifice’. Again, I always thought some pretty great sacrifices were made by women who have kids. Turns out that stuff is all easy compared to what men have to do.
So that definition of complementarianism is ruled out by me.
At this point, comps go one of two ways:
1) They put forward a view of complementarinism that is so nuanced that you would never know whether you were seeing it in practice or not because it’s so ill-defined, and you ask why such a slippery, vague, paper-thin thing could be SO important to God, and how could any couple be sure they were doing it right. They might talk about the man taking greater initiative in the spiritual shaping of a family than the woman, etc etc – which leads to the conclusion that female submission means making sure that you are always doing less good for your family than your husband, which is obviously absurd; or,
2) They bring out the ‘man has the tie-breaker’ thing.
And when they bring out the tie-breaker, that’s when they have admitted what it’s all really about: male privilege.
@ Anon 1:
Yeah, exactly – when I first heard about the Calvinist conception of God, I immediately thought of Allah. Allah is a god riddled with problems regarding his goodness, justice, trustworthiness etc.
@ Sophie:
Thanks – – that’s super helpful, Sophie. You’ve stated that really clearly and I can picture what you’re saying as a logical flowchart of the illogic going on here.
The very fact that these ishy-squishy statements about “spiritual headship and leadership” have to be described and illustrated because the ARE NOT specifically defined means also means they about wisdom decisions NOT core doctrine – about options, NOT orthodoxy.
Therefore they ARE secondary, and they DO NOT fit into the core of orthodoxy. Also, they DO NOT legitimately “nuance the gospel” such as is conjectured in statements like those of Mr. Piper, “Christianity has a ‘masculine’ feel to it” (paraphrased).
It seems like part of what is going on is an attempt to push the theological perspective of complementarianism to the level of core orthodoxy. But if this were truly that central to the Christian faith and practice, wouldn’t the early Church FATHERS have declared patriarchy the official martial, tribal, societal, political, and theological paradigm required for all “true” Christians?
Anyone who wants that much power should start their own religion! Or, is that actually what is happening, only they’re assimilating the DNA and cultures of those they contact and adding it to their Borganizational Magisterium?
Want to watch the Calvinistas all aflutter over who’s got the spiritual authority? If ever it was clear that male genitalia are the ONLY criteria, this discussion here is. Pop some popcorn and enjoy the show.
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2006/08/feminists-scripture-twisting-mutual-submission-does-have-its-limits
By the way, the Calvinistas are doing themselves serious damage by their own bizarre “logic”. I found this thread by following the blog of a woman who was deeply entrenched in patriarchy and gradually came out of the nightmare of an abusive patriarchal marriage. She points to this very discussion, linked above, on the http://www.baylyblog.com as finally opening her eyes to the ridiculousness of this “spiritual authority” nonsense.
Rats, wish there was an edit function. To clarify, I found the baylyblog thread because a blogger several years ago linked to it as the lightbulb moment for her as to the heresy of patriarchy.
I noticed this recent article at desiringod-
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/more-on-the-masculine-feel-of-christianity
Thanks for the kibble, JP. Last sentence: “The church, as you move through this community, proscribed by and protected by a masculine feel, there will be a feminine feel in lots of places.”
❓
I have NO idea what that article said. I do, however, know I am supposed to feel something…
🙄
Anon 1 and other readers
I went over to Vinegar Hill the film production company of which Ian is a part (? producer). I watched their short film called The Cosmonaut. I am, once again, convinced that my assessment of the situation is accurate. I suggest that folks watch the movie – all of it, every bit of it including the opening and closing credits. See if you see what I see. I am deeply concerned that this situation is being orchestrated. My heart goes out to Larissa and Ian in many ways. Shame on those who would use it for their agendas.
I feel bad for both the young man and the young woman in this difficult situation.
My sense is that they are both potentially being exploited by somebody whose interests eclipse those of the couple.
The 8 minute movie clip with the pleasant music and carefully placed references to Piper’s materials seem to point more to Piper and his agenda than to Christ and His presence amidst serious difficulties.
This all appears less to be a “scandal of selfless love” between Larissa and Ian than a scandal of selfish manipulation and exploitation, regrettably in the name of Christ.
As a physician, I sense a potential breach of trust here.
Dr. Jon
I am grateful for your professional look at this situation. I believe that there are some ethical concerns that need to be addressed. Are there any Calvinist pastors out there who might provide some thoughtful warning to those surrounding this situation?
Leila wrote:
That is my absolute FAVORITE thread in the Bully Brothers Hall of Fame. I actually brought it up with Dee and Deb when having dinner with them a few weeks ago. The way Light sets up the scenario is brilliant, and they simply can’t deal with it.
But the icing on the cake comes about half-way through the thread when a commenter, Martin, intentionally adds a comment that is completely over-the-top misogynist:
Permalink Submitted by Martin on August 31, 2006 – 10:05am
Bayly wrote:”Of course, I might be convinced to change my tactics in dealing with her impiety and silence her completely. But to this point, Light has been given almost complete freedom to express her rebellion and darkness.” I don’t see any need to silence her. That would be giving more power to her words than you might care to. Every one has an opinion. She’s just a woman, nothing to be afraid of! It might be more helpful to give unemotional, non-caustic, logical, researched responses so that those of more methodical reasoning could see the sense of the arguments. {italics mine}
And nobody catches it! Nobody calls him on it, and apparently no one realizes he’s being facetious in order to prove a point. It goes completely over their inflated patriarchal heads. Brilliant.
Sophie, Great insights about comp doctrine. The biggest problem they have are the details. They need a Talmud of sorts…an oral law to follow because it gets complicated. They try very hard to keep it vague and focus on submission of the wife and her role in society and church. If you pay attention, the woman is repsonsible for the man’s success. And how that plays in real life can get very confusing as the rules become complicated. EXampel: At what age should she not teach boys because they are men? There was even one church I know that allowed video of a woman teaaching but not a live woman teahcing men. :o)The incapacitation of the male was another issue they seem to be addressing now. The rules, roles and formulas are staggering when you really get into it. It would be a full time job to figure it out.
The whole issue gets us focused on ourselves, each other living out the assigned “roles” and OFF of Christ. Me thinks Satan is delighted with it.
The worst thing to happen to comp doctrine is the internet. As long as they commanded the stages and we did not have a real opportunity to question it in depth, it just plugged along as correct doctrine with some of us feeling uneasy but not wanting to rock the boats of unity. Then the internet explodes and we find a ton of other people questioning it. We have access to excellent scholars who present a bonafide biblical view that is very different and we also have access to Greek lexicons, and all sorts of resources to study on our own.
There used to be a blog called complegaitarian that was really hopping for a few years and trying to bring unity to both sides. It was hosted by a bible translator and more educated types commented there. The conversations were very stimulating. You might have a comp CEO woman arguing for comp position. That sort of thing. I learned so much about Greek there and the lure of comp thinking for educated women which was a shocker. I did learn there that comps will tear you from limb to limb to justify their doctrine. They were threatened by mutualist thinking and insisted comp doctrine WAS equal and mutual. There was just soemthing wrong with women who wanted more. Same old story.
However, Just in the last 7 years or so, I have seen the comp movement get sort of desparate with their teaching becoming more and more bizarre and my guess is many of those soft comps from back then are not going along so easily. And the more desperate they get, the more people question it and move away from it. Even Russ Moore admitted they were losing because most comps are living out mutualist marriages. :o)
I see it a lot like the historical slavery position. It just became ridiculous to think you could own another person and justify it with scripture. And those who kept advocating it looked more and more petty, desperate and backward. It started becoming about them and what their problems were to think such things. I think we are getting there with men who are so desperate to promote patriarcal doctrine with such themes as Masculine Christianity and promoting Sodomy for when the wife is not up to it, she should offer up her backside (Driscoll). And what is interestingis that the NC/YRR movement is really taking up the comp/pat banner with Masculinity being the rally cry.
A lot of this is not going over well with mainstream COMPS!
As an attorney with a Ph.D. in Psychology, I have a serious problem with the video. I do not believe that Ian is competent to allow his image to be used in a video for any purpose. My question is whether his guardian, assuming he has one, was acting in Ian’s best interest in allowing his image to be used in this video.
As an ethicist and former teacher of ethics, I also believe the the publishers of this video are behaving in a manner than violates almost any ethical standard, and if any are professionals, they should be decertified or otherwise corrected by their profession.
@ dee:
I will check out the video. This whole situation is giving me a very bad feeling. It is like these guys (Piper, Mahaney, etc) have entered a very dark realm to prop up their pet doctrine. This is the part where messing with people’s lives gets very serious. We have seen a lot of faux spiritual “messing with people’s lives” reported here but this one just goes beyond the pale.
@Sergius Martin-George, as for the Bully Bros Hall of Fame winner – it’s a tossup between that thread and the “Wooing as Warfare” thread, where they make it sound like practically kidnapping a bride and severing all ties with her family is a good idea. That one brings to mind tribes conquering other tribes and stealing their women. Not really a stretch, I guess, when you consider women as property.
@ Deb:
Deb,
CJ has been pushing all this stuff long before he started reading the puritanical authors and turned reformed back in the early 90’s. Courtship, patriarchy, young marriages, babies, babies and more babies, Ezzo school of beating your kids into submission stating when they are infants, home schooling, role of women in church, etc, etc, was all there since the early days of SGM (then PDI/People Of Destiny) – it is no wonder at all that once CJ turned reformed that Al and the rest of the gang welcomed his ideas and open checkbook with open arms.
Al was probably salivating when he saw an ENTIRE denomination practicing his ideas that was reformed………
@ Anon 1:
Why should they pray at all. If they were to believe that God actually does something different after they pray, then they are open-theists and not double predestinarian Hyper Calvinists.
@ Sophie:
The tie-breaker should result in the woman’s choice being implemented, since the man’s role is to put his spouse’s desires above his own!!!!!
In Texas (of all places) and many other states, it is a criminal offense to abuse an elderly or disabled person, and abuse can include having authority over or for them (guardianship or power of attorney), and acting contrary to their best interest.
To be featured in a video and not receive proper compensation for it is clearly an abuse of the one so featured. If it was unauthorized, it is clearly contrary to law, and the producer, etc., should be subject to criminal charges as well as civil liability, and should be referred to the department of protective services (name varies). If it was authorized, it is clearly not in the best interest of the disabled, and therefore it is a violation of a fiduciary duty and that should be referred as well. I have handled a situation where an accusation was made that a sibling was not properly accounting for money paid for a disabled person, and was looking at a felony indictment, until we presented sufficient financial documentation to show that the money was being properly spent.
From the Piper link:
“And when you look at a woman who is dominantly and prominently feminine, she will have a backbone, she will be articulate, she will be thoughtful (things we tend to think are male).”
Since when is being articulate, thoughtful and having a backbone considered male?
Is there are parallel universe I’m missing or something?
Good grief. I find that insulting. Flip that around and it means women are generally thought to be inarticulate, thought-less, and spineless? How else are you to read it?
Sergius,
I finally read that Bayly post and comments this afternoon when Lelia provided the link. Now I understand what you were talking about during our dinner discussion. The more patriarchy (disguised as complementarianism) is discussed in the blogosphere, the more ridiculous it seems.
Arce,
You are providing some great analysis! We appreciate your insights given your expertise in this area.
Sallie,
I was equally offended by Piper’s ridiculous comment about women having a backbone. John Piper is in a hole, and he really needs to stop digging… He’s only making matters worse with this kind of babble.
Freedom,
Thanks for your clarification about the history of these abusive tactics in SGM. Sounds like Mahaney influenced Mohler instead of the other way around. After all, Mohler used to be egalitarian when he was in college and/or seminary.
Sallie wrote:
Not really a kibble, is it. I took it the same way. Nice try.
Arce
Thank you for your input on the situation. The ethics exhibited by SGM, Piper, and the film company run by McCulley, an SGMer herself, are shoddy and unbecoming to those in the ministry. This couple appears exploited. I believe an advocate for the disabled should be appointed to assess this situation.
Deb wrote:
Deb, this kind of thinking was big in the 70s-80s in the discipleship movement, of which Mahaney was a part from early on – along with Larry Tomczak, btw.
I just read the Bayly and Piper links. So so many things to rant about.
What struck me most about the Bayly one was in the comments. He and his cheerleaders were incredibly vicious to the three people who dared to question his post, and he all but accused them of being godless evil heathens (and did call them evil feminazis), yet he has the temerity to say he’s being ooh so nice allowing the godless heathens to comment. As hypocritical and pharisaical as they come.
And as Sallie said, Piper is just insulting with his ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits. I just don’t get how someone can go through life in this day and age and still believe such crap as ‘men are strong and smart and women are not’. Are these people that deliberately ignorant of the world that they don’t know that the world is full of incredibly brilliant women? Speaking just for my own family, I’m currently doing a PhD (and about to go to three conferences across two continents in the next month thankyouverymuch), my mother has a PhD and spent decades as an academic (my dad too), I have a female second cousin who has a PhD and is an academic and author, my paternal grandmother was a teacher in isolated towns in rural Australia in the 1930s before she was married, and that’s just a few examples. Intelligence doesn’t discriminate by gender, ability doesn’t discriminate by gender. They never have. Most people recognise that. It’s depressing to see people try and deny that fact by appealing to some twisted theology.
Also, I’m not sure about any other women, but my uterus is pretty far away from my brain. My brain functions the same way a man’s brain does, it isn’t driven by my uterus. These hypercalvinistapatriarchalists don’t seem to understand that very basic biology.
@ Laura:
That is a beautiful story, Laura.
@ Anon 1:
“About 8 years ago, the only place you could find online teaching that a husband was in charge of his wife’s sanctification was in the Dominionist camp. The fringe of Christendom. The guys who are always encouraging people to stock up grain. I have watched this teaching on women creep more and more into what used to be thought of as more mainstream groups….Especially the Calvinist camp.”
Yes, you are right. Patriarchy is exerting a very strong pull on complementarianism and, as I’ve pointed out before, the two are now starting to become indistinguishable. Piper’s infamous “giving directions to a man” illustration is Exhibit A. Women’s submission to all men (a blatantly patriarchal idea) is the only conclusion you can draw from that story. And that should disturb even complementarians who allegedly disagree with patriarchy.
As to WHY patriarchy is taking over complementarianism… My guess? The popularity of Vision Forum and the advance of egalitarianism. They continue to feel more and more insecure and want to make sure they distinguish themselves from the egalitarians, and Vision Forum gives them both the ego boost and the tools they need to be different. Never mind that Vision Forum is like meth – great at first, highly addictive, but fatal and/or debilitating in the end.
@ Pam:
The Bayly brothers are disgusting. Period. I’ve read only one post of theirs and that was enough for me to throw them in the misogynist dustbin. Them and their “unsheathed swords” crap.
@ numo:
I am completely with you on this. And I wonder, had the genders been reversed, & the woman wasn’t well enough to run the home, bear children & so on whether it woud have happened at all…as the male would then have had to run the household, & be in ‘submission’ to the demands of her handicap & disability. It would not have fit their patriarchal agenda, though it might show a husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church.
The consent issues also give me pause.
@ numo:
This is correct – SGM was highly influenced by the Sheppardung movement of the 70’s and put into place most of its teachings without calling it “Shepparding”
@ numo:
@ Deb:
Money buys influence……..
The daughter of a friend of our family was in the same situation that Larissa was–before the wedding. She, along with the young man’s family, agreed that such a marriage was inappropriate and it was called off. A difficult situation to go through.
Yeah, before these calvinista’s are done all of us will be unsaved heathens heading for the fires of hell….at least from their point of view!
Pam
According to the patriarchal crowd, your uterus defines your brain and lack of spiritual authority for the rest of your life.
dee and Deb – As I was reading your post, I was thinking of “Being There,” so I was delighted to find that you were also.
Anon 1 – I agree with your comment that they need a Talmud, and they may start by compiling Piper’s statements. I see him as a heavily bearded Orthodox rabbi patiently answering questions from his followers: “I believe a woman who is beaten by her husband should remain at least overnight.” “If there is an intruder during the night, the husband should check even if the wife is a black belt in karate [something Piper actually said].” He will have to cover every possible situation, and then there will be further commentary on his answers, and further commentary on the commentary….
The alternative is to be as general and non-specific as possible, as I have seen “Torah-centric” believers do when they say Torah must be followed, but never discuss a single specific command.
What do these folks say about widows?
Anyone,
What do they mean when they say “Christianity has a masculine feel”?
Anonymous, they are chasing their tail, because what they really mean is “Real Christian men lead, and real Christian women follow. In Christianity, men are always in charge.”
@Jeff B
I’ve got one word for you:
Piponides.
Laura, thank you for posting your story. {{{{{{{{{{{{hugs}}}}}}}}}}}
@ JeffB:
“If there is an intruder during the night, the husband should check even if the wife is a black belt in karate [something Piper actually said].” He will have to cover every possible situation, and then there will be further commentary on his answers, and further commentary on the commentary….”
He really said that? I can remember these same convos with comps and relating a couple I know where she is a police officer and he a master chef. They joked about this….that her gun trumps his knives if there is ever an intruder.
You know, this stuff really gets silly when you analyze it and discuss it in depth which is exactly what they don’t want us to do. The pulpits are fast becoming irrelevant and I think they sense this. I have seen more and more “warnings” about blogging and ‘how to blog” than ever berfore. They want to tell us how to blog in a “Christian” way according to them. Even Thom Rainer just did a post on this for baptists. What amazes me is that they really think they have credibility in this arena. These celebs are people who cannot handle serious disagreement in a dialogue they do not control.
anonymous wrote:
The “they” aren’t in complete agreement on this. J
@ anonymous:
John Piper is the person who made that statement. I believe he has received some flack on it. It was in a teaching he did at a Pastor’s Conference this past January. If you go to desiringgod.org you can look it up and see what you think of the teaching. It seems the more Piper associates with Doug Wilson, the more he leans toward patriarchy.
“What do these folks say about widows?”
Unless married, as a woman, you are not really relative in their world. However, they do expect widows to support them with tithes.
Speaking of widows….I just thought of a great profit making idea for the comp/pats. A comp/pat courtship website. She would list her submission skills and he could list his spiritual leadership skills.
They could call it: Courageous leadership/Joyful submission.
Anon 1 wrote:
Sounds like a Christian BDSM website without the sex.
Actually, they’d probably love the idea.
Dee and Deb,
Thanks for the information. I have been looking into this movement and it is nauseating. Maybe I am just a thoughtless spineless uterus; however, I do know this much. This is false teaching, destructive, and can do a ridiculous amount of damage.
People that advocate this cannot stand up to any real scrutiny, and their bully tactics and power plays are obnoxious.
Gl
@ Amy:
Amy: You are so right about these folks bully tactics and power plays. They will not hesitate to hurt others to accomplish their ends.
It is very hard to play fair with these folks because you can rest assure they are not.
dee wrote:
Of course. My uterus was obviously stopping me from seeing this eternal truth.
Wow, if children read this blog, they are going to have anatomy and physiology all messed up. “Mommy, is the uterus in the brain or is it a film over the eyes????”
Anon 1 wrote:
Patriarchism is causing pain, strife and disunity in the Body of Christ. We are experiencing a church split over this very issue. The patriarchists in our congregation couldn’t sway the church their way, so they’re leaving to start a home church network away from the rest of us “pseudo-Christians”. Satan loves it when we get distracted from the Great Commission by our own personal opinions. It is heartbreaking.
@ Jenny:
The truly sad part is IMO these folks that push Patriarchism do not care if they split churches. They believe they are right and anyone that does not believe 100% their way is the enemy.
I’m not sure how to feel about this video. On the one hand, I have huge respect for Larissa and both of their families, and the rest of their support system. In many ways, I find their story beautiful.
But I’m not comfortable with how Larissa’s decision to marry Ian was almost presented as being the most spiritual of her options (i.e. it was the litmus test that proved she had “grasped” a correct and unselfish view of marriage).
While I’m glad that Larissa is happy with her decision, I don’t think it’s fair to present the decision in terms of how spiritual it is. Other people in the same or similar situations might have made a different choice, and I don’t believe that would reflect badly on their grasp of faithfulness or selflessness or God-honoring-ness in marriage.
Maybe I read too much into the message of the video, but that’s what I kept thinking about.
Also……as far as the video pushing for the idea that Ian is her spiritual leader–well, I just don’t think that was a good way to spin this situation. It seems like something she wants to believe that perhaps doesn’t have much basis in reality?
I don’t have a problem with her believing that if it’s important to her. I’m just afraid that somewhere down the road, she might change her mind about the reality of that and experience it as a very, very shocking blow to her world. I also wouldn’t want other women who are considering entering a difficult marriage to look at this and say “See? John Piper says that guys are capable of leading their wives even against huge obstacles, so I should get married fully expecting this to happen.”
It’s just not a responsible thing to tell people.
All of the theology aside, how does someone who couldn’t enter into a contractual agreement on the simplest of mundane matters possibly give informed consent to marriage?
Tangentially related…
We visited a church recently that had the Focus on the Family insert in the bulletin. On the back it had a section answering the question “According to the Bible, what is a father?”
Three of the answers were leader, teacher and lover. The fourth? He’s a PRIEST. Scripture back up? Deuteronomy 6:1-13.
You know, we talk about these things over and over again here at TWW and I read about this stuff so many other places, but every time I see it in black and white somewhere new where I’m not expecting it, it still shocks me.
@ Sallie:
Sallie – the scripture they quoted says nothing about the father being a priest. However, the NT clearly speaks of believers (not just fathers) being a royal priesthood. It leaves me with the question, “Do people just believe whatever is stated without checking the scripture texts and without thinking about what is communicated in other passages of scripture about the same issues?”
Something else that I am beginning to see is that most leaders are not teaching people “how” to study scripture. They are basically telling them “the what” to believe. Leaders should be giving people the tools to study and learn and then praying that the Holy Spirit will reveal the Truth and Life. Many leaders, instead, insist that they are the ones that have the Truth and Life and they, therefore need to be the ones to impart it to the flock. We are hearing this often in the Protestant realm. I find this ironic since the Protestants are the ones that rebelled against the Catholic church for doing the same thing. It was the protesting that led the Bible being put in the hands of the people.
SMG – “Piponides.” Good one.
Anon 1 – Here is the exact quote from Piper:
“If there is a sound downstairs during the night and it might be a burglar, you don’t say to her: This is an egalitarian marriage, so it’s your turn to go check it out. I went last time.” And I mean that even if your wife has a black belt in karate. After you’ve tried, she may finish off the burglar with one good kick to the solar plexus. But you better be unconscious on the floor, or you’re no man. That’s written on your soul, brother, by God Almighty. Big or little, strong or weak, night or day, you go up against the enemy first. Woe to the husband—and woe to the nation—that send their women to fight their battles.”
“But you better be unconscious on the floor, or you’re no man.”
Or dead, I imagine.
Bridget –
Amen to your last comment.
It saddens me that Piper has exploited this young couple to push his patriarchy. I wonder how he became aware of them and their story?
Ian and Larissa have a beautiful love story. Their wedding video brought tears to my eyes. I’m glad they’re both happy.
However, I’ve been thinking along the same lines as sad observer. It seems that Larissa wants to believe Ian is the spiritual leader and head of their home, despite his inability to carry out those functions. She has been force-fed unbiblical gender roles in the SGM church and believes, in order to to have a godly marriage and life, she and Ian would have to carry out those roles. They have numerous church leaders and Piper himself telling her that she and Ian are the biblical model for gender roles in marriage. It wouldn’t be hard, with such enormous validation, to be convinced.
With the passage of time, the ups and downs, and the hurts and triumphs of life, I think there will come a time that Larissa will begin to listen to that still small voice that has been pushed down by SGM, patriarchy, and celebrity pastors. I think she’ll begin to question and research and look at things differently.
@ Eagle:
another example of the misnomer that actions that are gutsy, tenacious, courageous, tough are inherently male.
I went back and listened to the video for a second time. I was bothered by the fact that I didn’t remember hearing anything about Larissa’s family or their thoughts about the marriage. There was nothing mentioned about Larissa’s family at all. There could be all kinds of reasons for this that I’m not aware of, but I found it somewhat disturbing. Larissa and Ian are certainly both old enough to make their own decision (aside from my questioning Ian’s ability to make decisions about his life at all). But you would think that Larissa would want the counsel of her family, and she may well have talked it all through with her family before making a decision. It is just not covered at all in the video.
Another thing I noticed the second time watching was hearing Larissa, herself, refer to “before the accident.” She knew “before the accident” that Ian was looking for wedding rings. Had they talked about marriage (and everything that means to each of them individually) before the accident? Even after the accident, it was four years before they seemed to broach the subject again and that was only at the urging of Ian’s father for them to make a decision about their relationship. Were Ian and Larissa not communicating about their relationship during those four years?
There are many questions about this entire video that cannot really be answered from viewing it. It raises more questions for me than it causes me to celebrate and give glory to God. My guess is that no one is supposed to ask questions. We are supposed to watch it, get all goose bumpy, then go buy Piper’s book. That leaves me with the conclusion that the video is mainly a commercial for the book and not a testimony to what God has done in Ian and Larissa’s lives.
I pray that the Lord was and is leading Ian and Larissa in their marriage and will sustain them with great joy and comfort.
@ elastigirl:
…& I hope no one, male or female, feels compelled to prove something about themselves by pursuing gutsy, tenacious, courageous, and tough for its own sake.
At this point, how can men in Christianworld NOT feel this way, though?
JeffB,
Check out the latest offering over on the Steam Tunnel titled Piponides.
@ elastigirl:
How true . . . I hope they are looking to scripture and the Holy Spirit and not to men and their resolutions.
I remember you saying that the teaching at the church you attend was going to be focused on the “Courageous” movie. I was wondering how that is all playing out?
To stay more with the topic of this particular post —
this story about Ian and Larissa is like so many other moments in a christian church setting where something is presented that has all the appearances being good and noble, yet leaves me with the sinking feeling that I’ve just been manipulated.
After the sinking feeling comes anger, plain and simple — a complicated experience, because after all “anger” is not the “correct” feeling to have, so something must be wrong with me.
Dysfunction Central.
Diane wrote:
Diane wrote:
I also have no idea what Piper’s “hot off the presses” article said, though I read it several times. This paragraph about the masculine feel of Sunday morning worship services, for example:
“If it is done right, this masculine feel creates a space. It is big, it’s roomy, it’s beautiful, it’s peaceful. It’s just full and radiates with all the good things of life and in it women, flourishing, will give it that feel. So that as you walk in on Sunday morning and strong singing, led primarily by men, and then a voice from God is heard, and women are loving this, they’re radiant, they’re intelligent, they’re understanding, they’re processing, they’re interacting. Then all the gifts that were just articulated will flourish in that space. And as you navigate that community there will be feminine feels all over the place.”
Can someone with a better understanding of complementationism please tell me what practical things a typical pastor or worship leader might implement in the order of worship, if they wanted to bring about the proper masculine and feminine feels in their local church? All I see is, apparently more than half the choir or worship team should be men…. “And then a voice from God is heard”. What?! Is this a prophecy? The Sermon (TM)? Or a tornado knocking over the steeple? Herod, about to become worm chow? Help!
Diane wrote:
Bridget wrote-
“That leaves me with the conclusion that the video is mainly a commercial for the book and not a testimony to what God has done in Ian and Larissa’s lives.”
I said about the same in my comment. I hope they were well compensated for the infomercial.
“I pray that the Lord was and is leading Ian and Larissa in their marriage and will sustain them with great joy and comfort.”
I do too. I really do feel for her. I hope they are happy.
I decided to read a little on the prayforian site to read in her own words how things are going. There is a post on May 30th 2012 that describes a bit about how Ian leads and she submits.
She writes things that Ian apparently says and he seems to be able to communicate –ask her how she is, etc. I don’t know if I could do what she has done. As a nurse, I have taken care of many like Ian. Many people do it without the breaks from the constant demands that she has. She has careworkers for Ian, and she a job so she gets time off from his constant care needs. She does say in this blog that it was never her desire to be a working wife, but her wish was and still is to be a SAHM. And how she has to fight for joy.
@ Eagle:
They have the gonads (ovaries) and the uteri, which is more than enough, since they are egalitarians! Actually, such things are unnecessary, because they have the indwelling Spirit, and are priests, according to Hebrews, among other passages.
@ Deb:
Deb – Thanks for pointing me to that.
SGM – I appreciate the “fleshing out” of my idea and your name for it.
“If it is done right, this masculine feel creates a space. It is big, it’s roomy, it’s beautiful, it’s peaceful. It’s just full and radiates with all the good things of life and in it women, flourishing, will give it that feel. So that as you walk in on Sunday morning and strong singing, led primarily by men, and then a voice from God is heard, and women are loving this, they’re radiant, they’re intelligent, they’re understanding, they’re processing, they’re interacting. Then all the gifts that were just articulated will flourish in that space. And as you navigate that community there will be feminine feels all over the place.”
This is confusing, barely coherent subjectivism. Piper seems to be in love with his own words.
Rea@ JeffB:
Reads like someone in the early stages of some form of dementia!!!!
Oops, sorry Sergius. I meant SMG, not SGM(!).
Yeah, I had to pick a nom de blogue with initials almost identical to the People of Destiny. Brilliant!
Speaking of dementia, the thread commment of the week for me
was on iMonk’s midweek tidbits:
Kyle says:
June 13, 2012 at 7:56 pm
It’s almost like every time he opens his mouth, John Piper is thinking, “I wonder how I can sound like even more of a self-righteous, dogmatic, arrogant windbag than last time?” I’m sure there are Calvinists who aren’t like this, but I haven’t met very many.
First, I am not the Laura who had the husband with ALS. One can only imagine the challenge this involved. What a loving tribute and testimony.
I am the mom of one biological and one adopted son who have Down Syndrome. I think that I am qualified to say that “handicapped” people are capable of bringing great inspiration, mercy, joy, love, and even wisdom to the dynamics of a family or society. There are important qualities in life that transcend I.Q., mobility, or even awareness. I know of parents who have severely and profoundly brain injured children who feel that they have learned invaluable things just from the honor of loving and serving their child, often with no discernable response.
That being said, my initial gut reaction to this whole story and the accompanying “truth” that some complementarian persons have drawn from observation of it, is that it is a poignant and complex story that is being used to further an agenda that, drawn to its furthest conclusion, would be ridiculous.
I can see some logic to the idea of a very handicapped individual being a spiritual “leader”, if by leader we mean inspiration or encourager. I think, though, it would seem that the Piper crowd would want the definition of “leader” to encompass ALL aspects of life. There can be no shared roles or leadership for them. Thus, to them, I believe that being a leader includes being a “ruler”.
I am not familiar with the extent of this man’s diability. But I could see the most devoted complementarians having a competition of sorts to see who could be most submissive to the most disabled husband. (If this sounds silly, think about folks you know in the full quiver movement who see a virtue in being the most economically stressed family with the most kids. If you don’t know anyone like this, I do.)
I see this almost being a superstitious kind of thing….think about the scandal a few years ago with some non-verbal kids who were given electronic devices to communicate with. I think it was found that many of the messages were actually composed by those running the experimant…?
Would the wife of a profoundly brain injured husband be encouraged to pose questions to him and look for signals to know if he said yes or no? How would long term care be handled, or decisions about keeping a husband on a ventilator, for example? How could a wife make this decision on her own?
I think for anyone who had doubts, this sort of thing PROVES that this complementarian, patriarchal movement has crossed the line into heretical teaching and is replacing the gospel with strange, culturally infused laws.
BYW, I was at a VERY conservative Lutheran Church yesterday. Not only did a woman read scripture to the congregation, but a reading from the Old Testament on wisdom (portraying wisdom as a WOMAN) was cited as a picture of Christ. What a reality check, and what an encouragement that not all churches think like the “masculists” !!!(Good name?)
Laura wrote:
That’s what I thought. And if Ian, with his severe limitations, can be a spiritual leader, then why do Piper and co insist that men have to take the lead in pretty much every area of life? If a woman giving directions to a man is potentially violating the creation order then how can a man like Ian be a spiritual leader *according to Piper’s definition?*
@ Sergius Martin-George:
JeffB Arce and SMG : I agree. It’s almost like JP is radiantly, intelligently, flourishingly, roomily, beautifully, peacefully, giftedly, navigatingly, feelingly, masculinely, and femininely– losing it.
I’d still love an explanation of “A voice from God is heard, and women are loving this.”
At least with the patriarchs, like the Bayly’s and the Dougs, you can discern their ideal society (1850’s deep south), whereas with Piper you’re left scratching your head.
Dave A A wrote:
Ugh, I hate all the adverbs he uses to make patriarchy seem more appealing.
Dave A A wrote:
Um, could we sing that to the tune of “Bennie and the Jets?”
SMG
Loved the moment from IM.
“And as you navigate that community there will be feminine feels all over the place.””
Feminine feels? Feminine feels! Are the feminines the feelers or the feelees?
And if a female gets felt up does she get to emasculate the feller?
Seriously, tell me he did not say that!
Sophie wrote:
To be honest, I think that sentence of JP’s is pretty well incoherent. I don’t mean that unkindly , either – it just simply does not make sense to me. The paragraph it comes from is just as bad.
I think that “masculine feel” = whatever Piper like (in other words, whatever is to his personal taste) – and taste is innately subjective.
Hmm… 😉
Laura
Thank you for your awesome comment. Are you familiar with the works of Henri Nouwen and his work with the disabled. I am with you. I believe the disabled teach as much about God by their very existence: “bringing great inspiration, mercy, joy, love, and even wisdom to the dynamics of a family or society.” In them we can see the image of God and know that he is at their center in ways that we cannot understand.
I did not know about this.”think about the scandal a few years ago with some non-verbal kids who were given electronic devices to communicate with. I think it was found that many of the messages were actually composed by those running the experiment…?” Could you provide more information on this. It would be of interest to me and many readers?
I also enjoy people who have Down’s. They are the most joyful people that I know, often bringing smiles to my life as I encounter them in my day to day life. I cannot imagine someone aborting a child with Downs. They bring a sweet spirit to this cold world. Thank you for sharing a bit of you life with us.
Sophie
Well said “And if Ian, with his severe limitations, can be a spiritual leader, then why do Piper and co insist that men have to take the lead in pretty much every area of life? If a woman giving directions to a man is potentially violating the creation order then how can a man like Ian be a spiritual leader *according to Piper’s definition”
DaveAA
The longer Piper is around, the more i am scratching my head. His pronouncements appear to be becoming more and more radical.
@ numo:
Yes, it’s quite a weird little paragraph. Seems like he’s gone so far overboard on the obfuscation that he doesn’t know how to retain any clarity.
“It’s almost like JP is radiantly, intelligently, flourishingly, roomily, beautifully, peacefully, giftedly, navigatingly, feelingly, masculinely, and femininely– losing it.”
Good parody of his style, Dave A A.
I realize that many will disagree, but some of the earlier, more scholarly things that Piper wrote are solid, imo. Something, possibly the late rise in his popularity coupled with simply getting older, seems to have impaired his judgment and caused him to become legalistic and, sometimes, just plain silly. His wholesale endorsement of Rick Warren alone would convince me that something is terribly wrong, but the Pat Robertson-like reasons for natural disasters, the weird stuff on man-woman relationships, etc., simply confirm it for me.
@ dee:
Dee, I also like people with Downs Sydrome. I don’t mean to sound patronising by generalising them like that, but the truth is I never met a person with Downs Syndrome who wasn’t a pleasure to be around.I wish that people understood more about Downs Syndrome and spent more time with those who have it – I’m sure that if they did, there’d be far fewer abortions of Downs babies.
Heather wrote:
I have an image of women with tentacles now for some reason, clumsily trying and failing to open hymnbooks to the right page. I wonder if that’s what John Piper meant.
I’ve been thinking about that fact that Piper’s crowd are going to have a Conference for the Disabled & discuss all the beauty of God’s perfect design…I wish they’d go the whole way & have a Conference for the Traumatised & have all those who were gang raped, or saw friends blown up in war or lost children to drug addiction along to discuss how it’s so beautiful & lovely that God caused these things for his glory.
Well, I read about a situation years ago where non-verbal kids were communicating with others by way of an electronic keyboard, except that according to what I read, a) the instructor had to be in the room with the person while they typed, and b) the things the person typed sometimes seemed strangely like things the instructor would have said.
Not to say that there are not many many thoughts locked away in some individuals who are non-verbal, or that technology and therapy cannot sometimes enable people to communicate in an astonishing way….But in this context, I was thinking out loud about how persons with an agenda could speak through the disabled, thus using them to make a point that the disabled person might not support were they better able to communicate.
That’s all I meant. I am getting where I don’t put too much past these folks.
Heather
You are making me laugh. A feminine feel???
I have an image of women with tentacles now for some reason, clumsily trying and failing to open hymnbooks to the right page.
Well, thank God He didn’t give Christianity more of a Crustacean feel.
Sophie wrote:
Well, thank God He didn’t give Christianity more of a Crustacean feel.
ok, coming late to the party, I haven’t yet read all the comments, but I found this story deeply disturbing. First, of course, I am awed and humbled by Larissa’s sacrifice. I know I couldn’t do that.
But leaving aside this whole issue of “spiritual leader” a phrase that simply isn’t anywhere in my Bible in regards to marriage, and I have no idea what tree they plucked it from or what it’s supposed to mean (even in most complementarian days I couldn’t figure out what it meant or how I, a mature adult Christian with my own relationship with Christ before I ever met my husband, was supposed to suddenly need someone else to tell me how to relate to God) there is another issue here. How do they manage to turn this story completely on its head. The Ephesians 5 picture, in its simplified interpretation, says Husband = Christ, wife = church. But isn’t this the exact opposite? Larissa is doing for her husband all those things that Christ does for the church, and he is helplessly receiving the good gift, just as the church receives from Christ. In this story, the only “spiritual leadership” I can see is Larissa’s example of Christlike love. Any other interpretation is just spin.
It all reminds me of that course called “The Philosophy of Christian Womanhood” that I was put through as a young newly wed to teach me how tobe a good submissive little wife. Much of it I swallowed, and it took me years to receive the antidote, but there was one section that I couldn’t make sense of even then. It was the story of Abigail (1 Sam 25) which presented Abigail as a submissive wife to Nabal. I went home and read and re-read that story, and I still couldn’t figure out how she was submissive. This story has exactly the same effect — someone is taking a story which says the exact opposite and twisting into a pretzel to try and support their argument. Can we not simply say that here is a mighty woman of ‘chayil’ (valour)
Which brings up a side issue. When I studied Hebrew I went to another college and cross-credited it back to my degree, because I wanted to study Hebrew and my own college wasn’t offering it. The college I did my Hebrew at belonged to a strongly comp denomination, and I could tell sevferal stories about my experiences there (for starters, I was the only woman in the class). We worked our way through the book of Ruth, and both Ruth and Boaz are described as being people of ‘chayil’. We were told by the lecturer that this word meant something like strength, valour, might when applied to man, and beauty, grace virtue when applied to a woman. You get the picture. Knowing that words in other languages have different semantic ranges, I didn’t really question this. He was an expert Hebrew scholar, I was studying the language at kindergarten level. Imagine my surprise when, sometime later, I read some conservative modern Jewish scholarship online, and found them routinely talking about “women of valour”! By such subtleties are things re-presented!
Dee, it is not unheard of for women to be “felt up” at our local library. The full weight of law is justly brought to bear on the perpetrators.
As I prepared dinner I was thinking about all of this…stuff… The simplicity of the gospel, the simplicity of the Christian life … It is God who is at work in us …our burden is light, his yoke is easy.
All of the flowery, flowing, descriptive, imaginative, language has its place. I love reading testimonies of the faithfulness of God from writers like Michael Spencer or Ann Voscamp. Their language expands my understanding of the beauty of sacrifice and the incredible generosity of grace. I love hymns ..
Wonderful the matchless grace of Jesus,
Deeper than the mighty rolling sea;
Wonderful grace, all sufficient for me, for even me.
Broader than the scope of my transgressions,
Greater far than all my sin and shame,
O magnify the precious Name of Jesus.
Praise His Name!
But, and there is always a but, when language is used to distort and distract from either the clear truths of the bible or the less clear secondary issues; when “masculine” and “feminine” are co-opted, taken over, to influence the church towards accepting as primary things which are secondary, it is unacceptable to me.
So I don’t want to seem uncouth in my using of “feminine feels” but it is not clear use of language. And Piper should be careful to be exact in his use of language. I think he speaks the way he does to cancel any doubt that listeners or readers would have about his content. Kind of like the waiter who describes a plain meal in those wonderful flowery words! It is a thought-stopping technique. Christians who do not think are destined to have their thinking done for them.
@ Lynne T:
Read the Gospel of Ruth by Carolyn Custis James. She goes into depth concering “valor” and the total misrepresentation of that book by translations and scholars as a cheap romance novel. That book will change how you view the entire pericope of scripture.
Eagle
Thank you for your kind words.
This thread has been a fascinating read. Thank you to both Laura’s for sharing your stories.
A quick correction….somewhere up the thread, someone noted that Carolyn McC got her start in SGM. Actually, she was in the video/audio/ commercial production business before she became a Christian. I heard her refer to herself as a feminist before coming to Christ. She joined her “local” SGM church, and after her abilities became noticed, she was offered a job at HQ and moved to the Gaithersburg area. No doubt that she was well-taught up there.
When the fit recently hit the shan at SGM, I believe she went back to free-lancing as her own business entity.
In true SGM/PDI fashion, one day it was announced from the stage that the local radio stations would begin running some radio ads abiut the church produced by Miss McC. However, through we heard samples of the ad, to my knowledge they were never run on any radio station, but there was no announcement from the “stage” as to why or why not. Possibly nixed by someone up the chain? I don’t know.
Last week, I read a book written by the young woman who was forced by Warren Jeffs to marry a first cousin she disliked intensely. The parallels between the FLDS and the ever-strengthening patriarchal ideology within SGM and the Calvinistas is chilling.
If you’re looking for a ‘hill to die on’, as the Non-Rogained One likes to call themes he sees as primary, consider the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. It’s really in the Bible.
Deb and Dee,
Thank you so much for writing about this story. I saw it on facebook when it came out and I was horrified. I cannot believe that a church and family encouraged this marriage. I showed the clip to my husband and he was also troubled. I looked around the internet to see if anyone else was disturbed and it seemed like everyone was praising this story.
This story has really opened my eyes. I’m no longer drinking the koolaid.
Calvinista Church Member (I laughed over your email address!)
When you come to this blog, you get a different spin. Perhaps it is because we know the agenda and we have some medical professionals and lawyers that hang around here.
I noticed that, on his site, http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/more-on-the-masculine-feel-of-christianity, there is a video and transcription of, not only the part we’ve been discussing, but also what Piper said immediately afterward. In the interest of fairness, I quote it below, beginning with the paragraph we’ve been commenting on:
“If it is done right, this masculine feel creates a space. It is big, it’s roomy, it’s beautiful, it’s peaceful. It’s just full and radiates with all the good things of life and in it women, flourishing, will give it that feel. So that as you walk in on Sunday morning and strong singing, led primarily by men, and then a voice from God is heard, and women are loving this, they’re radiant, they’re intelligent, they’re understanding, they’re processing, they’re interacting. Then all the gifts that were just articulated will flourish in that space. And as you navigate that community there will be feminine feels all over the place.
If I would have had another hour I would have like to spin out the benefits of that community. One of the things I would have said is that in a community where there is a secure, strong, humble, masculine feel, men are free to be appropriately feminine. And women are free to be appropriately masculine. In other words, when you look at any given human being, the most attractive, interesting, winsome human beings are not all masculine or all feminine. They are appropriately, if they are a man, prominently masculine. And there are things about this guy that are remarkably tender, kind, warm, nurturing (the kinds of things we would associate with a woman).
And when you look at a woman who is dominantly and prominently feminine, she will have a backbone, she will be articulate, she will be thoughtful (things we tend to think are male). And in a community that is well-defined there is freedom to have a man, who in some places might not be viewed as masculine. He is an artistic guy. I didn’t want to create, and I want to uncreate, any sense that the only, appropriate masculine guy is the guy who hunts, or who does flag football, and doesn’t like anything creative or artistic or doesn’t like to write or make music. . .
So the flavor is yes. The answer is yes. The church, as you move through this community, proscribed by and protected by a masculine feel, there will be a feminine feel in lots of places.”
Whatever we make of this, I think his thoughts are more coherent when we read the whole thing.
JeffB,
Thanks for sharing Piper’s words here. So women are just loving it?
@ JeffB:
And a whole lot of claptrap, just ignorant social speculation.
@ JeffB:
JeffB –
I still don’t get why women when they are “appropriately masculine” will “have a backbone, she will be articulate, she will be thoughtful (things we tend to think are male)”. Where is written it that these traits are male? These aren’t male traits. They are the traits of mature human beings. And I still maintain that in many Calvanista circles, if a woman portrays these traits (especially having a backbone), she will not be seen favorably.
Piper also said: “The church, as you move through this community, proscribed by and protected by a masculine feel, there will be a feminine feel in lots of places.”
What does this mean? Seriously? What does this look like? Where is this in Scripture? What is “proscribed by a masculine feel”? Seriously?
If these things are this obvious in Scripture, why are they so hard to understand when we read this?
I realize Piper is trying to make things sound better by explaining all this, but it just makes it worse to me.
There are many people I like and respect who love Piper. I’ve not read anything of his. He’s just never been on my radar as someone I felt compelled to read. So I’m trying to understand why some of these people love his work and I find some of what he is saying to just be really inscrutable and, IMHO, wrong.
@ JeffB:
Thanks for quoting the entire section, JeffB. Now that I’ve read the transcipt as a holistic piece, it sounded so familiar that I had to think a bit and then I realized that where I’d heard this all before. What John Piper actually says here is indeed a coherent argument – but my, oh my … – it’s for a form of “psychological androgyny” that sounds almost exactly like he lifted it directly from a description of Jungian archetypes!
Basically, Jung’s approach states that in a male, his “masculine” essence (*animus*) is complemented by the counterbalancing “feminine” essence (known as *anima*). Likewise, a female’s predominant feminine essence of anima is complemented by the counterbalancing masculine essence of animus. Both genderizing principles – animus and anima – find their source in the collective unconsciousness that influences all people.
That’s about the best I can introduce it in brief. For a detailed introduction, check out the Wikipedia article on “Anima and Animus” and also read all the linked material …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus
… then go back to the full quote in the link JeffB posted and discern how similar you think Mr. Piper’s theology is to Carl Jung’s psychological theory.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/more-on-the-masculine-feel-of-christianity
Two points strike me as particularly fascinating from this comparison, even if Mr. Piper’ is not knowingly using anything directly from Dr. Jung.
First, there is a highly spiritual nature to Jung’s archetype system and psychological theory in general. They frequently end up at the core of spiritual self-help perspectives and social movements that are Gnostic, occult, and/or East-West spiritual fusions. Perhaps more apologetics about Gnosticism are needed to differentiate the so-called complementarian theological truths from the occult counterfeits that sound quite similar.
Second, at least one author has already suggested how an overemphasis on the animus/anima connection in a men’s movement could lead to misogyny (hatred of women/the feminine). And that was secular author, Charles Upton, almost 20 years ago. (See the reference below.) In the link JeffB supplied, Mr. Piper says, “[I]n a community where there is a secure, strong, humble, masculine feel, men are free to be appropriately feminine.” So, if these men are spiritually mature and Christlike, why do they need women at all … other than for the obvious purpose of sex? Perhaps more apologetics are needed within complementarianism to dissociate their movement from the logical extreme conclusion of misogyny.
Here is clip from an unpublished research paper I produced in 1997. The paper is about gender identity and sexuality issues in the postmodern era, and the specific section looks at how the “second secular men’s movement” of the 1980s and 1990s could affect emerging gender identity issues:
“Because much of the men’s movement seems to rely on Jungian archetypes, it is not unusual to find its authors talking about ‘getting in touch with the inner feminine.’ While some simply mean becoming a nurturing man who is in touch with his feelings, others go beyond this. For instance, one book has a chapter entitled, ‘The Princess Within: Recovering the Feminine’ (At My Father’s Wedding: Reclaiming Our True Masculinity by John Lee).
Another author, Charles Upton, records a comment from a man who had attended one of Robert Bly’s events. ‘I realized … that there was just as much feminine energy in that roomful of men as there would be in a group which also included women. Some of the men were masculine, others were more feminine’ (*Hammering Hot Iron: A Spiritual Critique of Bly’s Iron John* by Charles Upton, First Edition, 1993, page 147). While Upton initially agreed with this statement, he warns that it could lead the men’s movement to a whole new type of misogyny (hatred of women) where women are completely unnecessary since men have feminine energy, too.”
[*Postmodern Sexualities and Christian Discipleship: An Introduction to Trend Analysis and Pastoral Care* © 1993-1997 Brad Sargent, page 9.]
So – read Dr. Jung and Mr. Piper side by side. Is this complementarian talk of a “masculine feel to Christianity” where in Mr. Piper’s own words, “men are free to be appropriately feminine. And women are free to be appropriately masculine” actually a veiled form of Jungian archetypes and Gnosticism?
I wish Larissa would be able to listen to this message and receive the truths. Sadly, because she has been indoctrinated by SGM, I fear her brain has been washed to believe that as a woman, she needs someone other than Jesus Christ to be her covering and authority.
(Message is 36 minutes long, but well worth the time invested)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz9Iwur2VHA&feature=youtu.be
Calvinista Church Member wrote:
CCC – nope, you’re sane. I vented a good deal about my horror off-list, and also did a blog search on “ian larissa marriage,” which led me to only God knows how many thousands of hits where the adulation was *extremely* troubling.
I honestly don’t see how this is legal, let alone ethical
@ Evie:
Evie – it’s not just SGM. This kind of “teaching” has been prevalent since the early 1970s, maybe even before, in discipleship movement circles and anywhere that Gothardite ideas started impinging on actual, thought-through theology.
JeffB
I read this and it still makes no sense to me. Everything stems from the masculine. If the masculine is not there, then the feminine will not be there. My femininity is based on the relationship that I have with the father, not some guy who is exhibiting predominantly masculine qualities. For Piper, everything stems from God who portrays himself as male and sends that masculinity onto human males who, if they act appropriately, will allow women to be women. We are an afterthought.
Brad
You are one smart cookie (Cookie can be male or female).
Eagle
No burkas.
Frank Viola has an excellent response on his blog to John Piper’s statement that “Christianity has a masculine feel ” (although he doesn’t mention Piper by name). He makes the point that the focus of God’s attention, His ultimate desire, His relentless passion, is for a woman, His Bride. So, Christianity has a feminine feel as well. However, he closes with these words:
“I think if we frame Christianity in feminine vs. masculine language, we lose our way. The truth is, Christianity has a JESUS feel to it. It also has a JESUS aroma to it. And Christ and His Bride are united.”
Well said!
Link: http://frankviola.org/2012/03/29/christianityanwomen/#more-8127
(The links in the post to related articles he has written are all well worth reading, especially “God’s View of a Woman”.)
Hmm. For some completely inexplicable reason, when I read John Piper’s masculine feels/feminine feelies stuff in full, I was reminded of my friends who have taken LSD/magic mushrooms and then tried to convince me that while they were high they discovered the meaning of life. They try to explain it to me, a non-drug-user, but somehow they never seem to be able to express it well enough, (or even understand it very well themselves), and I don’t seem able to comprehend it no matter how hard I try. Between my friends and Piper the only real differences are the misogyny and the insistance that what they are saying can be found in the Bible somewhere.
I’m sorry but I don’t think any amount of explanation could possibly render Piper’s words sensible.
numo wrote:
At my last church we were told that everybody needed a spiritual covering. It didn’t make any sense to me because after all, if everybody has a spiritual covering in a heirarchical chain, then there will eventually be one person who doesn’t have it (in our case, that person was a megachurch pastor in Colombia – I suppose he must have been so holy that he didnt need one?). My spiritual covering was a single woman whose spiritual covering was a married woman whose covering was her husband, so eventually somewhere up the chain I was covered by a man (which was important because all women needed to be covered by a man). I did wonder if my covering was inferior because it was essentially third-hand, from my covering’s covering’s husband. Then again, I also suspected the whole thing was total bull, and wondered what real difference the whole covering thing actually made to anybody. What’s interesting is that if someone was skeptical and wanted to know why we had this strange practice, I really don’t think I would have known how to justify it biblically. I’m not even sure the pastor could have, either. But you really just do believe these things because of the climate and the pressure surrounding you. That’s how religions with cultic tendencies operate.
After leaving the church I allowed all the questions that had been dormant in my the back of my mind to bubble up and I realised that many of the things I had been taught must have been, if not heretical, then very deeply incorrect.
Reading that full Piper quote, no matter how much he bloviates, no matter how much flowery prose he surrounds it with, he still says that women aren’t normally articulate and thoughtful – those are male traits according to him. And that’s still a pig-ignorant, outdated, and insulting position to hold.
@ Pam:
Certainly outdated. The stereotype most often encountered these days about women is that we are more articulate and better communicators than men.
My spouse was once a champion debater, extemp speaker, etc., and regularly defeated the best men in competition. Piper sounds like someone in the early stages of progressive dementia.
@ Arce said:
“Piper sounds like someone in the early stages of progressive dementia.”
This is a sign of someone who is dabbling in lots of contemplative prayer and meditation. He is constantly in an alpha state of mind, therefore losing his critical thinking skills to reason out what he is actually saying. You see many New Agers who get involved with TM become incoherent.
This whole show of the “masculinity/feminine circus” is ridiculous and in turn brings nothing to actually living the Lord Jesus Christ and serving Him.
John Piper loves to spin these florid descriptions and romanticise his doctrinal positions, to the point that he sometimes just doesn’t make any sense. And his followers think he is being profound because they can’t understand what he’s saying.
What does this ‘masculine feel’ LOOK like in practice, if a masculine feel can incorporate a feminine feel, and a feminine feel can also exhibit a masculine feel?! (My, aren’t I sounding Piperesque…)
Jung’s anima/animus ideas do slot in very well with Piper’s. To throw another philosopher into the mix – this discussion made me think of Hegel’s master-slave dialectic. Dee, your comment especially triggered this in my mind:
“My femininity is based on the relationship that I have with the father, not some guy who is exhibiting predominantly masculine qualities.”
That’s what these comps fear: women who define themselves by their relationship with God. Because women who see themselves in those terms don’t need to be dependent on men for their identities. Meanwhile, patriarchal men define their very maleness by their subordination of women. They’re enslaved to their ideas of appropriate femininity, because to lose these ideals would mean that they would lose their own identities as men. They don’t see the need to resolve this situation by practicing mutual equality because they don’t perceive any contradictions in their position. They want to keep the master-slave dynamic and reject those women (and men!) who define themselves outside of it.
A brief account of Hegel’s master-slave/lordship-bondage dialectic:
Hegel gave a narrative analogy for the process by which individuals gain self-consciousness and a distinct identity. According to Hegel, this is a social process – one’s consciousness needs to be mediated through another entity in order for it to be confirmed as real.
When an individual (consciousness) encounters another, they recognise their self as an ‘other’ because they are being encountered by the other individual.
In order for each to assert their own identity, and confirm its existence and ascendance, a struggle ensues between the two consciousnesses. It would be a struggle to the death, but the death of one party would negate the process of self-realization in the other. The existence of the other validates their own existence.
In this conflict, the one who fears death less emerges as the ‘master’. The ‘slave’ becomes subject to the master because the slave feared this death more than the master did. The two gain their self-consciousness, their identities, from being in this master-slave relationship.
Yet the relationship doesn’t promise fully-realised selfhood. The master’s existence and identity is defined by the subordination of the slave. In this way the master is dependent on the slave.
But the slave’s labour means that the slave channels energy and creates an existence outside the master-slave relationship. The slave’s productivity and work allows the slave to increasingly achieve self-consciousness outside the subordinate relationship to the master. The master, meanwhile, is bound up in the relationship to the slave and the master’s subjugation of the slave. The master’s existence is mediated by the slave, but the slave’s existence is being mediated by something outside the master – the slave’s labour.
The conflict is resolved when the contradictory positions of the slave and master are recognised and they acknowledge their equality.
Abigail
That was a great reference. I love Frank Viola. The idea that the church has a “Jesus” feel is spot on. I truly believe Piper has lost his way as he has descended more and more into this stuff. It really is a shame. I kind of liked him back in the early 90s.
Sophie
I could not agree more! I read that explanation and kept needing to reread and reread what he said. This is what happens when people go too far down a road that our Lord did not intend. When that happens, explanations sound bizarre or confusing. Years ago, I used to wonder what the Scriptures meant when it implies that leaders of the faith will follow strange doctrines and beliefs. Unfortunately, I believe that Piper is a giving us a glimpse into the meaning of those verses.I think he has lost his way, especially when he said he knew why God sent the bridge collapse and the tornado. Anyone who dares to claim to know the mind of God beyond what Scripture has revealed is walking on very shaky ground.
JJ wrote:
This is so true! I believe Piper is trying to mesmerize his audience with his flowery language, and I’m not buying it!
Sophie
In your note to Numo you asked about coverings. I am in the process of reading Julia Duin’s book on the rise of the charismatic movement in the last 1096s and early 70s. It appears that it was within the context of the charismatic shepherding movement that this doctrine arose. It is fairly new. Of course, anyone who accepts a doctrine that comes out of the hippie movement ought to be really careful.They may be accepting drug induced theology!
In fact, some women during those days took to wearing actually veils and men wore mantles (white stoles) to signify their adherence to this aberrant doctrine.
For me, the issue is rather simple. The curtain in the Temple tore at the crucifixion. This signified that God dwells in the lives of His people via the Holy Spirit. The priestly sacrifice is no longer needed. It is silly men who need to rule over others who have introduced this doctrine. Jesus did not die in order to instate a new priestly caste to go to God on my behalf. I reject the covering doctrine and, in fact, find it silly.
@ Faith:
“This is a sign of someone who is dabbling in lots of contemplative prayer and meditation.”
I am wondering about that as well–just what kind of charismatic practices does he do. He seems, to me, overly concerned about feeling something and/or signs from God.
I watched his interview with his successor recently. Piper spent a fair amount of time discussing how God supernaturally brought about this decision with signs and private details that know one could have possibly arranged on purpose–all coming together in one humongous sign from God that this man was THE one to take over. It may indeed be God’s will that this man take over (although, I personally believe God can work equally well even through a second stringer :-)) — but why try to convince me so much that it’s from God?
This just reminds me so much of the charismatics that I know. I have heard stuff like that over and over again-they live for signs and how they feel about something. (Not to discount feelings altogether, but when a friend gets freaked out about a bird landing too close to her on the sidewalk decides that’s a sign from God that the Holy Spirit has something to say to her and then it is up to her to figure out what it is…sorry-that’s too much.) But signs and supernatural experiences are very very important to them. I think someone needs to build Piper an awesomely awesome and robustly winsome (yet with a masculine feel) man cave so he can go there to feel his manly awesomeness and read his articles to himself leave this junk out of the the church.
@ dee:
I find it silly too, now. And I totally agree that the path to God runs through no one but Christ. There ought to be no need to have to reiterate that point and it’s a shame that so many people don’t grasp it. I think too often ‘covering’ is really a justification for abuse and control.
Faith
It is the natural course of his line of thinking. Just as Calvinism gives rise to the natural observation that God creates some to condemnation, his male/female thing will give rise to women being a derivative of men. I believe that, if this keeps up, women will be relegated to a certain section of the church so the important men can conduct the meetings. According to SGM Survivor comments, at one point Carolyn Mahaney moved to the back of the church gathering and so, lemming women started to join her. Watch carefully-I predict that veils and separate seating for men and women will be seen more and more.
@ Arce:
From a purely logical standpoint, I have been wondering the very same thing . . . is Piper experiencing early dementia?
@ Diane:
I don’t believe that Piper is “charismatic” at all.
There is a difference between “looking for signs” and believing that the Holy Spirit is at work in believers in a powerful way.
If Piper believes that God is at work in the believer’s life, then he would believe that God would give him, and others around him, wisdom to choose another elder for their church. Why does he have to qualify the choice with all the “signs?” Why doesn’t he let the members of the congregation decide? It’s almost like he is promoting ‘his’ candidate! The man’s life should speak for itself.
Do “signs” lead us or accompany us?
@ Bridget:
I agree. But I thought he was. I don’t know for sure.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/how-should-miraculous-gifts-be-used-in-the-church
“Do “signs” lead us or accompany us?”
With the charismatics I am familiar with, signs most definitely indicate God’s will and are sought. But I realize not all charismatics are the same.
@ dee:
Dee,
I think that the “covering” and “spiritual authority” teachings that have been going around since the 70s are warped to the point of actually invalidating the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. If we need some “other” covering or authority besides what God himself did on our behalf, then it is like saying Jesus Christ was NOT enough. I hear all the time that it is Jesus plus nothing. But then men turn around and teach that people need spiritual coverings and there has to be a “spiritual authority” in ones life. They are teaching that some people (mainly women) do not have the same access to God as “other” people. It is absurd.
@ Diane:
It’s hard to tell from that article. It sounds like Piper thinks it is fine for small group settings to function in the gift. But what then is the purpose for Sunday mornings? I’m beginning to have a different perspective. The NT does not call us to two different kinds of gatherings . . . one that looks like a Sunday morning and one that looks like something else. Piper sounds like he is being very political in his answers (as not to offend those who have a different view). He also sounds like he wants to leave room in his own congregation for differing views. It would be difficult, after all, to tell someone who speaks in tongues that that gift has ceased! He doesn’t go into much detail in that article about what he believes or seeks personally.
Looks like Pyromaniacs has jumped on the bandwagon by highlighting this Ian/Larissa story and adding it to their current series on “The Case for Gay Marriage”. (huh?)
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/06/case-for-gay-marriage-3-of-3.html
I’ve been trying to come up with a succinct Theory of Everything which might explain this complicated borderline dementia. Then I reviewed the the post title, and I Think I’ve Got It!
A gender Agenda!
It works like this:
1: A gender Agenda becomes primary.
2: Let me make one thing perfectly clear! I am not a patriarch!
3: Any set of consistent gender-based rules for actual living will look like patriarchy.
4: Must… Not….Look….Like Patriarch!
5: A gender Agenda moves to realm of “spiritual” authority/leadership, feels, signs, eastern meditation, Jungian Archetypes, “a voice of God is heard, and women are
loving this”.
Result: True diversity of gifts ala Rom 12- faith, serving, teaching, exhortation, generosity, zeal, cheerfulness etc are EMASCULATED. Only 2 giftings remain: leaders and submitters.
When I said that the full quote is more coherent, I was thinking of his use of the phrase “feminine feels,” which, in the shorter version, seems to come out of nowhere. I still disagree with him, but I see a little more clearly what he means.
“Little” is the operative word, because Piper is still out there. Obviously, he was trying to dissuade people from thinking that “masculine feel” promoted a macho stereotype, so he says that, on the contrary, it allows both sexes to express so-called characteristics of the opposite sex. But why wouldn’t a “feminine feel” do the same thing, assuming that these “feels” actually exist?
And, yes, believing that to have a backbone and to be articulate and thoughtful are primarily masculine traits comes from an era which identified women as being weak (in whatever way that was meant) and too emotional. This mindset is well illustrated in a movie entitled “Changeling” (2008), which is based on a true story from the 20’s. I see more of these traits today among women than among men.
brad/futurist guy, I’m in awe of your erudition (such a masculine quality!), not that the rest of you are exactly slouches. Freud, unlike Jung, disdained religion and spirituality, but he believed that humans were naturally bisexual, and that repressive cultures didn’t allow this to be expressed. In any case, Piper and others make too much of gender.
You are right on Dee.
This slave/master and elitist thinking is becoming very prevalent in our culture right now- from the government on down to the church. Makes you wonder what’s cooking.
I have to highly recommend reading The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse……..by Jeff Van Vonderan and David Johnson. I know many here know the book or have read it, but for those who have not it is very informative, but also healing.
dee wrote:
I take it you’re joking here…
@ JeffB said: “Piper and others make too much of gender,” to which I would add “… and too much of cultural stereotypes, and not enough about God.” Look, if we’re supposed to be transformed to the character of Christ, then if we ain’t got what He’s got in terms of character, regardless of whether our culture or someone’s theology assigns particular characteristics to masculine or to feminine, then we are immature. Period.
At some point the absurdity of the attempts to shore up a flawed theology will overtake the theology and/or the theologian, as I think we’re seeing here. The farther Mr. Piper’s attempted explanations go from being grounded clearly in Scripture, the more ludicrous the whole thing becomes. And since he makes it obvious that “a masculine feel to Christianity” is not quite de fide of The Gospel, but closely affects it, that sounds like his entire theology has to have a masculine feel. Well, if that core slant is off base, then what else do we have the right and responsibility to suspect about his theology, as the community of Christians who are supposed to discern good from evil? And likewise, what are we to make of those who follow his theology without question? And of those in formal associations and networks and movements with Mr. Piper who do not say anything about this titanic degree of difference off angle from the gospel?
I don’t want to get this off-track, but honestly… I don’t think “Eastern meditation” causes people to become incoherent.
Think: Aung San Suu Kyi, Gandhi and many, many others…
Numo
Did you ever think that all of the problems at SGM may have been caused by visions from magic mushrooms ingested in the 1970s? CJ is admitted drug user in his high school days. 🙂
Faith
We reviewed that book when we first started this blog and I just recommended it to a woman who called today with one heckuva story which we will feature next week.
Dave AA
Then, cults like TWW form!
Julie Anne
I need to speak with you. I have one doozy of a situation up in Washington that I think you could be of help.
dee wrote:
😉
Nah – coming from an older drug user (in my youth; currently an advocate for medical use of marijuana), not really!
@ dee:
I’d be happy to try. You have my number. I’ll be available for the next couple hours.
Well I don’t know about that with Ghandi. If you knew about his personal life he was definitely a masogynist, engaged in pedophlia and thoroughly enjoyed the young ladies giving him enemas and drinking urine. Sounds incoherent to me. Read more about TM (transcendental meditation) and how it can mess with our critical thinking skills. The Under Much Grace blog, Cindy Kinsman talks about how meditation can be used to manipulate others and conform unsuspecting victims to mind control.
@ numo:
Numo: strike the eastern meditation from my hastily-written theory and replace with “hippie-induced theology”. I like that better. Regardless, all things on the list are merely filling a void caused by a gender agenda, not the causes of the incoherence themselves (according to the theory).
@ Faith:
I used to think the same things, Faith.
Now I believe that certain excesses are used to slam members of other faiths.
Am very familiar with Cindy’s blog.
But I think this is probably a discussion for another time and place.
Dave A A wrote:
Hmm… I came to faith via the Jesus People and charismatic movements in the early 70s, so… while I’m all too aware of many excesses and abuses in both circles (having experienced a lot of bad things, including being booted out and shunned), I don’t think *all* “hippies” (so-called) were bad people and/or had bad ideas.
I think we all need to be careful, lest we tar ourselves with our respective brushes.
cheers,
n.
Sorry, I just can’t stop thinking about the details of this story.
I have wondered, what the Christian blogosphere would think if the roles here were reversed–a man goes before a judge to get permission to marry a woman with a brain injury. I haven’t read Piper’s book but I’m guessing that sex is one of the “primary marriage” components since that is something the Bible mentions spouses should do for one another. Would everyone’s hearts be so warmed? Seriously?
numo
🙂 and no problem with advocating for medical marijuana. If the studies prove its efficacy, then it is no different than any other controlled substance.
@ Calvinista Church Member:
I think the very fact that Larissa and Ian will never have a “normal” conversation again, along with not being able to build a life together, have a family together, etc. is more than enough to call this into question… not to mention the fact that Larissa seems to believe it is God’s will for her to fill the role of an LPN (or even an RN).
She is a “nurse” and he is a patient. I don’t see this going anywhere other than one direction: Ian in a nursing home, and Larissa (as well as Ian’s brother) being overwhelmed by the stress and exhaustion of full-time caregiving (plus, in Larissa’s case, a full-time job) without outside help and support from qualified personnel (in other words, aides, LPNs and maybe even RNs).
Caregiving is exhausting at the very best of times… and I think none of the people who are lauding this arrangement have experienced that firsthand.
Eagle
Oh, you would be tossed under the bus, rolled over and backed up over just to be sure! 🙂
Apostle Dave AA
I want to call a conclave at the Watican (The Wartburg version of the Vatican). We, of course, desire your presence to decided important issues such as letters of rec, and the canonization of Sergius Martin George. Anyone with the sort of humor deserves a following.
@ dee:
Yep!
Nothing in that story surprises me. I kind of wish it did, but I guess I’ve been in the “sadder but wiser” club for a while.
Funny (not in a humorous way) how the people who are defending MD on MPT’s blog sound exactly like the people who are currently trying to discredit all the witnesses who say that Jerry Sandusky abused them and/or that they have seen and heard said abuse. (Like Mike McQueary.)
I can’t even summon up much disgust for MD right – maybe since what he’s been saying from the platform bears out what Amy told MPT.
Sandusky, however, is another story altogether! (Trial in recess until tomorrow, when closing arguments begin.)
@numo
Yes I looked through her blog and noticed that Larissa really seemed to miss Ian’s dad when he died…I mean, of course it is normal to mourn a father in law, but since it was Ian’s dad who seemed to orchestrate the marriage idea, it’s almost as if she was marrying the family, and not just Ian. So when Steve died, her marriage relationship changed dramatically. Of course I am just extrapolating that from her blog, but I can’t shake the feeling.
@ dee:
But where are the apostles and elders – and this abbess?! C’mon Dee, you’ve gotta call a conclave now! 😀
Calvinista Church Member wrote:
DING DING DING DING DING!!!
Or, in other words, yes.
Could someone please tell me how this differs from fundy LDS practice? (And not just in Warren Jeffs’ circle, either…)
@ Faith:
Also, I *don’t* think Gandhi’s personal problems are directly related to any kind of meditative practices.
He was, in many ways, a severely messed-up guy – but if not for his public advocacy of nonviolent struggle to enable India to become an independent country (and his advocacy for the “coloured” community in S. Africa, many years previous), I doubt that some very good things would have happened. (Including the influence of nonviolent resistance on Dr. Martin Luther King and other leaders of the Civil Rights movement here in the US.)
Again, though, this is probably a discussion best pursued off-list. My apologies for introducing further tangents to this comment thread.
numo wrote:
More seriously, I do appreciate your open-mindedness, Dee!
Yeh don’t want to stray from topic either bump 🙂
But I will have to say that where you have pagan countries such as India, etc.. you have meditative practices that are a huge part of their religions. Many families have had to deal with demon possession and the like. This is a normal part of their life. We as Americans (being a Christian nation, until recently) have not had to deal with demon possession on a large scale so we may not think of yoga or meditation as a big deal. Yoga does seem harmless until you find out that each position you stretch is associated with a deity and invoking certain powers from that deity. If you have ever read the life of St. Theresa of Avilia you would think that she was a wonderful woman, go a little deeper and there is a different story of how crazy she became. She was heavily involved in contemplative prayer. She ended up continually flagellating her body; levitating off the bed; and thought she was Jesus’s lover.
I know some may disagree with me here but I believe the Bible shows us how to pray and we don’t have to go deeper depths to know He is there. We only leave our minds open for Satan to manipulate even more. Richard Foster (who is a proponent of contemplative prayer) even said in one of his spiritual discipline books that contemplative prayer and meditation ( the TM kind of meditation..not the thinking kind of meditation, like on the Word) was dangerous and you needed to have more experience to be able to “properly” meditate. This is one of the reasons I turned away from Piper several years ago, actually I thought he was a little creepy to begin with.
And I have been in a place where I was wanting more and meditating and ended up with a demonic dream, so I know how Satan can manipulate minds. God was gracious and warned me to never go there again. That is why when I see Piper promoting it I have to say something about what this kind of meditation can do.
Faith – honestly, discussion over (from my end).
I can see taking if off-list, though neither of us is going to convince the other of our respective positions and beliefs, I think
cheers,
n.
@ numo:
Abbess Numo,
Personally, I came to faith via conservative fundamentalists. There’s lots about that brush I don’t want to tar myself with, either. Only several years later did I become charismatic, though never a hippie. So I’ll make my final revision, for now. Instead of hippie-induced, I’ll say hypo-inductionist theology.
Reminds me of a story. My college roommate was a big fan of Bill Gaither and Bill Gothard. Imagine my surprise when he bought and played an album by long-haired Larry Norman!
Dave A A wrote:
This made me smile, because it sounds like something from my HS and college days.
fwiw, I totally hear you on the stereotypical “hippie” thing, but I think most people of a certain age (white and middle-class, at least) dabbled a bit with the image (if nothing else) during the late 60s-mid 70s.
I’ll freely admit to having been a teenage hippie wannabe. I was too young to *be* one of the “Summer of Love” kids out in SF, but I tried dressing the part for a few years. “Woodstock” was my other fashion go-to for a while there as well. 😉
@ Faith:
Faith, the first egalitarianism I ever read was in Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline, mentioning Eph 5 and 6. (I know, this not exactly your topic, but I love his work too. Should read it again, as internetting is busy changing my brain – quicker shallower thinking – and his work is good for order of the mind, a deep Christian walk.)
Dave/Numo
I was a wannabe hippe-long hair, tied back with a bandana. I hung out with a bunch of “Jesus freaks” who disagreed with the war. Loved Larry Norman, Danny Taylor. Got excited when Barry Maguire (Eve of Destruction) became a Christian.We were all so very serious and cock sure about our beliefs, political, spiritual and otherwise.
Retha
My husband and I gained much from Foster’s Celebration of Discipline. In fact we quoted him the other night while we were at a meeting for a Christian medical fellowship. The Neo Calvinistas reject him, thinking he is too wishy washy in doctrine. These are the same guys who celebrate the theology of John Piper and his “masculine ” feel or Driscoll and his pornovision.
I apologize for my comments in my 6:04 post. I let my strong feelings affect my judgement and used words and concepts which distracts form the real issues.
I have read my words over and have alternately justified them and been distressed by them. They are not a reflection of who I am in Christ and I should have resisted the temptation to be witty and mock another’s words.
new sponsorship deal (LINK)
[[MOD EDIT]] This is a joke link.
[[MOD EDIT]] SMG Next time make it clear so it will not be treated as a spam post.
GBTC
Sorry, GBTC.
I tried to send an earlier version with contextual information included, but it kept getting rejected because I don’t have JavaScript enabled, which I can’t figure out how to do. I just switched to GoogleChrome because blogger.com said I had to, but now everything’s messed up.
TMI, I know — sorry.
All Readers
Check out Sergius new Driscoll spoof link
“I have wondered, what the Christian blogosphere would think if the roles here were reversed–a man goes before a judge to get permission to marry a woman with a brain injury. I haven’t read Piper’s book but I’m guessing that sex is one of the “primary marriage” components since that is something the Bible mentions spouses should do for one another. Would everyone’s hearts be so warmed? Seriously?”
Interesting question, CCM. My immediate guess is that a gender reversal of a similar situation would make people even more uncomfortable and lead to at least some murmurings of “exploitation.” As for the issue of sexuality, you are the first person I’ve seen mention it in this context, and it is something I’ve also wondered about, as I imagine many others have – and I can only hope that it will be understood that there is nothing voyeuristic about my questioning. But it is difficult for me to see how a couple dealing with this extreme a level of disability can have any sort of erotic element to their relationship, and that has to add an additional, great strain to couples who are in love. More than once I have questioned how this is a marriage at all, rather than essentially a nurse-patient relationship. But for a long time I seemed to be the only one who did.
Lucie
You said “More than once I have questioned how this is a marriage at all, rather than essentially a nurse-patient relationship. But for a long time I seemed to be the only one who did.”
Do you wanna bet that there are many more who have thought it but haven’t said it for fear of upsetting the party line? I have now talked with a number of people who are concerned about this situation.It is important to ask these questions so that the machine understands that it is not a slam dunk “proof” of their authority parade.
dee wrote:
Sounds like we were practically twins at that age! 😉
dee wrote:
Sounds like we were practically twins at that age! 😉Sergius Martin-George wrote:
Sergius – I think Crhome is a total bust when using Blogger, which shouldn’t be the case, but is.
I use Firefox for posts on my personal/music blog. Works lots better, in terms of functionality and display, though for most other things, Chrome works better.
Abbess Numo
Join me in a chorus of “I wish we’d all been ready.”
Abbess Numo
Join me in a chorus of “I wish we’d all been ready.”
@Numo
Thanks for the recommendation. I will give Firefox a try.
SMG
Sergius,
I almost always use Firefox.
dee wrote:
😉
For those of you who are accusing Piper of exploiting this couple for personal financial gain, you have no clue what you are talking about. John Piper doesn't even receive any royalties at all for the books that he sells. And he lives in a very poor neighborhood. Perhaps it is you guys who are exploiting this situation for your own agenda.
Rick
If you read our post very, very carefully, you will see that is NOT what TWW said. We believe it is being exploited for a doctrinal issue . And you are trying to move the argument away from this issue which is a valid point of view. We do not perceive that Ian is the spiritual leader and have some good reasons to think that way. But that is a far more difficult issue to discuss, isn’t it?
I wasn't referring to what TWW said. I was referring to some things that I read in the comment section. Regarding TWW, I don't really see what the big deal is. John Piper believes in complementarianism. So he should have the freedom to write about it. And when he writes a book about marriage, he should be able to make a video about a couple that is living out what he wrote about. I don't think it's "love thinking no evil" to automatically assume that he's using weak people for some personal agenda. Why can't he just have a personal belief, without having it labeled as an agenda?
Rick
Personal belief vs personal agenda- I have no problem when you have a personal belief but when you use other other people, especially people who are undergoing a serious situation, you have stepped over the boundary of decency and that is when it becomes an agenda.Frankly, I am shocked that anyone would USE this couple to “prove” their pet comp theory. Real love knows when to lay off.
Since you decided to quote Scripture to slap my readers who are understandably concerned about the way this situation is handled, let me do the same. From 1 Cor 13 we learn that love ” always protects.” That is not evident whatsoever in this situation. Insted of protect, Piper projects his agenda and that is not love.
Protecting the victims is something that we must do in cases of abuse or coverups of abuse.
There is no abuse or coverup going on here.
This is simply a pastor sharing the story of a real life marriage that illustrates the kind of love between Christ and the church that he has written an entire book on for free.
To ascribe evil motives to that is neither thinking no evil, nor protecting anybody from evil.
Rick
is this how you convince someone to consider your point of view? Accuse someone who disagrees with you of “evil.” Sorry, that dog don’t hunt on this blog. I think you have been spending too much time with those who spout the same nonsense.
I am nurse, my husband is a physician. We have shown other Christian medical professionals this story and ALL of them raised some significant questions about the involvement of those surrounding this situation. Could it be that John Piper has made a mistake? I believe he has, evil me. His theology appears to have trumped his good sense in this situation.
I stand by my assessment and concerns.And , if my concerns were to be proven correct, I just may be preventing someone from some serious consequences and regrets.
And you're not accusing somebody (John Piper) who disagrees with you of evil?
Rick
Correct.
So if you're not accusing Piper of evil, then is it fair for me to conclude that you do not think it is evil for Piper to "use other people…undergoing a serious situation" in order to "prove" their "personal agenda?"
Rick
Let me say this another way. I disagree with infant baptism. Does that mean I think it is evil? I think Ken Ham is deluded. I don’t like him. But do I think he is evil? But perhaps I don’t get the Neo Cal take on things. If I don’t like the fact that people ask for, and receive Piper’s autograph on their Bibles, does that mean I think he, and the people who ask him to do so, are evil? Does this mean you either agree with us or you think of us as evil? Good night!Such a black and white world!
We obviously live in different worlds then. In your world, sharing an illustration of gospel-driven love is taking advantage of the hurting. However, in your world, taking advantage of the hurting is equivalent to infant baptism. So, in your world, you express outrage over people taking advantage of the hurting, without labeling it as evil. That line of reasoning takes a level of mental gymnastics that I'm just not capable of comprehending. So we'll obviously never come to a consensus. I'll leave you to spend your time writing a blog of outrage over the non-evils of taking advantage of the hurting.
Rick
Let me be a little clearer about my delusion. In fact, my guess is that Piper would agreee with much of what I have to say which should give you some modicum of comfort. Today, in the next hour or minute i will fail to live up to the standards that are set for me by Jesus. I am weak, wrong, pigheaded, stubborn, insecure, easily irritated, judgmental, self -serving and self-deluded. At any minute I am capable of sin and will be until the day I die. As my pastor says “Even on my best days, my motives are mixed.”
In this world, we can hurt others thinking that we are helping them. We can also hurt others thinking we are helping them while at the same time being subtley aware that we might be using the situation to our own advantage. There are degrees of this. And, John Piper is totally depraved, to use his theology. So am I and so are you.
How closely we examine our own lives is a function of how secure we are in the knowledge of why we need grace. Most of us spend a whole bunch of time ignoring the fact that we actually think we are just a little better, smarter, like Jesus, whatever. So here’s the deal. I think Piper made a terrible mistake in this instance. Sorry that you don’t think it is loving. Jesus said some difficult things as well.And if Piper were to examine me, my guess is that he would have much to say about my failings as well. I am OK with that. For example, unlike some of the Calvinista bloggers out there, I open myself up to judgment with every comment. Many of them delete negative comments. Note: I didn’t delete yours. How many of the guys you admire do that?
I guess you wrote your comment in such a way that I know how much love you have for me, didn’t you? I am trying to feel the love but I don’t. So, are you evil as well? Perhaps in your world, that is a good evil. You can be mean to those who are so obviously deluded and not as theologcially swift as you are. You have told me off, good! You defended your man and your anger is justified, somehow. You also ran from the discussion. But then again, you can proudly tell others that you “didn’t throw your pearls before swine”, right?
Rick
I noticed that you left a link on the name Rick that you posted on the public blog or I would not have brought this up. I went to that link and discovered that you are serving at an SGM church. I take it that this response that you left on our blog is the same sort of response that you would give to a member of your church.
Since you made public who you are, I am considering making a post out of your comment to help people see how SGM deals with those who might have a quibble about some theology or actions within that ministry. I am curious. Would you like to add anything to what you had to say before we do a post?
I would definitely like to say something.
I am no longer serving or attending a Sovereign Grace church. I have significant concerns with much of what has gone on in SGM. In fact, I would be more sympathetic to Josh Harris's view of things than CJ's.
If you look at my blog, you'll notice that I haven't been updating it much. So that's why I haven't gotten around to changing the "About Me" info.
The reason I include my blog info when I make comments on others' blogs is that I don't like the anonymous nature of online blogging. I'd rather people be able to know who I am when I comment.
If Piper's action is not evil, then it has to be either good or neutral. Why would you express outrage over something that you do not consider to be evil? Or, why would you express outrage over something that is either good or neutral?
Piper's using this unfortunate situation to advertise reminds me of something we used to laugh at when we were kids. A young grade school boy goes to his friend's house to see if they could play some baseball as they normally did on weekends. His friend's mother greets him at the door with tears in her eyes and informs him that her son had passed away suddenly a couple days ago. The young boy said "oh, I'm sooo sorry, Mrs. so and so. Can I have his baseball and bat?"
It's certainly in bad taste and appears to be taking advantage of a window of opportunity which, in the interest of diplomacy and compassion, would have been better left unused.
As I see it…..
Rick
Always update the info on your blog if you are going to link to it. So, are you doing the Sojourn thing? My undertsanding is that it will be SGM related as well.
We blog with our names but we support those who do not. Sometimes the stories are just too painful. Better to hear from them ,anonymously, than stick our fingers in our ears and say lalalalalalala-we don’t hear you. This is not unusual of the recounting of some stories in the Gospels. The woman at the well, the demoniac and others are not specifically named. Does that make the story somehow less valid?
I am upset but at the same time understanding of our weaknesses as human beings. God treats us in the same way. He forgives us our sins and now considers us his dearly beloved children inspite of our obvious shortcomings. As I said before, today, this hour, or muinute I will violate Christ’s law of love and selflessness. That is why I need grace.
However, just because I am a sinner, I am still obligated to point out problems. In fact, it is the goal of this blog to focus on the weak and let down. Jesus seemed to do that as well. I believe that Piper has allowed his own self priorities to cloud his judgment in this matter. He, too, is a sinner and self-absorbed at times. Aren’t we all?
As for me, once again, I open myself up to critique. And I can take it. I learned this from another pastor. I knew a woman who was going to do something really wrong. I wanted to talk with her about it and offer to help her in any way possible to avoid that thing. But, I was uncertain. I told my pastor that I, too am a sinner and make stupid decisions and she could point that out to me. He said, “Of course she can. Tell her you want to say your piece and then let her say her piece about the things you need to change. Accept her crtique as well.” And I did, and still do.
Rick, we are sinners relating to one another and no one Christian is above reproach but sometimes we make the mistake f assumng that some are just better than others.. SGM is a shining example of how not to do it. Le’s not make every action become a charge of great evil. When I am tired and I think ill of the driver that just cut me off, should I play the evil card. If so, most of my day, as I slog along, trying to walk that path, I will be constantly thinking about my “evil.” Instead, I think about grace, admit my sins (when I have the insight to actually see them which sometimes i don’t ) and discuss problems that I see in the church. And the church, in return, is more than welcome to assess me. I surely am a shining example of a sinner saved by grace.
No I'm not doing the Sojourn thing. I have absolutely no connection to any network of churches of any kind, other than the connection to the body of Christ. I'm not even in church leadership at any church any more.
I appreciate your explanation of running to grace as our default response. I just honestly do not think you are being consistent in this situation regarding your assessment of Piper's video. You don't seem to be giving him grace. And your logic of being outraged at and assigning selfish motives to something that is equivalent in your words to infant baptism doesn't make sense to me. If it's worth being outraged over, then just call it evil. If it's not evil, then don't get outraged and assign selfish motives to it, but rather naturally assume grace.
Rick
i am not sure that you understand what I am saying. I believe that Piper has done something that will hurt this situation and that it is inadvisable. I have a thing about the little guy. You are focusing on the big guy. I think there is potential for harm by the stress on spiritual leadership of Ian. That is the issue at hand. I cannot give him a pass on this one. Seriously, they made sure Piper’s book was prominently displayed throughout the narrative. Many people who watched it also noticed it and this was on other blogs.
I don’t care if the book is free. There are more currencies in life than money and I have never accused Piper of being in it for the money. i know all about his house, his weekly dinner at the buffet, and on and on. That is not the issue. Piper’s currency is his NeoCalvinist theology which he defends and promotes because he believes that it turmps all other theologies out there. That is what motivates him and there is a time for theological empahsis on male spiritual leadership and there is a time to be quiet and allow something to play out.
As a nurse, I see the pitfalls that are coming down the road for this couple and I think Piper was ill-advised. I believe he blew it. I give him grace for himself but I think there is potential harm to this couple in his single minded approach.
Giving someone grace does not necessarily mean you agree with what they did. There is a difference.
Rick
I cannot and will not say he did the right thing. I think you are hoping for that. I think he made a mistake.
I guess I didn't think the main point of the video was male spiritual leadership. I took it more as an example of a wife who is choosing to love her husband for who he is, rather than leaving him due to all of the non-essential things that he cannot provide for her. I'd be willing to watch it again though to see if there is a faulty agenda regarding the role of the man in marriage. But since I'm a complementarian Calvinist, I don't think I'll have a problem with what it communicates.
I'm not trying to get you to say he did the right thing. I'm just trying to point out what I believe are inconsistencies in your logic, which leads to my bigger picture point that it wasn't something worth writing an article about. Some of your other articles, however, I would be in full agreement with.
Rick
i don’t care whether you are complementarian or not, i do not believe that male spiritual leadership apllies in this situation. Could there be a possibility that a woman is the leader in a family on occasion? Maybe, just maybe, like Deborah, one size does not fit all in all situations. Piper’s book should not hve been highlighted. The male leadership should definitely not have been highlighted.
What happens when the husband is incapacitated and cannot lead? This video highlights that problem and it is poorly dealt with. There is much being placed on Ian that should not be there, at lest at the time this was made. This is not fair to him or Larissa.
Rick
This situation has been discussed around the blogs. And there is concern being expressed. So, to some, it was worth discussing. I am neither a comp or an egalitarian. I believe in radical servanthood and playing to one’s gifts and gender doesn’t enter into the discussion. I think this was the one of poorest example of the comp doctrine that I have ever seen held up for emulation.There is much to admire about Larissa and that was deep sixed in favor of another ho hum attempt at pushing male leaderhship.
i have heard, time and time again, that the comp marriage is supposed to be an example to the world of the way that Christ and the church is depicted in Scripture. That is not what will come across in this relationship. This marriage is witness to great sacrifice on the part of Larissa and that is a wonderful witness to the world. The male leadership part will not come through, no matter how hard they try to focus on it.
I guess I didn't think the main point of the video was male spiritual leadership. I took it more as an example of a wife who is choosing to love her husband for who he is, rather than leaving him due to all of the non-essential things that he cannot provide for her. I'd be willing to watch it again though to see if there is a faulty agenda regarding the role of the man in marriage. But since I'm a complementarian Calvinist, I don't think I'll have a problem with what it communicates.
At what level of brain injury does the wife get to / have to take over? If the man is put back at the intelectual level of a 16 year old? 12? 8? 6? Coma?
Not trying to be snarky here. But to put up this example without contect will imply to many that if the man can breath and blink eyes, he's in charge.
Hey Dee and Deb (and anybody else),
I haven't had time to read this entire comment thread, but earlier a commenter mentioned the scandal where therapists claimed that individuals with special needs were communicating through devices, which was later disputed. Dee was asking for more information – Dee, if you google "facilitated communication scandal", tons of stuff will come up.
I've been away for a few weeks because my son (and by default, our family) is going through a major crisis and there is not a lot of energy to expend elsewhere. I saw this video though, and thought you guys *must* have covered it. Bingo! 🙂
If you think to pray for us, I would sure appreciate it. Things are falling apart here.
facilitated communication
Yes. This was a case where people want to "believe". Even in the total absense of evidence.
The Frontline (or similar show} had mostly younger folks with severe brain injury who could supposedly communicate via a very large keyboard if their facilitator helped them control their hand. The premise was the facilitator was only helping them steady their nerves and not actually picking which keys to press. These keyboards were very large with keys about 2" square and they were used by people basically hitting them with their hand one key at a time.
The problem was that the people with the injury could only type non random letters if the facilitator saw or heard what was being shown or told to the injured person. Which basically meant that the facilitators weren't just steadying their hands but actually typying the answers.
The sad part of this was that most of the facilitators were almost always close relatives. And many refused to believe they were controlling the responsese even when shown the evidence. They were desparate to believe their loved ones were not a breathing vegtable for all intents and purposes.
René
Thanks for the info. I will be keeping you and your family in my prayers. We’ve missed you!
Rene
I, too, am away ans am so sorry and will pray for you.