Some people feel guilty about their anxieties and regard them as a defect of faith but they are afflictions, not sins. Like all afflictions, they are, if we can so take them, our share in the passion of Christ. -C. S. Lewis
Ferenci Marek_Wikicommons
Recently, I read an article written by a pastor who is in a total funk because John Piper announced his coming retirement from the pastorate. This man wrote that he could not imagine a world without John Piper. I thought, “Don’t worry, he may not be preaching from the pulpit but he will continue to preach from the bully pulpit.”
But, I began to wonder, “Am I the only one who perceives Piper’s comments, in the recent past, growing in stridency?” In some respects (this will get the Piper apologists on their high horse) he sounds like Pat Robertson with his “I know God’s reasons for certain bridge collapses and a tornado.” One was due to the ELCA’s pronouncements on homosexuality. The other was due to Piper’s need for personal repentance. It is nice to be able to so clearly know the mind of God.
Recently, I came across two further statements from Piper that I find troubling. A reader suggested one; the other I found in my daily walkabout the blogosphere.
1. You are a sinner if you do not like the doctrine of election.
Here is a link to Piper’s website dealing with this issue.
A reader asked the following question.
“I believe in the doctrine of election, but I don’t like it much. Is it a sin for me not to like the doctrine of election?
I have to confess that I knew what the answer would be. In Piper’s world, just about everything is sinful. His answer in a nutshell was"
“It's sin not to like the true doctrine of election. It's sin not to like what God likes.”
He gives two caveats to clear it up. For me they cause me deeper concern.
“So you could say”:
1."I dislike election," and be a good person, because you don't see election clearly.”
It is obvious that he is referring to his particular view of election since he, of course, is both correct and clear. This gives many people a “sin out” because they haven’t been taught the Piper view. These poor people are just stupid, deceived or listening to the wrong theologians.
2.”Or you may be a person who is starting to see it clearly and your old self, which is bad, is rising up and not liking what ought to be liked.”
This means that, if you believe God is good and holy, but you have trouble with certain commands from the Old Testament like stoning to death kids who curse their parents, then your old sinful self is causing you to sin by not immediately loving it.
He then moves into the area near and dear to Calvinistas of every stripe. We need to consider disciplining the questioner for their wicked ways.
“So I don't know whether this person should be chastised or not.”
In other words, in Piper’s world, if you struggle, as this reader has, you are possible candidate for some sort of reprimand. You are guilty of “the sin of questioning.” Can you imagine this poor person who asked this question? He is trying to figure out something and is now being threatened with a possible dressing-down! Good night! Bet he never asks again. Any of our readers ever been there?
Last week, in my small group Bible study, I found a verse that might contradict Piper’s “haven’t seen anything that isn’t a sin “approach. Jesus encountered a boy who was having seizures caused by a demon in Mark 9:20-26 (NIV-Gateway). Although there are lots of things to discuss in this passage, I want to focus on the father's response to Jesus.
So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?” “From childhood,” he answered. “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.”
“‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for one who believes.” Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”
When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the impure spirit. “You deaf and mute spirit,” he said, “I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.”The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, “He’s dead.” But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up.”
There is much debate about the meaning of this passage. However, the father was honest. He had heard of Jesus’ ability to cure but he was, as we say in the South, “flicted.”
Some would say Jesus healed the boy because a crowd came. I think Jesus was impressed with the honesty of the father’s struggle. The dad didn’t put on a front and say “I totally believe.” He admitted to his struggle. Jesus did not lecture this dad on his sin. Instead, he healed the boy. Jesus understood the love that the man had for his son and His "gospel" approach was one of love, not rebuke.
Time for a true confession. When my daughter was struggling with her brain tumor, I prayed for her healing but did not think she would be healed. I was given all sorts of advice. “Don’t doubt. Claim it.” But I struggled the entire time, asking God to give me the strength to walk my daughter through this horrible disease. Yet, in spite of my doubts, she lived.
I spoke with a man in a former church about this. He said that the only reason my daughter was healed was because someone else totally believed that God would heal her and it was due to them, not my unbelief! Note the words "former church."
Recently, I spoke with a friend whose college aged daughter suddenly died, with no warning, due to an aneurysm. As she cried, she told me that she didn’t believe a good God could do something like this. She confided that she couldn’t go to church or pray.
I comforted her and told her that God could take her anger and pain and that it was OK to question God. At least, I assured her, she was still talking to God and that, over time, God and she might be able to work things out. I sent her a book called Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey, a book that helped me to walk through my own struggle so many years ago.
The Rise of the Nones
I believe that Piper's response could provide us some understanding into one of the reasons that people are fleeing the church. We wrote about our concerns in a post last March. “The Nones: Are the Faithful Fleeing the Church?”here.
Recently, another survey announced that the numbers of Protestants in the US has dipped below 50%. These numbers include a decline in the number of evangelicals.Link
I want to make an observation. The Calvinistas have been given center stage with their doctrines over the past decade. This is during the time the loss of evangelicals accelerated. Could it be that the harshness and self-assured declaration of “correct” doctrine is partly to blame for this? Time will tell.
I have a friend who is a strongly devout Christian. She has done it all: Precepts, BSF, Awanas, faithful church attendance in evangelical churches, conferences, etc. She is tired and says she doesn’t like going to church these days although she forces herself to do so. She feels caught between the smugness of the Calvinistas and the loosey goosey antics of the prosperity gospel proponents.(Loving the mix of the two in the James MacDonald “debtacle.”)
Here are a couple of comments on Piper’s harsh theology from one blog called Calvin L Smith link.
“One blogger on the Christian Post site wonders if what Piper is actually saying is that rejecting the Reformed doctrine of election is a sin. If so this would be scandalous.”
“(If) one does not "like" or agree with election, it is because they are somehow impaired in their understanding. It seems a classic case of circular reasoning: If you don't like election it is because your understanding is impaired, and your understanding is impaired because you do not like (agree with) election. I found Piper's assertion disturbing and hermeneutically patronising.
Another comment was helpful at Blogs. Christian Post here.
“As a committed Calvinist, however, Dr. Piper is not referring to the Biblical doctrine. He is referring to the Reformed doctrine of election as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In Chapter III, Article III, Of God’s Eternal Decree, it says,
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
In article VII of the same section of the Confession, it goes on to say,
The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.A Minority View
In essence, Dr. Piper is saying that the vast majority of Christians historically and currently – including a great many wise and Godly theologians – are sinners simply because they disagree with his interpretation of what Scripture teaches on a very controversial issue.”
2. Are muscular women are outside of God’s will?
I cannot believe that I am writing about this. A reader sent me an email alerting me to another bizarre comment by Piper. I was totally unconvinced that even Piper could say such a thing. I went directly to the source and there it was, in black and white. Here is the entire PDF for the book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The following quote was written by Piper although a number of people contributed to the this document
“Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive. It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.
But no woman should be encouraged by this fact. For it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.
The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man, but it does not beget several hours of moonlight walking with significant, caring conversation. The more women can arouse men by doing typically masculine things, the less they can count on receiving from men a sensitivity to typically feminine ”
I believe Piper’s response to the election question was cruel. I believe this discussion of muscular women to be bizarre. My husband spends a lot of time telling all of his patients to exercise. He is a cardiologist and it is well known that an exercise program strengthens the heart (Note to Piper: The heart is a muscular organ).
Here is what the reader who sent this to me had to say
“And how is that applicable historically to anyone but the rich? Churning butter – typically "women's work" was just as hard as any modern weight lifting. Need I get into washing clothes and lugging around cast iron pots full of food? There is a woman in my family who met and fell in love with her husband while the two of them were plowing adjacent fields behind mules. Based on the number of children they had I think we can assume there weren't any problems in that department. Was she less of a woman because her husband valued her ability to keep up with him doing what is traditionally "men's work.”
So, to satisfy my curiousty , i decided to explore if John Piper exercises. Of course he does and he gives us the "proper" theological and gospel spin on his routine. John exercises in a Biblically sound manner, of course and is not sinning as he develops his musculature since he is male. He describes his exercise routine here and here.
“In the last year, I have added a weightlifting regimen to the jogging three times a week. I am told that people in their sixties start to lose muscle mass, whatever that is.
I could add that doctors say being fit will help protect me from a hundred diseases and bad effects of aging. I suspect that’s true. But if that were my main motive, I probably wouldn't’t drink Diet Coke.
So, in short, I have one life to live for Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:15). I don’t want to waste it. My approach is not mainly to lengthen it, but to maximize purity and productivity now. I want to show as much gospel truth and publish as much gospel truth as I can. I have found, for 43 years, that exercise helps. I think God set it up that way.”
Here is the problem. Exercise must only be for men in Piper’s world because any sort of exercise has the potential for building muscle in a woman and this will lead to a decline in both "romantic walks in the moonlight " and "significant conversation" for woman. I am almost rendered speechless by Piper’s assertion. Is he serious?
It certainly runs counter to the advice of most doctors. I asked my husband about it and he laughed, convinced I was joking. Women should be developing more muscle and less fat according to cardiologists. Piper wants women to be “typically feminine” which means, it appears, non-muscular.
I think it is time to begin to question what in the world is going on with Piper. Can anyone out there help me to see why I shouldn't think that he is sounding a bit eccentric ?
10/13-As requested by one of our readers. I aim to please.
Public domain – Wikipedia
Lydia’s Corner: Exodus 35:10-36:38 Matthew 27:32-66 Psalm 34:1-18 Proverbs 9:7-8
Okay, so say the one was a muscular woman who doesn’t like the Reformed version of the doctrine of election…And one who works outside the home & has authority over men…am I off Piper’s christmas card list? Am I? P.S. Note – one of these things is not true about me…
I kept looking at my calendar to see if it read April 1. /sigh October 12.
Piper seems to think that he owes the world his opinions on everything. This, of course, increases his risk of appearing ridiculous. His statement on muscular women is certainly one of his most laughable.
First of all, his opinion of how a man will react to the sight of a muscular woman is obviously how *he* would react. He finds such women to be “sexually stimulating.” Fine, but not all men share his taste. Second, he himself would be more inclined to have immediate sex with her rather than a lasting relationship. So, therefore, that’s how most men would feel. I wonder if he’s alarmed by his omniscience. Must really add to his responsibilities.
Also, I highly doubt that most women who want to be muscular do so in order to be more masculine. From what I’ve read on the subject, they simply like the way it makes them look. Also, as the reader said, it sometimes comes with the occupation. It’s only in the last 30 years or so that a large number of women have deliberately cultivated this body image. With this has come slow public acceptance.
If I wanted to be nasty, I could mention that Piper tends to be on the short, scrawny side, and that that might influence his outlook on the subject. But I’ll refrain from doing that.
I wonder if Piper knows he is almost channeling Friedrich Nietzsche, from Twilight of the Idols (#28): “If a woman has only manly virtues, we run away; and if she has no manly virtues, she runs away herself.”
Cheers,
Bob
I guess Piper doesn’t really believe that that Proverbs 31 woman’s arms were “strong for her task.”
It really comes down to definitions of love, faithfulness, and leadership. For me, disagreement and discussion are marks of truly healthy relationships. For Piper (and far too many other Christian leaders, disagreement and discussion smack more of subordination and disloyalty than loving relationship.
Instead of modeling the sort of leadership that Jesus taught (as he washed feet, listened, taught, and took his followers through a process), leaders like these [punish?!] “questioning” instead of valuing it as they should- teaching their followers to replace this impulse with suppression and avoidance.
Give me one struggling believer that truly brings herself to the questions she’s asking over a hundred “believers” that have learned to stop asking theirs.
I really enjoy your writing.
These bozos like Piper that are part of the CBMW come up with the most ludicrous non-Biblical comments about gender I’ve ever heard. Nice to see the CBMW site is still ‘temporary’.
Longtime reader, infrequent poster but this just grinds my gears and I had to comment. “The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man, but it does not beget several hours of moonlight walking with significant, caring conversation. The more women can arouse men by doing typically masculine things, the less they can count on receiving from men a sensitivity to typically feminine ”
There are so, so, so many problems with this statement, I don’t even know where to begin.
1. Masculine musculature may beget arousal in SOME men. People are all different (just look at the wide variety of internet sites that cater to different preferences!)
2. ALL men dislike walking in the moonlight with fit women? All of them!?
3. If a dude likes my muscles and can’t understand that those muscles don’t negate my “femininity” then he is not a dude I want to marry.
4. Since when do muscles eliminate the possibility for caring conversation? The softer my muscles, the sharper my feminine intuition? The harder my muscles, the less my “female caring mechanism” works? (Maybe I don’t get this because I am an athletic woman and my comprehension skills are lacking?)
5. Finally and most importantly, for Pete’s sake, where is he finding this in the Bible? I wasn’t aware that the apostle Paul talked about fitness regimes and their relation to sexuality.
The other aspect of this that infuriates me is that it so obviously plays into female body insecurity. Women are constantly judging and being judged based on their looks. Piper’s just adding wood to the fire with these comments–there is no way that these comments build up. They tear down.
One more thing: for many women, fitness can be a way to overcome insecurity, to find a source of strength in their body AND their mind, to grow in themselves, to overcome sexual and physical trauma, or pain, or heartbreak, or whatever. By encouraging women to stifle that, Piper is subtly encouraging them to settle, to stop striving to be better. This is just another iteration of a man prescribing what I, a woman, should look like, which is, in effect, what I should BE: dependent and–literally–weak.
dj
Awesome comment. Thank you!
Allen
Thank you for yoru comment. Welcome.
Dee, where did you dig up that picture of me? Pretty buff if I say so myself.
1. I think I had read that quote about muscular women before but didn’t really notice it. Aside from what you already pointed out about traditional “women’s work” requiring pretty well-developed musculature (true until probably, like, the 50s), what struck me as confusing about the quote were two things:
1) What does he mean by “masculine musculature”? Females with well-developed muscles will NEVER have precisely “masculine” musculature because our bodies are different (fat deposition, shape, etc.). Is he talking about female bodybuilders here? – not women who are in shape, but women like at the link below. If he is, then let’s just say if I were a guy, the pictures at the following link would most certainly NOT “beget arousal” in me! And if he’s not talking about bodybuilders, then what the heck does he mean? Just how much muscle is allowed before the musculature becomes “masculine”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_bodybuilding
2) “Hasty,” “volatile” and “unsatisfying” sexual encounters are contrasted with “moonlight walking” and “caring conversation.” This seems a little obnoxious to me, and frankly, rather graphic. It also implies that no man could ever think of a relationship when confronted with an in-shape woman, which is pretty demeaning to men as it reduces them, as a group, to testosterone-driven, shallow goofballs who can’t see past a toned rear end… : ) There are some men who are like this, but it seems like a bit of a caricature to me. Also, he’s definitely playing here on the patriarchal “women as soft, delicate creatures to be protected” theme – i.e., the men won’t feel the need to protect/be courteous to a capable woman.
(Also, this is really funny to me personally as currently a lot of my family’s Christian homeschool mom friends hitting middle-age are working out at the gym several hours a week. Some of them are even posting pictures of their 6-pack on their FBs! I guess someone needs to inform them that their relationship with their husbands will now inevitably deteriorate, as they will now view them as “men” and have a hard time having “caring conversation” with them.)
2. Per the election thing, I wonder what Piper would say about Luther here. Aside from the fact that Luther/Lutherans have traditionally taught single predestination (God chooses who will be saved) instead of double predestination (God choose who will be saved AND who will be damned), Luther also was no fan of prying into matters about election/predestination. In fact he actively discouraged people from doing so (see link below). Most importantly to the Piper discussion, I read a quote of Luther’s once (sadly don’t remember where) in which he said, basically, that he could not study too much about election/predestination because it made him start to think of God as a cruel devil. Given that Piper probably regards Luther quite highly, shouldn’t it disturb him that his own definitions make Luther a “sinner” for not “loving” election at first blush?
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlpredestination.html
Also, the statement that “the image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man” could be interpreted as more than a little bit homoerotic…but let’s not go there.
Recently, I read an article written by a pastor who is in a total funk because John Piper announced his coming retirement from the pastorate. This man wrote that he could not imagine a world without John Piper.
His god is dead?
Mr Piper never was on an actual working farm or ranch in which everyone worked. Man, woman, boy, girl who to do actual farming, and everyone pitches in and works with their sweat and their muscles….and there is something amazing about a farmgirl who can fix fences, grease a tractor, and carry several 50 lb sack of feed to the barn in the morning, then put on a little make-up and dress for the school dance that Saturday evening, and look amazing.
The Calvinistas have been given center stage with their doctrines over the past decade. This is during the time the loss of evangelicals accelerated. Could it be that the harshness and self-assured declaration of “correct” doctrine is partly to blame for this?
Just like the Communists, with their Harshness and Self-Assured Declaration of Correct Ideology. They had to build a wall across Berlin backed up with minefields and Gulags to keep their people from fleeing.
“The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man…”
Why did I hear Josie Cotton singing “Johnny, Are You Queer?” when I read that line?
Piper puts way too much emphasis on feelings. If one performs a good work without joy, it isn’t a good work, according to Piper. It’s easy to see the kind of bondage this can lead to.
I don’t personally like the doctrine of hell. I believe that God is good, and that therefore whatever he approves of is good, but my feelings about hell don’t line up with what I believe. dee, I think that the “help my unbelief” verse is a good one to bring up – besides the fact that it acknowledges partial unbelief, it doesn’t say “help my feelings.” (I appreciate your candor, btw.) Yes, I would prefer it if my feelings always lined up with my beliefs, but feelings are notoriously hard to control and they are a bad guide to what is true.
Piper does seem to be more and more The Grand Inquisitor.
The Piper quote about muscular women is just another fancy, flower, adjective filled Piperism that reveals his deep fear of women… Especially strong ones.
Whatever he can do, however he can wax long on the ‘dangers’ of muscular women, this he will do to discourage any woman he can away from becoming strong and therefore intimidating to his wounded, fractured, needy ego.
Jimmy
I always knew you were into body building.
HUG
Totally blew me away. A world without Piper is such a bummer. It was at that point that I knew I had zero in common with him except for the fact that we both “notice” Piper.
If, as in an above comment, Piper is referring to female bodybuilders . . . I’ve seen pictures of female bodybuilders, and I don’t find them very attractive.
But using your muscles and keeping them in shape . . .that’s another story. That’s just plain being healthy and taking care of yourself!
K.D.
Such a woman is headed for a life without romance, walks along the beach, and deep conversation. Wait a minute-I think Piper is listening to the E Harmony commercials.
HUG
If I were a good Christian girl, I would delete this comment. However, I would have to stop laughing first so i could hit the delete button. Does this guy ever hear himslef?
“The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man…” Why did I hear Josie Cotton singing “Johnny, Are You Queer?” when I read that line?
JeffB
Grand Inquisitor, judge and jury, and mouthpiece for the mind of God. i think he is straying over a line. Seriously, something has to be a bit off for him to go down this path. Can you imagine the Piper worshippers, falling all over themselves laughing that a woman has the audacity to question him?
It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.
Could this be the reason Piper et al don’t want women to be strong and muscular?
Victorious
That statement is creepy! “It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.”
Here’s how John Piper answered Mahaney’s question about exercise 3-1/2 years ago on “C.J.’s View from the Cheap Seats”
Meet John Piper
“Do you exercise? If so, what do you do? If not, why not? (Please be specific.)
I run on the treadmill 30 minutes Monday, Wednesday and Saturday morning followed by a set of back lifts with a Swiss ball, stomach crunches with the ball, and pushups on the floor. I almost always walk to church instead of driving, 600 paces from door to door.”
After reading Piper’s comments over the past few years, I start to wonder if he just likes the attention that his statements generate. He has chosen to retire and may be afraid of fading into irrelevance. Making outrageous comments ensures that he will be discussed and spoken about ad infinitum. After all even negative attention is, after all, attention.
So let me get this straight … According to Piper, I can’t have musculature (lest it make me unfeminine and unworthy of moonlight conversation) … but according to Driscoll, I can’t let myself go (lest my husband turn to another man for sex). What’s a good Christian woman to do?
“The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man, but it does not beget several hours of moonlight walking with significant, caring conversation. The more women can arouse men by doing typically masculine things, the less they can count on receiving from men a sensitivity to typically feminine ”
Keep in mind Piper is not much over 5 feet tall and a tiny man. I can imagine strong women who are athletic are very intimidating to him. If you look close a lot of Patriarchs are tiny or short men. Bruce Ware, Russ Moore, Doug Phillips etc. It is not a hard and fast rule but it is very interesting
Leila,
Get plastic surgery of course… Duh.
Jimmy, are you queer?
Anon 1 that’s the point I was trying to make at 6:31.
I actually did a series on my blog on small (minded) men.
I did it in April of 2011.
Piper was among them.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html
I have been of the opinion for years that every time Piper writes about women he insults his wife by implication.
“Here is the entire PDF for the book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. ”
That book is not recent. He has been “eccentric” for a long time, then?. How about we call it what it is: False teacher.
“After reading Piper’s comments over the past few years, I start to wonder if he just likes the attention that his statements generate.”
Bingo! He has been a shock jock preacher for years. It is why the young minds full of mush are so enamoured with him. This goes back to Christian Hedonism. Some of it is down right blasphemous like his “Scream of the Damned” sermon he did with Mahaney a few years back at Resolved.
I was stunned at how many celebrity Christians agreed with that. The ONLY Reformed pastor who called them out on it online was Steve Camp, God bless him.
Mara, It is nice to know someone else has noticed this. I have met most of them and was astonished at how tiny they are. And it is always the ones who make pat/comp a primary issue.
Anon 1 and Mara, don’t forget Wayne Grudem. Small man, high squeaky voice.
I didn’t, Leila
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/04/another-nervous-little-man.html
Muscular women? I wonder how these guys would feel around tall women. . or very tall women? I tower over most guys.
My only girlfriend was six-foot-one.
Mara, It is nice to know someone else has noticed this. I have met most of them and was astonished at how tiny they are. And it is always the ones who make pat/comp a primary issue. — Anon1
Short Man Syndrome.
Every other male is bigger than them, so they have to smack around a woman to feel Big and Manly. “I CAN BEAT YOU UP!”
The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man…” Why did I hear Josie Cotton singing “Johnny, Are You Queer?” when I read that line?
My mind will be singing Johnny Are You Queer all night now. That’s too funny.
Julie Anne and HUG,
My issues are with small (minded) men more than just small framed men.
Rather than go into explanation I’ll end my little linkathon with this one about a small guy in my life who is not threatened by my height.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/04/small-men-make-me-nervous.html
(Okay, I’m done linking now Dee and Deb. So sorry for so many in a row. Sometimes it’s just easier to do this than to cut and paste or revisit and rephrase what I’ve already written that is pertinent to the conversation at hand.)
“My only girlfriend was six-foot-one.”
I LOVE IT!!!!
Julie Anne and Anon 1, how tall are you?
HUG, you could throw your height in to make it interesting.
I’m only 5’9″. You wouldn’t think that was a big deal.
My hubby calls the short man complex the “Napoleonic Syndrome”. Those kind of guys really bother him.
Here’s some pertinent info – Short Man Syndrome Explained
I’m under 5’3″ & I still make men nervous 🙂
Mara – I just read your post that you called yourself Amazon at 5’9″ and had to laugh a little 🙂 JC Penney sells clothes for tall women: Talls and Ultra Talls, and I’ve said to myself, “what are you called when you are taller than Ultra Tall”? The truth is, I am the Amazon woman – lol. I think it says I’m 6’3″ on my driver’s license, but I’ve been using an inversion table since January and I think I’m closer to 6’4″ now. Even my 6’8″ son told me he thought I was taller. I’m okay with my height most of the time. It makes me feel sad when people can’t deal with my height and there really are some guys that have a short man’s complex when they are by me. I didn’t believe it until it became so obvious, I could not deny it.
Height sometimes is an obstacle for others when they meet me, but once they get over the initial shock (and yes, it is a shock for some), they soon realize I’m really a people person.
“For it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.”
Whoa.
How bizarre.
TedS
I know. I couldn’t believe it when I read it. Bizarre. And people think Piper is above reproach. I swear I am missing something.
Whenever my family gets together we call it the Land of the Giants reunion. Julie Anne, I have a female cousin who is 6’2 and gorgeous. She was approached in college to be a runway model but was too busy playing and excelling at every sport she tried. I am 5’11. As a friend of mine always says about our height, if the church was on fire, we would have to carry out Russ Moore and John Piper. They certainly could not carry us out even though they are manly men patriarchs. :o)
What Pipe is saying is what all the Calvinist despots say: you don’t get to think! You don’t get to have a problem with hermeneutics, or doctrine. YOU don’t matter! You either agree, or you shall be rightfully subject to church discipline/”chastisement” (what they mean is they get to tyrannize you spiritually, and if it wasn’t for the damned constitution they’d tyrannize you physically as well).
Of COURSE he’s saying if you don’t agree with him you are in sin. What does “standing in the stead” mean to Mahaney and Piper?! It means HE’S God. YOU don’t get to have an opinion or objection you barbarian fool!
Behind the Mr. Rogers of the Calvinist movement is a very sinister kind of thinking. Read this into EVERYTHING Piper says, and ignore the jelly sandwich, country table conversation style.
“For it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.”
Dee, I find it interesting his mind works this way. Does he base this on some sort of survey? Stats? Or is this one of his all knowing prophecies like the tornado sent to punish the Episcopalians?
It is really bizarre that more people do not see right through him. Scary and bizarre. This is more Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn stuff.
Oh, okay…ANOTHER thing to add to my list of 101 Things Women Aren’t Allowed to Do Because They Don’t Have a Penis. Thanks, Pipe! This book’s dedicated to you, Massa!
I mean…my gosh! The presumption in those posts is so astounding I am LITERALLY feeling dizzy.
Here is a man who admittedly knows jack S_ _ _ about fitness, and still (well…because he is God, don’t you see) sees it appropriate to cast aspersions and generalizations and stigmatize legions of women because the happen to be able to kick his ass and look hot doing it.
I’m so grossed out with Piper. He’s a medieval despot.
Phew! At 5’6″ and a smidgen over 100 pounds (I’m the slightest built in a family of slim builds), I’m safe from being dismissed as ‘too muscular’ for a woman.
But really, I don’t even want to think much about that excerpt of Piper’s because it’s such a case of Too. Much. Detail.
Jimmy,
Ha, ha….I actually found your post funny.
Yes…and someone asked this already: but how much muscle is too much? Of course he cannot quantify it; he has no idea really…but in his mind, he doesn’t NEED to have an idea; he doesn’t need to know s_ _ _. His idea of too much is based on whatever he decides on an individual basis. This is the basic rationale of all Calvinist despots. It was rampant in SGM. Do you know WHY they had terrible accountability for CJ and other leaders; and zero structure for removing pastors, or hiring, or firing, or anything. It was on PURPOSE! They are never going to change that. The don’t NEED rules or regulations or to qualify or quantify statements. Whatever they declare, in whatever instant, for whatever circumstance, THAT’S truth. THAT’S why Piper will never quantify that kind of statement.
I can do fourteen pull ups and an iron cross…and you know what I find attractive; a woman who can too! You know what else I find attractive? A woman who can decides on her own that she WANTS to. You know what else I find attractive? A woman who can decide on her own that she DOESN’T want to.
If all the caps seem like I’m yelling…it’s ’cause I am.
Bravo, Argo!!!
The hasty and volatile part – – -I wonder who Piper claims is hasty and volatile – the guy or muscular gal. Ack!
Anon1 – – My daughter, Hannah, who was sued is 5’11”. We call her the runt of the family. Our other daughter is almost 18 yrs and stands 6′ 3-1/2″. She’s about 1/4″ shorter than me and yes, every quarter of an inch counts when you play volleyball. It is her dream to be 6’5″ or at least taller than me. I love her confidence and poise. She even wears heals because she figures that if she’s that tall, she might as well have some fun with it. We create quite a scene whenever we are out together and our “normal-sized” friends enjoy watching the show we create – lol.
” He’s a medieval despot”
Like his hero, Calvin.
“(what they mean is they get to tyrannize you spiritually, and if it wasn’t for the damned constitution they’d tyrannize you physically as well).”
Argo, I have been warning folks of this for years. Some of the stuff I have seen blows my mind coming out these authoritarian in the Name of God, movements. I am serious when I say I am so thankful for our “Deist” Founders. There is no tyranny worse than that done in the Name of God.
One more thing, and then I’ll shut up and have a drink:
Church discipline is their “License to Kill” from God.
“I can do fourteen pull ups and an iron cross…and you know what I find attractive; a woman who can too! You know what else I find attractive? A woman who can decides on her own that she WANTS to. You know what else I find attractive? A woman who can decide on her own that she DOESN’T want to.”
Well, of course, that is because you know who you are and are confident in that. If only people could see that all this mumbo jumbo stuff masqueraded as Christianity is really about men who lack self confidence. They have to manufacture it by constantly directing women. They are tiny Pharisees. :o) (A friend of mine calls it “fun size Pharisees”)
Anon1,
I am grateful to God you are warning others; and so grateful for Dee and Deb who relentlessly bring to light this kind of nonsense. People need to flee guys like Piper, who aren’t qualified how to teach a game of duck duck goose, or freeze tag, let alone lecture women on how and why to exercise…many of whom, incidentally, make their living as professional athletes (sorry…forgot, they are supposed to home, uneducated and enduring their nightly smacking). I for one don’t want an effing biblically “feminine” type on the Roller Derby team I root for; and I sure as hell don’t want them “submissive”.
You know, when I read rad-fem stuff my first tendency is to roll my eyes. Like all the stuff about “the male gaze”.
Then I see crap like that Piper quote and I totally get it.
The scantily clad woman working out is scantily clad because you get overheated when you exercise. She isn’t working out to get Piper or any other man aroused. But it’s all about him, isn’t it? Anything a woman does, she does at him, and if he doesn’t approve of her sexually then she has failed at whatever it is.
He thinks the scantily clad woman who doesn’t know him from Adam’s off-ox should guard against being “encouraged” by the thought of his lusting after her? The arrogance. The dadgum nerve.
HUG, you could throw your height in to make it interesting.
I’m only 5’9″. You wouldn’t think that was a big deal.
I’m also 5’9″.
“Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive.”
There’s no hope for me, my genetics dictated that I be naturally muscular. Some call it ‘big boned’, I have an athletic build, there’s not much I can do about it. In my teen years I longed to be willowy and slim like the other girls, but it was not meant to be. I have muscles, powerful ones. Piper can kiss my well developed gluteous maximus.
“But no woman should be encouraged by this fact. For it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.”
So going to the gym/workingout/beingmuscular = being promiscuous. Because if you are into fitness, you’re automatically into going home with random strangers.
“The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man,”
My gaydar is going *BING BING BING*!
“but it does not beget several hours of moonlight walking with significant, caring conversation. The more women can arouse men by doing typically masculine things, the less they can count on receiving from men a sensitivity to typically feminine ”
I met my husband at our workplace. Our line of work involves heavy lifting, sweating, getting your hands dirty… heck, everything about it is as far away from ‘typically feminine’ (as JP understands it) as you can get. And yet, despite that, my husband fell in love with me. We’ve had no lack of moonlit walks or significant, caring conversations.
Anon 1,
I too am am grateful and bless Providence that our Nation was founded on the ideas of the Enlightenment and not the dogmas of Calvin & Luther.
Jimmy – that was truly lol
Seeking – “Piper can kiss my well developed gluteous maximus” – super lol
Dee – dare you to change the picture to a female body builder (and not for Jimmy’s sake – heh !)
OK, Piper didn’t exactly manage to show as much gospel truth and publish as much gospel truth as he thinks he did in 43 years, not if part 1 is an indicator (or part 2).
Finally, I am approved as a good-gospely women by Piper, for not working-out and getting muscular. And if I want to stay in their good books, I should probably gain 20 pounds or something to get a moonlit stroll with good conversation.
At least all these guy’s silly comments lately contribute to my husband’s and my amusement. The spiritual gift of “real-estate acquisition”, romantic moonlit walks for the unhealthy only, sinning if we don’t like Calvinista doctrine? – the Puritans weren’t supposed to do anything they liked, so I guess they were sinning either way 🙂 Between this, and Rachel Held Evan’s comment thread on her post about her upcoming book not being shelved at LifeWay, I think someone in the future will make a pretty funny comedy about the religious leaders of our times.
Hmmm
so part 1 certainly seems profoundly arrogant and deeply unloving
and part 2 is sheer sexist crap
Next?
Regarding not liking election- as you know, I believe the Bible clearly teaches election; however, as to liking it or not, I’d be hesitant to go too far in that direction. As in understand Romans 9, Paul anticipates objection to the doctrine. My point is, Paul just didn’t preach this stuff and naively think everyone would love it. The very fact he argues against the objections before they are made suggests he knows it’s a tough doctrine. Whether it’s a sin to not immediately embrace (or not ever embrace) election, I don’t know. It does seem its a reasonable and expected objection.
“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:18-24 ESV)
Totally don’t understand what Piper is in about regarding moonlit walks. So men getting muscles means they love moonlit walks but when women do they don’t? Or muscular men don’t like walks but their comp, non-muscular wives do, so the result is muscular men enduring Godly walks for their wives sake? I don’t really get what moonlit walks have to do with anything. They seem to be orthogonal to both working out and the Gospel.
Piper really does appear to read and preach as if his experience is everybody’s experience. I kind of get the feeling that if he didn’t like broccoli and I did, he’d assume that I was in error somehow for not sharing his same opinion.
@ Val:
“Finally, I am approved as a good-gospely women by Piper, for not working-out and getting muscular. And if I want to stay in their good books, I should probably gain 20 pounds or something to get a moonlit stroll with good conversation.”
Yeah, it isn’t too hard to get “truly feminine women don’t exercise” out of the quote. I’ve stared at the quote over and over and I still can’t figure out what kind of woman/level of fitness he has in mind here.
Also, my fellow commenters may be interested in the Biblical story of a muscular woman who was used by God to save the day. It can be found in Judges 4:17-22. You can’t be a physical wuss and successfully drive a tent peg through somebody’s head.
BTW, when my mom read the quote she asked, “Why does he think women who go to the gym like rough, violent sex?!”
This is five months old, but excellent and well worth reading
A Message to Girls About Religious Men Who Fear You
Laura, your quote:
“The scantily clad woman working out is scantily clad because you get overheated when you exercise. She isn’t working out to get Piper or any other man aroused. But it’s all about him, isn’t it? Anything a woman does, she does at him, and if he doesn’t approve of her sexually then she has failed at whatever it is.”
That was awesome. You nailed it…exactly, exactly, exactly right. HE is God. Everything a woman does is ipso facto about “Him” whether she knows it or not. If “He” doesn’t approve–on a case by case basis of course, where he passes out his musings and judgments and dispensations like a clown throwing candy off a parade float–then she is obligated to cease and desist and repent. It doesn’t matter that she hasn’t the vaguest idea who in the hell Piper is, or whether she is a professional athlete, or a woman exercising for health reasons, or a girl struggling with image issues and finds solace in her physique, or a daughter training for a triathlon that she can run with her father as a gift for his 60th birthday, or a woman who has found a way to escape some kind of self-destructive addiction by focusing on bodybuilding, or a girl who just wants to work out because it helps her feel better about herself, or a girl who simply decided that as a free child of God it isn’t a sin to pursue the 200lb bench press. Nope…that is irrelevant to the God-man Piper. As you so RIGHTLY point out, its all about him. He is the focus of the whole world, whether the world knows it or not. No, these women must change to satisfy his whims or they are in sin. It is just that simple. Piper is the Divinely Appointed One and the rest of the world would do well to listen to Him. Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow John. After all, did Jesus ask questions about people’s circumstances…of course not, He already knew. And that is how Piper thinks about his “ministry”. He already knows all he needs to know, and I guarantee that’s how he sees himself.
One one level, allow me to apologize for my rants last night. I used a lot of “language”, and though I am not personally convicted that “words” are wrong, but the heart behind the words (I interpret unwholesome speech as not the word, but the context…biblically, I find a lot of evidence to support that what Paul means by unwholesome language is gossip, slander, accusations, lies…generally speech intended to damage or hurt another person. I use words to emphasize my point…to get across my disdain, and let’s face it, they work), but I understand that many are offended and so I apologize if my words offended.
On another level, I think it is appropriate that we stop considering the sensibilities of these spiritual tyrants. There are millions and millions of women who run companies that provide livelihoods for thousands of people, who work hard, pay taxes, have gone to college and become experts in their fields at immense sacrifices to themselves…who save lives everyday, who contribute to the greatness of our nation and to God’s name by doing everything OPPOSITE of what a patriarch like Piper demands. He is saying that none of it matters. These women are displeasing God…they are in sin, and God is unhappy with them; all from a position of knowing literally nothing about the people he is judging. How on earth is this Christian. Someone please explain to me how THIS is the true Gospel?
Tell the surgeon or nurse who just saved a little child’s life that she is wrong for not being home, for not fulfilling her gospel “role”. By removing that tumor she is defying Christ, and is stirring up God’s anger.
I find this position despicable, and even worse, utterly lacking in any empathy. And LOVE is the most important thing to a Christian, and it is clear from comments like his that there is no place for love, or understanding in the hearts of these Calvinist preachers.
So…excuse the language, but maybe this explains at least why I don’t mind using it.
Jimmy, I liked your remark 🙂
Hester, thanks for posting Luther’s article on predestination. I read it and it was well worth it, so much so I’ve even bookmarked it!
Jeff S, thanks for your note on election. You are quite right in that Paul deals with it in Romans 9-11, although there it seems it is in the context of Israel and why God’s OT people had largely (though not all) rejected Christ. In his commentary on Romans, F F Bruce suggests that some of Paul’s systematisers went further in this doctrine than Paul did. Tellingly, Paul says “What if?”, although he goes on to confirm God’s sovereignty later in the passage (if I remember correctly).
Re Mr Piper’s remarks on ladies and gyms, I think it is symptomatic of a general problem in clergy and for that matter everyone else in a public place. We all like to express an opinion, but I think it is dangerous to do so in a place where others can construe that (a) we’re not very charitable and/or (b) our opinions are somehow tied up to the Christian gospel. Paul warns us about the dangers in Romans 14. This danger applies to anyone, Calvinist, Arminian, clergyman or layperson! (And let’s face it, how many politicians have been left with red faces for making unguarded or rash comments that they’ve later had to qualify/retract/gloss over). The danger if you run a blog is probably even greater. All of us, including I suspect Mr Piper, need to draw a distinction between personal opinion/prejudices/likes and what is really the core of the Gospel, which after all is nothing more than “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor 1?).
Pam,
That article is now on the required reading list for my daughters. Thank you for linking it.
BTW just as my *personal* opinion LOL I’m with Tina on this – I don’t find female bodybuilders attractive when they harden their muscles to the point that their breasts practically disappear, but I don’t think the majority of women exercising in the local gym want to look like that either 🙂
There’s also a difference (again my *personal* opinion (TM)LOL) between a strong woman and a strident woman, just as there is between a strong man and a bully. Being a strong woman doesn’t make you a strident woman. I’ve known women who were physically not very significant who could be overbearing, just as some men (as raised on this thread) have “Napoleon syndrome”.
Koyla,
As a former member of SGM, and a devout Calvinist for fifteen years, I can tell you that they do not consider it opinion. It is “sound doctrine”. I know it is hard to get our heads around the fact that someone can think they are the mouthpiece of God…normal people don’t think that. But I promise that THEY do. Their opinions are on par with scripture. I know this seems like hyperbole, but I promise you it is not. I have sat and listened to SGM pastors declare LITERALLY that the congregation is as bound to the sermon of the pastor as they are the Bible. I have listened to them literally declare that people should read the Bible less and apply the sermon more. Again, this is not exaggeration. In light of this, what would your understanding of your opinion be if you were them?
Argo,
Your words didn’t offend me, but I edited them for our wider audience. I understand your sentiments and am thoroughly disgusted with John Piper and his ilk. We need to continue to hold Piper accountable for his words.
Hi Argo, thanks for that information. I didn’t realise it was as bad as that. What they are saying actually goes against Scripture then, as they are raising the “opinions of men” to the level of Scripture. This is especially so in the context of Romans 14 if they are expressing opinions on secondary matters.
Argo,
I appreciate your testimony about your FIFTEEN years in Sovereign Grace Ministries. I hope our readers are paying attention. As far as I’m concerned, those who get involved with SGM now do so at their own risk…
I have sympathy for those like yourself who got caught up in it before the age of the internet. Now there are NO EXCUSES.
Hi Deb,
Oh yes…I completely understand. I wasn’t offended that you edited the post at all. I was compelled to apologize for fear that I had offended the wider audience you referenced. I was concerned that I wasn’t showing proper respect for the people who read here…I know there are many people who are personally convicted against such language. I felt kind of bad…again, my MO (posting at the height of emotion, rather than reigning it in a bit) reared its head yet again, and I was concerned that this might have offended someone. (Not the Calvinistas…their sensibilities I care little about; they want to tell my daughters to endure a night of smacking; sorry, don’t really care about their “offense”.)
Hmmm. Let’s see. Crossfit or Piper? Crossfit or Piper? Which to chose?
Well, crossfit has been wonderfully beneficial for my body and hasn’t harmed my soul. Piper has an emaciating effect on my soul with NO benefit whatsoever to my body, so….
Argo
Mahaney/Piper, whatever. They are cut from the same cloth and it is deeply disturbing.
Now, a question for you. Did you see that there is a new movie out called “Argo” based on a true story. So, what is your reason for being “Argo.”
Anon1
I totally agree. He says things like Pat Robertson but the Calvinista boys look at him as a prophet, not a nut job. And they claim to be Scripturally astute. i don’t see it. Now granted I am just a woman but, for the record, I have few muscles, a fact I am trying to rectify.
Argo
On your 10:27 comment:
I wish someone would have the guts to show Piper the responses his bizarre theories elicit. I truly believe that this stuff is contributing to the decline in evangelicals in the US.
Anon1
I agree. Had you told me a decade ago that i would be glad that certain religious men were not in charge of this country, I would have laughed. I wanted a “good, Christian” county, whatever that means. However, looking at history-Puritans, Calvin, and the middle ages which definitely demonstarted the corruptibility of the faith, I now run from the “political” solution.
Religious zealots need checks and balances, not a board of elders who rubber stamp things.I still remember a former pastor who I went to see over a serious problem in the church. He said something that will be emblazoned on my brain until I am called home. He said “My elders have only disagreed with me twice in 28 years.” And he thought that was good! Only a self appointed mini-Moses could see virtue in that statement
Laura
If he is spending time noticing such women, he is not pushing himself as he exercises. He should start a male only club in his church if this bothers him.
HUG
My son is 5’9″ as well. I am 5’5″ but I project tall. My husband says that I tend start the party.
Argo said~
“…(what they mean is they get to tyrannize you spiritually, and if it wasn’t for the damned constitution they’d tyrannize you physically as well).”
Too bad for children, I guess. Unfortunately they do get tyrannized physically via first time every time obedience (Baucham and his MA Bay Colony kingdom) and others who have church covenant statements that you WILL agree to not spare the rod, and you WILL agree to use corporal punishment, which can then be abused. I think the world’s “most popular blogger” has such a covenant statement at his church.
Searching
Loved your comment. I am still befuddled that I had to write about this in today’s environment which encourages healthy exercise. Look at all of the beautiful figure skaters. My niece played hockey for the US women’s hockey team in the Olympics when they won a bronze. She is a beautiful young woman – a real head turner. And she is very muscular. This sort of stuff is bizarre. I am convinced something is going on with Piper, but people refuse to discuss it with him because he is “always right.”
Muff
Didn’t Luther say he would rather have his country ruled by a competent “Turk” (his term) than an incompetent Christian?
Haitch/ All
To show that I am a humble servant of our readers, I have added a picture to the bottom of this post. For the curmudgeons among you-it is a joke!
Most of what I think about these issues has already been said in one way or another by others, so I’m not going to repeat it… However, there is a particular part in the article, one of Piper’s quotes, that got me thinking:
“So, in short, I have one life to live for Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:15). I don’t want to waste it. My approach is not mainly to lengthen it, but to maximize purity and productivity now. I want to show as much gospel truth and publish as much gospel truth as I can. I have found, for 43 years, that exercise helps. I think God set it up that way.”
Not sure if I’ll explain myself properly and, above all, I don’t want to judge him by these words only… At least not in any way which is not befitting. It do not think it my call to do it, except, I guess, in the case of things that he may do or say which might affect others… But I should not judge him for what I can not see.
In any way, this quote gave me the impression of a person who has to prove himself all the time, as if to show that he is worth it of that life he mentions in the beginning… And in that sense it produced a sense of sadness. At the same time, I am struggling with certain thoughts and I’m somewhat reticent about writing this, because I understand where he is coming from by mentioning the verse in 2 Corinthians and I’m reminded what Paul says about winning the race and other texts about our response to what Christ has done in and for us.
But, still, I can not get rid of the impression that something is amiss or badly placed… Like two pieces of a jigsaw not matching properly, or a car’s gear that does not transition smoothly. This, somehow, is reinforced by the way he’s expressed himself in the past about various topics… Or that point about “maximising purity and productivity now”.
Quite recently I’ve discussed with friends from church about the way we live our lives as Christians. I do think that part of it is still cultural… For example, some friends mentioned about feeling that they needed to consider their motivations behind everything they do, whether they would be sinful or not. I live in England but I’m originally from a Mediterranean culture and do not have an Evangelical background, having started attending an evangelical church only 4 years ago… I realised that, besides those issues which I definitely know are wrong and will make me feel guilty after doing them, I do not have that need about reconsidering my motivations in everything I do… I do not even think about it. I just do one way or another, and if that was wrong, well, then I’ll learn a lesson.
Then, reading about the Puritans, I found this in their Wikipedia page: “Puritan culture emphasized the need for self-examination and the strict accounting for one’s feelings as well as one’s deeds”… Which actually was quite clarifying from a cultural point of view.
What do you think? Could it be that a Puritan-like world view would make many take such attitude? Please, don’t hesitate to tell me if you think I’m being unreasonable or out of place.
Dee,
I used to love watching and listening to CJ. I mean…he was “Ceej”; could do no wrong. Idolized him. Now when I see him preach, it is so creepy and surreal and weird. I’m scared that I could not see how deranged the histrionics are before. I’ve resolved that I will be NO one’s ideologue, regardless of how much I think I agree with them. Cynical, no (okay, maybe yes, a little)…but I do pray and question everything. And I refuse to make a judgement unless I am satisfied that I can speak from a place of knowledge and understanding; that’s why I continue to mention my long involvement with SGM. I don’t want anyone to assume that I speak of such things from an “outsiders” perspective. I don’t make these accusations lightly. I speak from knowing exactly how they view their “opinions” and I know what they really mean.
Yes…that movie Argo looks awesome, doesn’t it. 🙂 Great name!
My reasoning is not as exciting. When I was a kid my favorite show (I’m dating myself) on was a Japanese anime program called “Starblazers”. The premise was that the humans had to use some new alien technology they’d discovered to ward off an impending invasion from the same alien race who had promulgated the technology; an invasion that was due to happen in about a years time. So the humans raised the Japanese battleship Yamato (which was a real ship in WWII which the American navy did in fact sink, and boasted the most powerful guns ever fitted to a ship in the world at that time)and turned it into the powerful space battleship the Argo. This ship was equipped with the supergun the “wave motion gun”, which could destroy a planet. It was the only thing that stood between earth and its destruction from nefarious alien forces.
Anyway…long story short, I thought the Argo was totally awesome, and though there is some symbolism there, I guess, (because, yes, I consider Calvinista theology to be a nefarious alien force LOL), it never occured to me. I just though the ship and the name were awesome.
I could have used SDF-1, but Argo rolled off the tongue easier. 🙂
Now…any nerds know about the SDF-1? You tell me what SDF means, and you get a cookie. 🙂
Val
I loved your comment.. I do wonder how history will judge us evangelicals.
About three years ago, I had a lengthy conversation with a public relations guy in corporate Lifeway. He said they remove books that do not fit the Baptist message. They had removed a magazine that elebrated the African American female pastors. So, I asked him if he had the Christianity Today magazine (published at the same time as the other) which featured Anne Graham Lotz? When he said, “of course.” I asked why he didn’t remove it because in that magazine Lotz argued for female preachers. Dead silence.
There are not consistent standards at Lifeway. They respond with whoever the current puppetmasters are. And we know who is running the SBC these days.
I have faith in those who read to make their own judgements about books. Let me tell you, I have read a number of books stocked at Lifeway (no more-Amazon and Kindle for me). Let me tell you, there was plenty of stuff in those books that did not agree with the Baptist “message.”
For those of you who have ever noticed Piper’s intimidating stature, this simply reminds me of that one quote from Shrek: “Do you think he’s compensating for something?”
Dee: You seem very tall to me 🙂
LOL on the pic!
Martin – I believe you are onto something with the Puritan culture of introspection on sin. I’m sure Argo can attest that this is very popular among SGM circles, too. On the SGMSurvivor site, they refer to it as sin-sniffing. It doesn’t seem like a very grace-filled life. They talk so much about the cross, but did they forget what happened next?
Martin,
“This, somehow, is reinforced by the way he’s expressed himself in the past about various topics… Or that point about “maximising purity and productivity now”.
The strange thing to me is how people can operate from a theological platform that is so utterly contradictory. By definition, in reformed theology, particularly Calvinism, there is absolutely no point to “maximizing purity and productivity”. Those who are “elect” are elect regardless of what Piper does or does not do. Maximizing anything is a redundant waste of time. Those who are damned are too blind by their “sin nature” to perceive his irrelevant purity and productivity…and even if they could, they’d still be going to hell, and so it does them no good. And if it does them no good, and is irrelevant to the “elect” and himself, then why cast aspersions on those who do not agree and those women who work out in all their scantily clad-ness, by which he (apparently) is so both aroused and offended? And why pretend that the totally depraved masses could see his wisdom and do anything about it anyway? Those women are just depraved; offering an opinion doesn’t help a thing if they are not “elect”. And if they are, well…they might stop; but if they don’t, they are still elect, by definition, and are going to heaven even if they worked out in nothing but fish net stockings and Gene Simmons make-up.
The whole premise is impossible…which is why I find it amazing that these people feel compelled to preach on…well, anything at all.
Ricahrd
There will be plenty of “nexts”, I’m afraid.
JeffS
The passage you cite is one of Paul’s straw man arguments that he later refutes. Taking that as literal without analysis and understanding has led to much atrocity in the name of “election”. Paul was doing what attorney’s do. In Romans, he sets up straw man one, then completely demolishes it with straw man two, and finally straw man three, which is the election piece, before setting out an absolute grace gift to everyone which only requires accepting it.
Even assuming that Piper IS talking only about female bodybuilders (and is ok with general weight training for women) does that really make it any better? Who is he to say that a female body builder can’t be treated like a woman? Why would men only see female bodybuilders as one-night-stands and not as valuable people? Why would she be going outside of God’s plan?
If God made the female body able to build muscle, just like men can, then how can building those muscles be outside his plan? If he really didn’t want women to have that capability, then they wouldn’t physically have it.
You could say “Yes, but they got there through an unnatural regiment of purposeful strength-training, rather than allowing their body to conform to its ‘natural’ shape,” at which time I would point you to male bodybuilders and say the exact same thing. When in the history of the Bible did God decree that building extreme muscle size was a man’s trait and so should be avoided by women?
And by the way, his argument that female bodybuilders arouse one-night-stand type of sexual feelings is men is just plain negligent of common sense. How many times in the history of humankind have men been aroused in a one-night-stand, no-commitment kind of way by feminine looking women? It happens all the time. Visit your local club or flip on any TV show.
Paul and the straw man?
ARCE, are you suggesting Paul’s attorney-like arguments are NOT inspired scripture?
Or if they are inspired, then you have GOD setting up straw man arguments?
Which is it ARCE; Paul’s speaking for himself or God is setting up straw-man arguments?
“The more women..” (do this, this, this, this and that) “the less they can count on receiving from men..” (this, this, this, this and that.)
How does it profit anyone listening to this? It has nothing to do with love. What Piper is saying is sensual and worldly! “This is not the wisdom that comes from above.”
In order for a woman to receive what she wants from a man she has to meet the complementarian-criteria of being completely submissive to what constitutes biblical womanhood. Is that the secret to love and happiness Pastor Piper?
Rather than pointing to God’s grace, Pastor Piper would have you believe love is given and received on a meritorious basis, which is the essence of the “complementarian gospel.” You must earn it by being good!
Rosie the Rivetter – no soup for you!
Jimmy I just read what Arce wrote and I’m baffled as to where you got the idea that what Arce is saying Paul wrote IN SCRIPTURE isn’t scripture.
If you listen to female bodybuilders, they rigorously affirm their femininity, even the huge ones. If you can find one that says otherwise, I’d be very surprised. They have no interest in “being a man”. It has absolutely nothing to do with this. This is a false wives tale. Many just like being strong. Many just like having muscles…they do not mix in sexual politics like the Calvinistas do with EVERYTHING. Of course, as with anything else, the reasons female bodybuilders do what they do can be complicated. As Christians, we should not judge anyone in ignorance.
It’s as if Jimmy can’t think outside of the box he had determined for which he allows God to act and speak within. Is he really suggesting that a straw man argument is somehow unbiblical?
I think someone needs to warm up the milk and put it the bottle for Jimmy so he’s pacified. Clearly he can’t handle solid food yet.
Jimmy, clearly the scripture can contain false statements in an effort to make a greater point. Ecclesiasties is a great example of this.
Acre, where do you see him knocking down this strawmen argument? I’ve heard you say this before, but I don’t see it.
And I don’t want to take this too far of topic, as I wasn’t quoting to make a case for election; rather that under Piper’s systematic theology even Paul allowed that this was a difficult doctrine.
JeffS
Good comment on election. As you know there are several ways to look at the doctrine of election. Some believe it is Jesus who is the preordained and elected one. To some extent we all must believe in some form of election since God, before all time, ordained things to come to pass. The argument is over what we mean by election. The problem for Piper’s response is not solely his judgmental attitude but his assumption that there is only one veiw of election and it is his version that is correct and worthy enough to punish others who do not see it his way.
JeffS
He does tend to preach as if his perceptions are the norm. And his norm is a bit bizarre. Does anyone in his circle ever tell him that? Or are they too busy trying to get on the platform with him?
hester
I like you mom! I think we may have much in common.
FYI: according to SGM SURVIVORS and REFUGE, another church (Daytona Beach) has peeled away from SGM. My girls have lots of friends who are current or former members there and I know some of the ladies from conferences. Glad to have moved on from SGM two years ago… Hard to believe it’s been that long.
Argo
So, besides being smart, you are a nice guy.
*But refuse profane exercise, if ye be old wives. For bodily exercise profiteth much, profitable unto all things, having promise of purity and productivity, if ye be old husbands. This might be a faithful saying and worthy of some acceptation. For therefore we both pronounce and pontificate, because we trust in our knowledge of limited atonement, which is the Saviour of some men, specially of the reformed.*
I Timmy 4:7-10 (King John Version)
“Yes…and someone asked this already: but how much muscle is too much? Of course he cannot quantify it; he has no idea really”
ARgo, He needs to add the percentage of allowable female muscle mass to his Talmud of rules and rules for females.
Is T-ball too masculine for little girls? Are coed sports evil for tots?
“Anon 1,
I too am am grateful and bless Providence that our Nation was founded on the ideas of the Enlightenment and not the dogmas of Calvin & Luther.”
Muff, I was too thick to give that aspect of our Founding a second thought UNTIL the YRR/NC movement became so popular. Now I am overwhelmed with gratitude and plan to work hard to keep it as our Founders intended when it comes to religion/beliefs. And I warn the Muslims of the same thing. They are not far from what the YRR/NC teach concerning a determinist God.
Martin
Welcome to our blog. We appear to have a few English readers.
I think that there are three issues behind the constant emphasis on finding and destroying sin in our lives.
1. Jesus died on the Cross precisely because we cannot get to the bottom of our sin. In Jesus’ short ministry, He constantly exposed the depth of the law. For example-Not only are you sinning for adultery, but if you lust. That screws just about everybody. As one of my pastors says, and I do say this over and over, “Even on my best days, my nmotives are mixed.” Am I saying we should go on sinning? No, but we will. And no amount of contempation will rid us of that sin. Instead, we must rejoice in the grace of Jesus and “carry on” as we press onto the goal. Any Christian worth his salt will readily tell you that, the more they confess, the more they see. That should be the moment that we relax and rejoice in the the grace of Jesus who told us “It is finished.”
2. Authoritarian leaders love focusing on sin because they know that my first point is true. So, if you confront a leader about his shortcoming, he can come back at you and point out your sins and claim it is “your” sinful nature that is causing this critique and that you need to repent. The best response to such a guy is “You don’t know the half of my sin. Now, lets get back to the point of this discussion.”
3.I believe that there is a problem with the doctrine of election in that you can never be sure if you are one of the elect. So, even if you “think” you are a Christian, you could be fooling yourself. Therefore, I believe some of these folks go to extreme lengths to “prove” their election. That means they never question God about the hard things. So, if you question election, you mught not be elect so you never, ever question election. In fact, some of these guys have no problem, as one man commented on this blog, in believing that God sends prorfoundly mentally handicapped people to hell. I think he is “proving” that he is one of the elect to himself. And this is very sad.
That is why i emphasize grace and love on this blog. The Calvinistas have made a dirty word out of love, believing that it implies universalism. In fact, one man shared a church document with me that states that unconditional love really means you need to be disciplined.Nope, its wrong.
Look forward to your response.
“On another level, I think it is appropriate that we stop considering the sensibilities of these spiritual tyrants”
Thank you! They are the first to pull the “grace” card when you stand up to their bullying accusing you of sin for daring to confront them. Don’t buy it. They are tyrants who lack grace for those who do not agree with them and use their position to punish people. Let us consider grace for those who are being oppressed and misled by spiritual tyrants. We should be focused on the spiritual tyrant losing his bully pulpit.
Maybe if they had to get real jobs they could see how wrong they are. I suggest Piper has to go to work in a corporation for a Lesbian boss. Let us see him practice Christlikeness in that situation day in and day out as he has a mortgage and wife to support. :o)
Argo
I will never think of you in the same way! I looked up SD1 because i had no idea what it meant. But i am honets enough, in htis instance,to admit it.
We all see thin through the lens of emotions and what we want to be true. There is no shame in that. We want to find someone who is good, wo can tell us how to do it right. We all, at one time or another, have been sucked into weirdness. That is why it is imperative to look to Jesus and the Scriptures and the testimony through the ages.
We all want rules in order to “know” that we are truly following Jesus. Rules are so much easier that accepting grace because it can’t be that easy, can it? So, today’s churches have instituted discipline. It is not the discipline for outrageous sin that we see in Corinthians. now it is the discipline of not immediately loving whatever our leaders tell us we must love. Now it is for “not bringing our reader joy.” I wrestle with God all the time and I believe that He likes it when we do so. We care enough to engage Him and He cares enough to engage us.
“What do you think? Could it be that a Puritan-like world view would make many take such attitude? ”
Martin, you have hit on it. It is much more complicated because it involves the whole Calvin/Augustine paradigm that has been so ingrained in the Reformation mvoements. The Puritans were obsessed with their salvation. And that is because underlying their beliefs was the idea that Justification/Sanctification are the same thing. This is too lengthy to get into there but you can see where such thinking would lead to Piper seeing working out as the Gospel. Why there are Gospel marriages, Gospel kids, etc.
I have come to realize that because of Calvin doctrine, they cannot see the world as it was created with immutable laws from creation and that still operate even after the fall. If I drop rock, it will fall to the ground. That is an immutable law that God created the world with: gravity. For the Calvinist, God foreordained you would drop that rock on that day and time. There are tons of examples of these immutable laws put in place by God that the Calvinist views differently.
You can see the implications of such beliefs when you read their stuff.
Arce
Many people reject Paul because they do not see Him argung grace. I find it interesting that Paul ignores the miracles of Jesus, like the healing of the leper, and instead focuses on the Cross. It is the Cross that shows God’s grace and love. So many diminsh Paul by turning him into the “rules guy.” See, rules make it easy to rule, don’t they. Grace is actually more difficult to accept.
Not trying to interrupt, but there’s a post over on Justin Taylor’s new blog about Jared Wilson’s new book. It’s entitled, wait for it, “Gospel Deeps”. Now if you’re like me, that titleakes absolutely no sense at all. But, Justin made it clear that this is not a marketing gimmick and tried to smack down any criticism…
Just a gospel update for you. Sorry if my criticism is not becoming of a gospel poster. Maybe I should take this to twitter and drop some gospel tweets.
ScotT– Jared isn’t so off-topic when you consider that he likes to post abdominal ospel tweets about the fitness of women’s bellys! :0
Dee,
Thanks. Still, I feel like I could be nicer. Er…and smarter.
Arce, you speak of Paul setting up straw arguments in Romans and dismantling them.
Do you think it is possible that Paul mentioned a lot of contradictory views the Corinthians were arguing in 1 Cor 11:2-16 (women should have a veil vs. long hair is good enough, nature teach on men and long hair, women made for man vs. “woman from man and man from woman”) and then concluded: Women should have authority over their (own) heads.
ScotT- Did you see that Jared has made sense of the “Gospl Deeps” title for you? It somes from a Puritan’s writing, so it must be good!
Correction, Justin made the clarification in Jared’d defense.
It still doesn’t make sense, even with the explanation. Just use a plain, descriptive title. That’s what bothers me. When you keep trying to squeeze gospel, into cute titles you run the risk of trivializing the great realities of it all.
RE: Dee on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 10:07 AM,
MY BAD Dee !! I should have delved a little further before leaping. Luther was not in lockstep with Calvin on the subject of secular authority & government. Toward the end of his life, Madison wrote a letter to a New York clergyman praising Luther for his views on the divide which should exist between secular and ecclesiastical power. It stands in contrast with Jefferson’s sharp criticism of Luther.
However, my previous statement in which I expressed overall gratitude for the foundational ideas of America as being birthed by the ideas of the Enlightenment, still stands.
You know, the best thing I ever read on Paul’s comments in Roman’s about Election is that the Jews were Elect (previous to Christ), not because they had the law but because God chose them to be the witness. Even to this day, there are other people, who were not elect, who call themselves Abraham’s children (Arabs). Paul points out it wasn’t because they kept the law, but that God chose the second son’s as the ones to carry His name to the world (Isaac not Ishmael; Jacob not Esau, etc.). However, within Judaism individual could join – Bathsheba’s husband, Ruth, etc. -and others could fall away – Saul. So, you had to join Judaism to be elect previous to Christ, but that was up to the individual to join/stay. That was hard, and not too successful, so, because God loves *the whole world* he sent His Son, and now the elect are Christians.
So, today, we can join Jesus by calling Jesus King and following him, or not. And others can be born Christian, yet leave as adults and no longer be “elect”. When one is elected, they are elected to do something. No one is elected to do nothing. We are elected to be a part of Christ’s new Kingdom here on earth. In Christ’s Kingdom we are elected to love others, minister to others, and so on. So, the elect were Jews, and are now Christians. Individually we choose Jesus as King, or reject Him. So, corporately I believe in Election, individually, I believe in free will. For those who never heard of Jesus, this Election business doesn’t apply, as they can’t join a Kingdom they know nothing about, so those debates are beyond the scope of Paul’s comments.
In Romans, we get to see the massive divide the early church experienced between the Old/New covenant. The Jews were trying to make Gentiles more Jewish, were wondering how much of the Jewish customs to uphold, etc. He is not talking about individuals here, but corporate bodies.
So, I believe in election, just not Calvin election 😉
I don’t know that Piper’s yammering on about muscular women is any different than the rhetoric we hear from a lot of men (not just preachers, but patriarchs) about how guys don’t like brainy women, so girls should not aspire to be as intelligent or more intelligent than boys.
Of course, in a lot of the circles underneath Piper, this has led to the homeschooling craze where girls are taught their role is to be a wife and a mother, and given the education commensurate with that role. Then they’re locked away as young adults and kept as prized treasures until some young man abases himself to daddy enough to win the girl.
And just to give you a different view, I’m remembering how my mother, back 40 years ago, chewed out a “guidance counselor” at a Texas school (we’d just moved from California) for suggesting “homemaking” was only appropriate for women of color, because they were being taught to be maids and housekeepers for white folk.
In short, there’s nothing wrong with learning how to keep house, but it’s not the only thing.
Oh, I should add, I am not entirely “free will” because I feel the Holy Spirit is abandoned in these two views – election vs. free will. The closest I have come to that doctrinally – from my limited reading of all that is out there, is Wesleyan, I think, because they believe in a revelation from God but then individual choice. The older movie “The Matrix” is a very comical way of looking at it – in the movie, people are all in a coma and are feed “fake” thoughts making them think they are living a life. One day, a man gets kidnapped at work and taken somewhere and offered two pills – one that will return him to work with no memory of what happened, the other will set him free from his fake memories and coma induced capsule. He is free to chose, so he choses to be set free – Holy Spirit revelation about our bondage to sin/need for saviour and a choice to “come follow me” is my view on it. This may also line up with other doctrines, but I can’t say for certain.
Argo
Heads up on the movie. Apprently the protagonist tells Iran he is makng a sci fi movie and that is his cover to sneak out 6 Americans that are holed up in the Canadian ambadsador’s house after the embassy hostage situation. It is based on a true story. So, given you explanation of your name, I now know why they chose to say it was a sci fi movie. A local reviewer gave ot an A+ rating.
ScotT/DaveAA
So long as it has “gosepl” i nthe title, it is biblical. Also, has anyone ever researched how many books these guys actually sell. It is a book a day club over at TGC. I know a pastor who liked to write books. He would then get a bunch to sell at the church. One of my friends was moving tables one day. They opened a locked storage closet which was filled, top to bottom, with unsold books. Now, who paid for those books?
@ Martin:
“Puritan culture emphasized the need for self-examination and the strict accounting for one’s feelings as well as one’s deeds.”
Yes, very much so. Some Puritans used to keep extensive diaries detailing their daily emotional vagaries. From the diary of Michael Wigglesworth (author of the poem The Day of Doom I’ve mentioned on here before):
“4th day. 3 special times pride remarkably prevailing in me. Besides passionate distempers inwardly prevail. Vain thoughts carnal lusts some also…”
“I took a good deal of time this day to look thoroughly into the vilest of that sin of pride…yet so sensual and mind so full of vain thoughts, as I could not get my heart into a praying frame…”
“I found God in the forenoon mightily affecting my heart in public prayer in the assembly…yet in the fore part of the sermon I found my spirit so distracted with vain thoughts and so disquieted within me, because one of my pupils was ill and absent from the ordinances, that I could not attend to the Word…”
“I have been much troubled with the spleen these diverse days and all I can do will not get it removed. This hath exposed me to temptations of 3 sorts. 1. Too much frothyness and unsavory discourse, finding a necessity of some mirth; readiness to be too much addicted thereto, so that I find no power to attend or love serious and savory discourse. 2ly. To weariness of religious duties, and negligent performance of them at some times.”
This is my favorite, in which Wigglesworth bemoans the fact that he is too fond of his students and too concerned about their welfare:
“I am still afraid that my sorrow for sin should not be true because I find such vehement and unappeasable affections toward others longing, striving, raging for their good; and yet so little mourning and fighting against and restless striving for deliverance from my own prevailing iniquities… God let me see in the forenoon that two violent impetuous desiring of lawful things and unseasonable desiring them becomes a lust when the soul is even ready to die away if it have them not presently, both these I am guilty of in reference to my pupils’ good. The latter of them to my shame this day… O confounding vileness of an unthankful, impenitent heart!”
RE: Retha on Sat Oct 13,2012 at 12:55 PM,
“…Do you think it is possible that Paul mentioned a lot of contradictory views the Corinthians were arguing in 1 Cor 11:2-16 (women should have a veil vs. long hair is good enough, nature teach on men and long hair, women made for man vs. “woman from man and man from woman”) and then concluded: Women should have authority over their (own) heads…”
Katharine Bushnell dwells at length on this very thing in her seminal work “God’s Word to Women”.
Muff
Don’t worry. i had not heard that quote until i wrote a blog post about a year ago on evangelicals decrying a Mormon running for the Presidency. Back then, i was so hopping mad about their egotism that I said I would vote for Romney in the primaries just to thumb my nose at them. (Note: This is NOT a politcal endorsement. I was just mad at some Christians. ) So, I did some searching and found that quote. Had Roment not run for office and Christians acted so snotty, I might not have come across that quote!!
Val
I am appreciative of your comment on election. You clearly spelled out another view on election. These days. with the Calvinistas running the show, there is only one definition in their playbook. Of course, you, along with me, will be declared borderline heretics, but we are in good company.
Southweatern Discomfort
Thank you for your description of the Texas school that told you that only “women of color” should study homemaking. We do see thing through the lens of our culture and declare it “biblical” don’t we?
Dee,
A lot of times the publisher will send the author a number of free copies. My former boss, a NT professor, would have boxes full of his books in storage (he gave them away for free).
Did you notice that Justin Taylor ran an advertisement (they’re not blog posts, let’s be clear about that) for a book on the Puritans just two days ago? I don’t think that’s coincidence. Just like it’s not coincidence that he clarified the Puritan origins of Jared’s book title. They’ll make certain to push their in-house books about the Puritans hard right now. Mark my words, there will be a conference on the Puritans soon. They need to clean their image up a bit and it will make some money.
Dee, Muff is the only real heretic here at TWW. You and Val could be made to recant; shall we say under the right amount of “persuasion”?
For old Muff I’m sure they (calvinistas) would make ready the pyre immediately.
Muff, Luther did not exhibit that thinking during the Peasants War. He sided with the Princes and wrote some horrible things about the peasants not knowing their place. Luther is very contradictory in several aspects. One reason it is hard to put him in a box.
I would *so* like to see Piper’s reaction to martial arts movies starring women like Michelle Yeoh – smaller than him, can kick his *ss 50 ways to Sunday, *and* very feminine! 😉
Hester: I doubt Piper has thought much about Luther at all, or as anything more than a parenthesis prior to the Arrival of Le Calvin. (fwiw, you can see that line of thinking in Franky Schaeffer’s movies… Francis skips right past Luther to Calvin’s Geneva.)
Martin: I agree that there are enormous cultural differences here that are not being taken into account. And the excerpt from Michael Wigglesworth’s diary (posted by Hester) helps put that into context. It might not be surprising, then, to read about Luther’s life and find that he had a serious problem with what a lot of psych people term “over-scrupulosity,” just like M. Wigglesworth.
I think that certain emphases in religion can truly help drive people around the bend – I was very over-scrupulous as a young person and have had to work hard to get past that. (In my case, medications have helped with neurochemical short-circuiting, but there’s also a need to work on “unlearning” behavior and patterns of thought.)
Val, your comment at 1;22 is excellent. I think the book of Romans is badly misused by people. We cannot ignore the historical context, either, as Jews (both Christian and not) had been streaming back into Rome after being ousted earlier. This had to cause havoc with the churches in Rome and Paul is writing a grand narrative in Romans for them. There is way Too much proof texting of Romans and not enough looking at the whole in context both historical and spiritual.
I totally agree with your take on election AND Free will. I would characterize it as we have ability (the Calvinists say we don’t) and we are guided by the Holy Spirit if we are believers. We are part of the “elect” into the family of God and His Kingdom on earth.
“Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive. It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club. But no woman should be encouraged by this fact. For it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.”
It’s just so awkward when the Calvinistas say things like this. Not only because the content itself is ridiculous, but also because anyone with a modicum of insight can’t help but read into some of this crazy stuff and begin to see what are most likely some very serious, and very sad, personal issues.
Weird Item #1: being muscular = being aggressive
Response #1: Many strong individuals are quite gentle and peaceful.
Question #1: What personal issues/experiences led Piper to associate “muscular” with “aggressive?”
Weird Item #2: muscular women working out = sexually stimulating for Piper
Response #2: Too much info. Also, Piper has just said that muscular women are aggressive. Now he says they are sexually stimulating.
Question #3: How might being attracted to strong, aggressive women related to Piper’s complementarianism?
Weird Item #3: hanky panky with aggressive, muscular women = quick and volatile.
Response #3: Again, awkwardly, this speaks more to Piper’s personal issues than anything else.
Question #3: What presuppositions does one need to hold in order to assume that sexual activity with strong, muscular women would be “volatile” and “hasty?” Also, what on earth does he mean by “volatile?”
Some of these Calvinistas (I’m thinking of Driscoll here, as well as Piper) need to get therapy. They seem to have alarmingly low insight (I use that word in the psychological sense – awareness of self and one’s own issues). It’s so awkward when Christian leaders unknowingly spill their personal issues out in public. It also seems like these personal issues have serious implications for their theology and methodology in ministry.
numo,
I would pay money to see a Bene Gesserit sister (from the pen of Frank Herbert) use voice and command Piper to go about on all fours, lift his leg, and piss on a fire hydrant.
RE: Retha on Sat Oct 13,2012 at 12:55 PM,
“…Do you think it is possible that Paul mentioned a lot of contradictory views the Corinthians were arguing in 1 Cor 11:2-16 (women should have a veil vs. long hair is good enough, nature teach on men and long hair, women made for man vs. “woman from man and man from woman”) and then concluded: Women should have authority over their (own) heads…”
Katharine Bushnell dwells at length on this very thing in her seminal work “God’s Word to Women”.
”
Thanks for mentioning that, Muff. She does a yeoman’s work on the translations and the Greek. I cannot recommend her book enough to people who are confused about comp teaching and scripture. 1 Corinthians has been horribly translated in several areas. Notice how the comps always ignore “because of the angels” in chap 11. That is so significant as it cannot be ignored for understanding. Also translators ADDED to the text the words “symbol of” for authority because they could not stomach that Paul was saying a woman has authority over her own “head”. (As in literal head)
Hester, Thanks for the Wigglesworth quotes. Can you imagine growing up in that environment? No wonder the oppression of others was so great. It is as if they could never fully grasp “Justification” and live out their sanctification with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Numo,
Interesting point about Luther’s OCD and his hyper-responsibility/hyper-morality. Could have implications for many key Calvinistas.
Like I said, these guys need to get into therapy! The sad thing is that most of them reject the kind of therapy that would help them. Instead, they go for the nouthetic stuff, which only feeds the cycle.
“It’s so awkward when Christian leaders unknowingly spill their personal issues out in public. It also seems like these personal issues have serious implications for their theology and methodology in ministry.”
Mr. H, your entire comment was excellent and instructive. It took me a while to see their comments/writings were actually “personal issues” instead of biblical teaching. Is this a blind spot? I think so now. It never occured to me years back that public teachers of the Word were really trying to map their personal views on such issues to the bible. How naive! Now I see this is more about personal issues they are trying to teach as biblical precepts for everyone. It is very scary to me.
“Like I said, these guys need to get into therapy! The sad thing is that most of them reject the kind of therapy that would help them. Instead, they go for the nouthetic stuff, which only feeds the cycle.”
Oh dear! I don’t want to get off topic but I really want to learn more about Nouthetic counseling and how it relates to this topic and feeds the cycle. I have always been at a loss as to how Nouthetic counseling could help, say, a rape victim?
Dee, I noticed the article you posted about TWW & EChurch.
First off, I think EChurch is great. I’m planning to use it to create a gathering in my home. Fact of the matter is, with church buildings dotting the American landscape, its difficult to find a healthy group to fellowship with. EChurch is a way to help family, friends & neighbors gather together when at home or, as often the case with so many these days, on the move.
Secondly, Baptist pastor Jim Somerville was mentioned in the article. Two of his brothers are big homeschooling SGMers, with one of them being a long time CLC pastor. With so many ties to the Southern Baptists, its hard for me to imagine CLC becoming significantly distinct from them especially with a guy on board like Greg Somerville. And I think in order for CLC to make a clean break, they’re going to have to, and I don’t see that happening especially since they are holding fast to the whole males-only complementarian-relationship-defined version of the gospel – know what I’m saying? So what would e the point, ultimately, of becoming distinct from SGM if there isn’t any real distinction to be made theologically? Others will disagree, but if the complementarianism of SGM (which is the glue to the SBC) isn’t rooted out theologically from a CLC split from SGM, then there won’t be any real fundamental change within CLC as I see it. They’ll be preaching the same basic bad gospel.
@Muff Potter, you may be the only heretic, but I claim the position of resident agnostic!
Also, I got more than a few giggles out of the idea of a Bene Gesserit making Piper do tricks. I have a wicked mind.
Muff – I think we could hire Master Bow Sim Mark to take care of him –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJWnUu3Jnnk
(She’s under 5′ tall – and one of her sons is none other than martial arts film star Donnie Yen.)
Speaking of Mormons running for president, Romney apparently got the coveted Billy Graham endorsement yesterday. A couple of sharp-eyed people noticed the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association had a statement about Mormonism being a cult on it. That statement got scrubbed. Here’s a link to how it went down (note, it’s partisan to Democrats):
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breaking-billy-graham-endorses-romney-then-scrubs-site-calling-mormonism-a-cult/politics/2012/10/12/51106
I’d also note something interesting–unlike the two previous presidential elections, I have seen hardly any bumper stickers for either candidate. And I live in the Jell-O belt aka Mormon country.
ScotT
I think I heard something about a Puritan conferrence somewhere. I will see if I can find the reference. You. sir, are a prophet.
Muff
Never, ever forget John Hus, going out singing a hymn as they burned him. Did you know that the saying “He cooked his goose” comes from that incident? Hus means goose. Now, I would expect that you would request a piano to play Mozart’s Requiem on your way out. However, Dee would be running around trying to put out the flames. Besides, I fully intend to see you in heaven, pyre or not.
Mr H
You said “Some of these Calvinistas (I’m thinking of Driscoll here, as well as Piper) need to get therapy.” Understated comment of the day.
Mr. H – I don’t think anyone knows exactly what was physically/mentally wrong with Luther – epilepsy has been speculated, so have many other illnesses.
That he was very fearful as a young person, plus overly scrupulous are things he attests in his own writing.
Other than that, it’s not possible do accurately diagnose – the man’s not exactly here in the flesh and available for a battery of medical tests!
Also… I think there is a difference between being “overly scrupulous” and OCD, though the line is likely very fine. (I don’t have OCD.)
Now I see this is more about personal issues they are trying to teach as biblical precepts for everyone.
They are obviously projecting, but they are so self-deceived that they can’t see it and certainly don’t think the sheep can.
Evie
“First off, I think EChurch is great. I’m planning to use it to create a gathering in my home. Fact of the matter is, with church buildings dotting the American landscape, its difficult to find a healthy group to fellowship with. EChurch is a way to help family, friends & neighbors gather together when at home or, as often the case with so many these days, on the move.”
That is wonderful! I will let Wade know.
As for SGM, I have little hope for any significant change. CJ is a chameleon with a stinger.
Anon1, when even a Calvinist like Steve Hays says that nouthetic counseling is probably not as helpful as just reading The Bruised Reed or getting some conventional therapy (and Hays is anything but liberal on any given point ever) that’s something. Hays once wrote over at Triablogue that the problem with “nouthetic counseling” is that it would only be as good as the exegesis of biblical texts nouthetic counselors have done and that, as far as that goes, Hays was not convinced that many nouthetic counselors demonstrated the exegetical competence to do some of the “biblical counseling” they were doing. He also had reservations about the skepticism of conventional psychological treatment because the nouthetic approach seemed to deny the possibility that general revelation or common grace could lead unbelievers to observe actually true things about the human condition. It’s a Triablogue post and it’s Hays so it’s long (though not astonishingly long for Hays). 🙂
Anon1 asked about Nouthetic counseling in cases of abuse (rape). Pastor Jeff Crippen is doing a great job providing a blog forum for domestic violence and divorce in the church. Here is an article he wrote on the topic:
http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/is-nouthetic-counseling-appropriate-for-victims-of-abuse-and-ptsd-by-jeff-crippen/
“Did you notice that Justin Taylor ran an advertisement (they’re not blog posts, let’s be clear about that) for a book on the Puritans just two days ago? I don’t think that’s coincidence. Just like it’s not coincidence that he clarified the Puritan origins of Jared’s book title. They’ll make certain to push their in-house books about the Puritans hard right now. Mark my words, there will be a conference on the Puritans soon. They need to clean their image up a bit and it will make some money.”
Oh, I think you are dead on here, Scott. They have touted the Puritans as examples for us today for so long, they do not think they have a choice for credibility purposes. They also know that young minds full of mush who follow man will believe whatever they teach them.
Besides the fact that the Puritan leaders were tyrants who oppressed those who dared to disagree or get in the way, we can also see they never quite felt assured of their salvation. This is exactly where Calvinistas want people today. It is much easier to control people when they must come to you to understand the Word instead of relying on the Holy Spirit to guide us. If people do that, their positions over people and the money will dry up for these guys.
WTH, thanks for the heads up about Hays' blog post. I used to read over there quite a bit a few years back. I always found them interesting.
Julie Anne, Pastor Jeff Crippen is an oasis in the Reformed movement. I praise God for him!!!
Anon1, Hays did a review of John Piper’s God is the Gospel where he took time to show a few problem points in Piper’s theology and the implications it could have. Michael Spenser considered it unusual enough from a Calvinist blogger that over at BHT he advised people to bookmark it and go read it as the one in a million case of a Calvinist blogger having bad things to say (at all) about John Piper’s theology.
Retha on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 12:55 PM
In that case, Paul was responding to the information he had received from them. I think he was pointing out the ridiculous implications of some of their petty rules, such as head covering, but there was an issue in the local area about hair, because the only short-haired women in the area were prostitutes, and he was concerned about bringing disrepute on the faith. But with head covering, why would that be important and circumcision not; one is so insignificant compared to the other, yet Paul clearly says no to circumcision as a requirement or rule.
WTH,
wow. Sounds like Hays is not of the YRR/NC movement. As to Piper, I fear what it does to a mans soul to have so many people who hang on their evey word as if it is from God.
Jimmy on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM said:
Paul and the straw man?
“ARCE, are you suggesting Paul’s attorney-like arguments are NOT inspired scripture?
Or if they are inspired, then you have GOD setting up straw man arguments?
Which is it ARCE; Paul’s speaking for himself or God is setting up straw-man arguments?”
I think God inspired Paul to write the strongest treatise on the faith to the Romans, and, as an attorney, Paul (as inspired), set up straw man arguments to show their weakness before showing the true concept. The argument is about the law versus faith, and much of the book of Romans suggests law unless you follow the entire argument and see the structure of the letter. The middle path, one of accepting a grace gift from God, by professing faith, is clearly where the last chapters of Romans concludes the argument.
Did anyone else see the TV news piece about the Florida HS student who was elected Homecoming queen and plays quarterback on the football team, and her teammates support her in both roles.
Anon 1
I like this article by Robin Phillips, though I don’t know anything about him other than this, and a good article he wrote on Bill Gothard.
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2011/10/problems-with-jay-adams-and-nouthetic.html
Definitely recommend Julie Anne’s link from Crippen, too.
Also, I got the John Barry book on Roger Williams today. 😀
Anon1, yeah … Steve was never on the fast track to being YRR or NC.
Here’s another link at Crippen’s blog. I actually sent this link to Dee recently, but I forgot it specifically mentioned nouthetic, so I’ll post it here too. It’s a bit OT, but interestingly is about Doug Wilson’s father Jim and his bit of nouthetic counseling toward this abuse victim, complete with stalking behavior on his end. Yes, Jim Wilson pursued this woman to continue basically harassing by sending her unsolicited information even after she moved and changed addresses several times. So he had to actually take pains to get her new address each time. Disturbing, to say the least.
http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/abuse-and-the-wilsonian-theology-a-survivors-story/
“Robin Phillips works as a contributing author for a variety of publications, including Salvo Magazine, Touchstone, and the Chuck Colson Center, in addition to doing political journalism for a lobby group in the UK. He enjoys speaking at academic conferences throughout the world and is currently working on a doctorate in historical theology through King’s College, London. Robin and his wife, Esther, live in Northern Idaho and have five children. He blogs at robinphillips.blogspot.com”
anonymous, his book, Saints and Scoundrals sounds interesting. His work with Touchstone bothers me a bit. Their blog has been an oasis for Reformed patriarchal dominionists in the past. One of the big contributrrs is Russ Moore. But I am getting ready to read the article you linked to. I in no way want to paint “Touchstone” in an all encompassing negative light. I just saw some heavy handed Doug Wilson type behavior on the blog from the moderators a few years back.
Hope you enjoy the Roger Williams book as much as I did. The way he interweaves the historical context of the times really makes it easier to understand the issues in a much broader way.
Anonymous, I hope everyone here goes over and reads the link you provided about Doug Wilson’s dad and how he treated this woman (scripture twisting!!~!!) who was abused. I also hope they will realize that Doug Wilson is NO different and probably worse as I ascertained reading his blogandmablog for years. Now, Piper and many YRR have been promoting Doug Wilson. What does this tell us?
Anon 1,
Hmm. That’s interesting about Phillips. He is really down on nouthetic and I think his take on the thing is good. I wonder what he thinks of Wilson, et al in general?
Let us know what you think of the article.
Anonymous+Anon1
I am not a proponent of nouthetic counseling. It does not have the support of Christians who have received psychiatric training in major research universities.
ARCE, so you have God giving us the straw man arguments correct?
Jimmy
God also speaks in metaphors.
Not all the Puritans, or at least Puritan ministers, were bad. The Christian psychiatrist John White recommended “A Lifting Up for the Downcast” by Matthew Bridges, a Puritan minister. I read it myself and it is very helpful. It is also not what I think posters here would call nouthetic 😉
Re Franky Schaeffer’s movies, of course Frank Schaeffer (as he is now known) took a couple of completely different turns in his life following his father’s death. As he is now fairly relaxed Orthodox, I’m not so sure he would be keen to race to Geneva. Francis Schaeffer himself seemed to mention Luther a fair bit.
Martin raised an interesting point about Puritanism. I think even in Protestant circles, for example, in the Mediterranean they are more likely to drink wine, which might be disapproved of in northern climes. I understand that among Protestants in some parts of the USA dancing and makeup are more acceptable than in others. Some things are sin, some things are cultural makeup (excuse the pun).
BTW I noticed a bit of name-calling earlier re people posting here – not mentioning any names, but I think it was uncalled for. Just my feeling.
But Hester, I do agree that Wrigglesworth’s diary sounds to me too like rather too much introspection.
ARCE, Jimmy’s root premise that he is demanding you concede is that the Bible is God. This is obviously impossible, but Calvinists have no problem living their lives in nonsensical contradiction. Do not concede his premise. Paul was merely making a point that the Jews had no right to demand that God forsake the gentiles just because they didn’t have to have the “law” or Abraham. A fact that is as clear in the old testament as it is in the new. Paul was pointing out the Jewish hyporcrisy and insolence in arguing that God is obligated to THEM, and that He must ceasing being the God of all men.
Jimmy, first, I demand you accept my premises: the Bible is not God, it is not inerrant or infallible, that context and culture of the time matters, that YOUR exegesis is flawed, that your understanding of election and predestination is incoherent and contradictory, and that Paul, a man, wrote the book of Romans, and as such, it is illogical and, likely, dangerous, to assume that the book is equivalent to the Holy Spirit’s exact WORDS.
You can accept my premises for a change. Until you are willing to do that, then no one is obligated to explain anything to you.
“Not all the Puritans, or at least Puritan ministers, were bad. The Christian psychiatrist John White recommended “A Lifting Up for the Downcast” by Matthew Bridges, a Puritan minister. I read it myself and it is very helpful. It is also not what I think posters here would call nouthetic”
There is where we have to look at specifics. Roger Williams was for all descriptive purposes, A Puritan and a minister. yet, they persecuted him. So, you do have to be specific. And what is often confusing is to read of their charity but it was almost always toward those who agreed to their system. They had no charity for Quakers, for instance, simply because of their beliefs they were not welcome in the MBC.
“BTW I noticed a bit of name-calling earlier re people posting here – not mentioning any names, but I think it was uncalled for. Just my feeling.
”
It is ok to be specific. Nothing worse than a vague blanket rebuke. What some might think is name calling, others won’t.
Argo, a person could accept that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and point out that jimmy is presenting his own straw man that reflects a basic methodological failure to understand the difference between rhetorical flourish and foundational argumentation. That the rhetorical device of the straw man exists in Pauline argument is beyond even the possibility of contention. If jimmy conflates the use of the straw man as a rhetorical device and the use of straw man arguments as foundational to a doctrinal point so much the worse for jimmy. Didn’t show the best reading comprehension there, jimmy.
WTH, I totally agree with the content of your comment above. But I cannot help but asking which translations are inerrant and infallible. Or are they all inerrant and infallible? (wink)
In the first chapter of Recovering Biblical Manhood And Womanhood, Piper relates how his dad was gone “2/3rds of the year” and describes in detail all the things his mother had to do in his father’s absence. It must have been hard having his dad gone so much. I wonder what his dad did for a living? That would affect a child–growing up with that father-absence.
And I thought this was incredible. Starting on pg 29 of RBMW Piper writes:
“The word “sense” also implies that a man may not be physically able to provide for or protect his family and yet be mature in his masculinity. He may be paralyzed. He may have a disabling disease. His wife may be the main breadwinner in such a circumstance.
And she may be the one who must get up at night to investigate a frightening noise in the house. This is not easy for the man. But if he still has a sense of his own benevolent responsibility under God he will not lose his masculinity.
His sense of responsibility will find expression in the ways he conquers self-pity, and gives moral and spiritual leadership for his family, and takes the initiative to provide them with the bread of life, and protect them from the greatest enemies of all, Satan and sin.
Someone might ask: So is a woman masculine if she is a single parent and provides these same things for her children? Are these only for men to do? I would answer: A woman is not unduly masculine in performing these things for her children if she has the sense that this would be properly done by her husband if she had one, and if she performs them with a uniquely feminine demeanor.”
How does one do this- getting up in the middle of the night to investigate a scary noise with a “feminine demeanor”? This is quite insane.
I lean toward the view that so long as I don’t know the original languages having five to seven different translations (none of them being The Amplified Bible) is a good starting point. 🙂
WTH,
I do not accept the infallibilty of the Bible…I believe that argument itself is irrelevant at best (the Bible does not demand we accept it is infallible) and at worst, an excuse to use the Bible as a bludgeon to compel people into accepting an interpretation.
That being said: Touche’ (sp?) great comment. Thank you. I always appreciate what I learn from your posts.
@ Diane:
“How does one do this – getting up in the middle of the night to investigate a scary noise with a ‘feminine demeanor’?”
I’m going to assume that having a loaded Glock in hand while you did so wouldn’t qualify? ; )
Nouthetic counseling is just another way to control people under the guise of ‘Christianity’. The Bible tells us nothing, for example, about mental illness (unless you believe it’s demon possession), and people are free to concoct all manner of approaches, such as suicide condemns one to hell. Had a woman relate a story about her father committing suicide and the minister asking her how she felt about the fact that her father was denied everlasting life. It’s junk counseling and as bad as that offered by Scientology.
Not even the originators of the use of the term “inerrant”, and who wrote the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, held that any scripture was inerrant EXCEPT the “ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS”, which refers to the first handwritten manuscript of each of the books of the Bible. Now we have none of those, even for the NT. And in the OT, all of those were lost and recreated by scribes from oral tradition and memory during the Babylonian exile, except for the few books that are from the post-exilic period (e.g., Ezra, Nehemiah).
So, none of our current translations is inerrant!!!! However, some translations are better than others, because they have used the oldest available manuscripts, in contrast to others, like the KJV, that was translated from the Latin and from other late copies.
@ Muff, Anon 1 & Numo:
You are right that Luther does often seem to contradict himself – for instance, all his broadly worded, misogynistic-sounding statements (the one about women staying home and sitting on their wide hips is my personal favorite) are, to my knowledge, completely contradicted by his actual relationship with his wife once he got married. She was quite independent and, apparently, had a tendency to argue theology with him. Not sure if this is a situation like Lewis where all the goofy statements precede marriage, or if Luther only talked a big game on this issue, or if he was just content to live with the cognitive dissonance.
And per Luther being OCD/over-scrupulous – that wouldn’t surprise me at all. I think it played into his big emphasis on comfort and consolation, since he himself struggled with sin/assurance of salvation issues. It’s refreshing on some level to find a theologian who will deal with that topic – it’s pretty taboo in most places to admit that you’re unsure if you’re saved or not, which is pretty stupid given that current popular Neo-Calvinist theology is practically designed to make you doubt your salvation. Feeding people theology that makes them wonder if they’re saved and then refusing to address that issue is a recipe for disaster.
@ Arce:
“So, none of our current translations is inerrant!!!!”
Don’t tell that to Gail Riplinger. ; )
“In the first chapter of Recovering Biblical Manhood And Womanhood, Piper relates how his dad was gone “2/3rds of the year” and describes in detail all the things his mother had to do in his father’s absence. It must have been hard having his dad gone so much. I wonder what his dad did for a living? That would affect a child–growing up with that father-absence.”
I thought I read somewhere he was an evangelist? He also has described that the MINUTE his dad got home, his mom immediately fell into her proper role and dad was “head”. He even used the example of his dad deciding the table in a restaurant when home but was his mom when dad was not there. In other words, the minute the penis entered the room, the penis was in charge. This is to me phallic symbol roles Christianity.
Diane,
I would answer: A woman is not unduly masculine in performing these things for her children if she has the sense that this would be properly done by her husband if she had one, and if she performs them with a uniquely feminine demeanor.
Didn’t he completely undermine his whole premise with this? I mean, the only thing that saves his bacon at all is his qualification, “if she performs them with a uniquely feminine demeanor.” Doesn’t this obliterate his whole argument, though? What could she not do that any man could do provided she does it with a “uniquely feminine demeanor”? I mean, is that what he’s really after here? That women comport themselves with a “uniquely feminine demeanor” no matter what they’re doing?
Because the thing is, when he says “if she has the sense these would be properly done by her husband if she had one” you are naturally going to ask, what if she has one but he isn’t doing these things, whether because he won’t or because he can’t? Or what if she has one but he isn’t doing these things properly?
What I think he’s encountering here is the realization that this whole system is unworkable in the real world. Reality simply won’t stand for it. If God really insisted things be done this way He would provide for them to be done this way in every instance. There would be no need to qualify everything to death.
Another Luther contradiction. I read where Luther said he (paraphrase) “dreamed of a church of true believers next to the state church.
It is like he knew there was a contradiction in having a mandatory state church with mandatory sacraments instead of a free church of believers who were there because they wanted to be.
Hester, you ever read what he wrote about Jews? Early on, the Nazi party used his writings to bring the Lutheran church on board. William Shirer devotes some time to this subject in his book, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Riech”. He was living in Berlin as an American Journalist and covering the early events in Germany.
Like Kolya, I think context is important for evaluating the Puritans. Not *everyone* in the Mass. Bay colony persecuted Roger Williams (or others); I am pretty sure that some of the leaders were decent folks.
and yet… Kolya, Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote what he wrote about Mass. Puritans for good reasons, not the least of them being that he was a direct descendant of one of the “judges” at the Salem with trials.
Puritanism in the UK took different turns than it did in New England, and I think that can be borne out by checking into the history of the Mass. Bay Colony, Rhode Island, et. al. Regardless of Anglicanism being the state church in England, It did (imo) have some good influences … and perhaps it helped to keep some of the wilder, more dictatorial Puritans in check. I doubt that many who lived through Oliver Cromwell’s de facto “kingship” would have wanted to see that time come again.
WTH, I lean toward the view that the Holy Spirit is the Best Teacher and infallible in illuminating the truth to me from the Bible or at least urging me to check it out deeper. Perhaps look up the Greek, etc.
I will give you an example. Back when I was immersed in the comp world (always had problems with it) I kept seeing contradictions in the Bible concerning what so many pastors were teaching it said it said. . I came across Luke 8 one day and for some reason (Holy Spirit) I read it totally different than the other 100x I had read it. I thought, ‘what on earth’? How could Joanna have been in her “proper role” when she ditched Chuza back at the palace and was galavanting all over Israel with Jesus and supporting him financially. We do not even know if she had kids! It does not say that Chuza gave her permission to travel with Jesus. It simply describes what was. We tend to ignore those types of passages. The Holy Spirit hit me over the head with it one day. And that is ONE example out of many. I started praying for my man made filters to be taken away.
Anon 1, I would be very hesitant to construe the remark by Luther as having anything at all to do with separation of church and state.
I don’t know that anyone in his time would have believed that possible – and if they did, they knew that they needed to keep quiet about it, lest they lose their lives.
Kolya – again, re. Schaeffer (Francis), he came from fundamentalist Presbyterianism and was a fundamentalist himself for many years. (Something Frank explains clearly in his book Crazy for God.)
Since Swiss L’Abri isn’t very far at all from Geneva, the connections are obvious – ask anyone who’s ever been to either. (Like me. ;))
“Like Kolya, I think context is important for evaluating the Puritans. Not *everyone* in the Mass. Bay colony persecuted Roger Williams (or others); I am pretty sure that some of the leaders were decent folks.”
What we see is that very few went against the leaders. Even leaders who had a problem with certain things would not usually go against the ruling committees. They had a “system” in place and Williams went against the “system”. In fact, Williams was in a small village when he was doing things different. When they found out, they would not allow it even though the people there, for the most part, had no problem with it.
We know Winthrop really liked him even though he was instrumental in bannishing him. In fact, Winthrops son was a dear friend of Williams but the son did not stay in America.
Some historians have speculated that Winthrop secretly sent someone to warn Williams the MBC had decided to have him siezed and sent to England to stand trail which would ahve meant haning and quartering under King James. (later he went back safe under Cromwell). This makes sense because the only ones who knew of the planned siezure wwere the small ruling committee. And they sent out a party to sieze him right away. They were concerned about punishing Williams publicly in the MBC because he was very popular with people who were not leaders.
In later years, Williams often wrote to Winthrop and considered him a wise man even though Winthrop even tried to have his Providence charter taken away.
These things are always messy. history is also about nuance and never cut and dried. It is not black/white. But we never say Hitler was good because he made the trains run on time or was so sweet to children. We recognize the evil that negates most of the good. The Puritans were horrible concerning Indians (forced conversions or we wipe you out and take your land), women they claimed were witches and believed slavery was ordained by God.
On the other hand, we know for a fact there were Puritans who believed in grace and tolerance in love. One of them was Roger Williams. I am sure there were others but they did not last long in MBC fi they were vocal about it.
“I don’t know that anyone in his time would have believed that possible – and if they did, they knew that they needed to keep quiet about it, lest they lose their lives.”
Different Ana Baptist groups believed it possible (they were not monolithic), some were vocal and paid with their lives.
A great read is The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin, which gives some insight into the different groups.
It was researched on a grant by the Calvin Foundation, ironically.
Another source is Martyrs Mirror.
We do a great disservice when we use the Nuremburg defense for evils in history. There were people who spoke up and paid a high price. We owe them some honor at least to acknowledge they existed and paid a price. Some are nameless in Martyrs Mirror. It might read blacksmith and wife drowned for baptizing their infant on such day in this place. Since they were not the victors and did not write the official history, one has to do some work to learn about them. I recently heard that they are STILL discovering some ana baptist writings in East Europe in attics, walls of old houses, etc. They had to hide their writings because most were burned by the Reformers or Catholics.
“lean toward the view that so long as I don’t know the original languages having five to seven different translations (none of them being The Amplified Bible) is a good starting point.”
I tend to use an online interlinear for study. I have about 6 translations on my kindle. I sort of like the heretical TNIV a lot. But I read them all on kindle now. Better than lugging them all around like I used to when I traveled. But I have so many notes in them, I keep them close by.
But the anabaptists were already in an extremely difficult position for theological reasons – adult rather than infant baptism.
they were by no means the only “contrary” religious groups of their day, either.
@ Anon 1,
“…Luther is very contradictory in several aspects. One reason it is hard to put him in a box…”
I too am a man of contradictions. I can lambast higher critics over their contrived rationalism in trying to explain away the supernatural events* done by the Almighty in the Old Testament [which I believe in with an unabashed literalism] in one breath, and yet in another, view the Pauline epistles with a liberal dose of skepticism.
The point is that we believe what we want to believe [or have been told to believe by others] based on personal resonance which will vary from human to human, and that not all liberals, heretics, and deists believe the same things.
*eg. Global Noadic flood [which some Christian academics maintain the data will not support at best and simply not possible at worst], Sea of reeds vs. Gulf of Aqaba crossing by the Children of Israel, & the day the Earth stood still in the book of Joshua.
I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before, but since we’re on the topic of Piper, Pastor Jeff Crippen also has another excellent blog post: An Open Letter to John Piper regarding his views of divorce. It, too, is excellent. http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/a-open-letter-to-john-piper-about-his-view-on-divorce/
JA is going to rant here: when you have a pastor who idolizes the covenant of marriage so much that he closes his eyes to abuse in the home – abuse of the wife/children, this also equates to SPIRITUAL ABUSE. So this wife (and perhaps children) get a double whammy of abuse = abuse in the home AND abuse from the pastor. Sorry, the blood is rising – – these are the personal stories I get in my e-mail box – – people leaving the church altogether because their shepherd/pastor who was supposed to be caring for their soul abandoned them in his legalistic ways of looking at marriage/divorce.
I was reading this history of Piper’s father. He was an IFB traveling evangelist (thanks Anon 1) and involved with BJU. I felt a bit sad for Piper after reading it. I think it must have been very hard growing up without his dad present much of the time.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/evangelist-bill-piper-fundamentalist-full-of-grace-and-joy
My A priori; Scripture is indeed the very Word of God correct in all it says, “spirit breathed” to the human authors, inerrant in the autographs. ( I would seriously challenge you if you do NOT think that we have have is extraordinarily close to the autographs. It simply is. As you can easily note; almost all translations, for instance, will note the probably addition in the Book of Mark about the snakes.
As far as I know; NOBODY denies Paul’s writings. They may not like them, but they don’t deny Paul wrote them.)
I realize the majority of commentors here at Wartburg do NOT accept Scripture as the very Word of God.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
“But the anabaptists were already in an extremely difficult position for theological reasons – adult rather than infant baptism.
they were by no means the only “contrary” religious groups of their day, either.
”
I have no idea what this means in response to your earlier postion
:
“I don’t know that anyone in his time would have believed that possible –(re: believers church) and if they did, they knew that they needed to keep quiet about it, lest they lose their lives.”
You may not know about them because you have not researched such groups or individuals. I admit it is bothersome to do so!
The “ana baptists”, again, were not monolithic and their only issue was not adult baptism. For some, it was also a believers church not a government church. For others, it was the entire sacral system imposed by the gov church. many spoke out on these issues and lost their lives. I was simply pointing out there were such people. They did not call themselves “ana baptists”, they were given that name IF they also believed in believers baptism. It becamse a nasty name for any Christians at the time who opposed to the state church. I am struggling to understand why being in a “difficult position” at the time has much to do with the fact they spoke out and were persecuted by both the Reformers in German cantons and Switzerland (cantons).
My own childhood faith tradition was founded on slavery. I think it is ridiculous that Boyce College was named after someone who not only supported slavery but championed for it and supported the Civil War even becoming a chaplain. We should be ashamed. Boyce actually said that slavery was good because it made it possible to “disciple” the slaves.
I fear the apology that took place in the 90’s was politically motivated. And the latest surge to return to Calvinism. of which most of our Founders were, really bothers me. I refuse to defend our history and say everyone in the South thought it was ok so it was not so bad. They had the same bible we have now. I will say that after the SBC Founders believing God was on their side in the Civl War, it did not take too long after being decimated for the SBC to move away from the determinist God of Calvinism. Thankfully.
“I was reading this history of Piper’s father. He was an IFB traveling evangelist (thanks Anon 1) and involved with BJU. I felt a bit sad for Piper after reading it. I think it must have been very hard growing up without his dad present much of the time”
Oh my. IFB? Bob Jones? I can see why he came to create the bizarre concept of “Christian Hedonism”. :o)
@ Jimmy:
“I realize the majority of commentors here at Wartburg do NOT accept Scripture as the very Word of God.”
I cannot even begin to comprehend how you got this out of the preceding discussion. How does it follow that the Bible is not inspired if Paul chose to quote something incorrect in one of his letters as an example of wrongheadedness? If it was true that Scriptural authors could never, under inspiration, quote someone else’s wrong-headed idea for the sole purpose of disproving it, then Matthew committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12:24 and David thought there was no God (Psalm 53:1). There was also no instance (that I read) of anyone denying that Paul wrote the books traditionally attributed to him.
You are grossly misrepresenting the views of many of the commenters.
Hey Muff, If you write the things about women and Jews that he did, you would get an earful from me! Your contradictions don’t seem to put others down personally or seek to make them “less”.
I personally believe that how the REformation played out is where we see the beginnings of the image of a white Protestant Euro Jesus. The Reformers really played down the Jewishness inherent in Messiah. I think that has done a great disservice to Christianity in understanding the grand narrative.
Jews were not exactly accepted as full members of society in Protestant Reformation land during those days, either. Of course the Princes liked to borrow from the wealthy ones. :o)
Jimmy,
I am astounded at this false statement you made:
“I realize the majority of commentors here at Wartburg do NOT accept Scripture as the very Word of God.”
“I realize the majority of commentors here at Wartburg do NOT accept Scripture as the very Word of God”
Jimmy, this is one of those things that one hesitates to even point out because of the usual redneck sort of response that tends to follow.
JESUS is the WORD. OF GOD. Many miss this when studying the bible. It goes all the way back to Gen 1 when the world was SPOKEN into existence.
Is the Bible inspired? Yes!!! Is it inerrant and infallible? How can it be when you have had so many translations through the ages? Is the inerrent word Calvin’s translation? Jerome? NT Wright’s NT? The Message? KJV translated under a state church political crisis? Which one got the “Word of God” exactly correct? I mean, we can point out actual proof where the KJ translators ADDED words and concepts that are not in earlier translations. So which is it?
@ Anon 1:
“On the other hand, we know for a fact there were Puritans who believed in grace and tolerance in love. One of them was Roger Williams.”
I agree this is true generally, but even Williams didn’t necessarily get there right away. It’s my understanding that he believed for a time that the only two people fit to take communion were him and his wife.
“Hester, you ever read what he wrote about Jews? Early on, the Nazi party used his writings to bring the Lutheran church on board.”
Yes, and clearly what he said about Jews was awful. And while it is true that the Nazis used his writings to hoodwink the church, it’s my understanding they didn’t actually derive their ideas about Jews from Luther – at least Hitler himself didn’t. Apparently Hitler said he got his ideas on that subject primarily from Richard Wagner (who was equally vitriolic).
Sadly I suspect Luther’s ideas about Jews used to have pretty wide currency in the Lutheran church… For example, one of the older gentlemen at our church made a comment to me once that most of the professors at a local college were atheists – or Jews (he added in a sort of dramatic undertone). It was very strange.
Thank you for the photo Dee – I’m happy now ! (and I don’t mean that in a lesbian way – not that there’s anything wrong with that. ha I’m stirring now). I guess Piper would find ballerinas too muscular also.
Jimmy,
Not sure what you mean by “nobody denies Paul’s writings.” There are a group of writings that we are pretty certain Paul wrote. Then there are some books which scholars have argued about, whether it was Paul or perhaps one of his disciples several years after his death.
Yes, the group of books that we are certain Paul wrote is never argued about. The others are genuinely debated, even among scholars who believe the Bible to be inspired word of God.
This doesn’t really trouble me; there are other books, such as Hebrews, whose authorship we can’t pin down with certainty. That doesn’t mean they aren’t inspired or don’t contain God’s truth.
Now I’m really confused! (not j/k.)
I think I’m done talking about Luther and anabaptists for now.
Anone 1 – i think I’ve mentioned before that I grew up in (and now live in) an area that is home to many different anabaptist churches. The non-anabaptist German immigrants were (primarily) Lutherans.
I think it’s (sadly) safe to say that my ancestors persecuted anabaptists.
So… I am *definitely* not unaware of a lot of the history, issues, etc. Part of the point I was trying to make is that there were very diverse “dissenting” religious groups *on the Continent* – not all of those who disagreed with the Catholics and Lutherans were anabaptists.
You’ll find similar things if you look into the history of England during the reign of Jas. I as well as during Oliver Cromwell’s rule. (Check “Ranters,” for example…)
Late to the party again, but the first thing that comes to my mind is to wonder what happens in the Piper-verse when a too-muscular woman gives a man directions in a gentle and feminine way? Is that like the meeting of matter and anti-matter?
At least I’ve finally found one reason why John P would approve of me. I’m already a damnable heretic for not believing in Calvinist election (I’m closer to Wesley on that one), championing egalitarian marriage, not believing that pastors have a special blessed authority, and, above-all, for being one of those evil woman preachers. But at least I’m not muscle-y.
Question: How do they line up the “doctrines of grace” with that kind of obsessive (and excessive) introspection? I mean, isn’t trying to make yourself repentant enough, or getting your feelings about certain doctrines to line up like ducks in a row a WORK? What happened to grace alone by faith alone? There’s enough cognitive dissonance to do my brain in right there!
And Jimmy, I don’t use the word “inerrancy” because I don’t have the original autographs, so I think it’s an unhelpful term in any practical sense. I much prefer to say that the Bible is authoritative and God, by the Spirit, speaks through it. It is sufficient in containing all we need to know for salvation, but it is not exhaustive in terms of giving us a rule book to follow for all of life. A lot of subjects we need to make decisions about are not addressed at all.
Try this site for starters: http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/index.html
(I wish they’d included the Sethians, as there seem to have been some of them in England – during the 18th c., anyhow – but what the hey…)
Eeek! Charles I, *not* James I. Totally different time period!
fwiw, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, etc. are *hugely* tied to rigid gender roles and (in some cases) overt patriarchalism, though I doubt they would use that term, any more than most of them would say that they’re complementarian.
The German anabaptist churches here can be every bit as difficult for women as are calvinista circles – if anything, I’m understating the case a bit!
Argo –
I agree with you on the topic of language.
More and more I feel that unwholesome speech is lying, slander, aggression etc. People get so caught up in policing a random assemblage of letters that social conventions have deemed to be ‘swear words’ and then miss the manipulation and deceit that can be couched in ‘clean’ language.
And some issues are serious enough to warrant strong responses!
So maybe I’m saying…we should swear intentionally? 😉
(By the way, I’m the JJ from South Africa who’s commented here before. The flag is showing up because I’m now in the UK, doing my PhD.)
Lynne T – thank you for this:
” I much prefer to say that the Bible is authoritative and God, by the Spirit, speaks through it. It is sufficient in containing all we need to know for salvation, but it is not exhaustive in terms of giving us a rule book to follow for all of life. A lot of subjects we need to make decisions about are not addressed at all.”
I found that most helpful. This is how I view the Bible, too.
Mr. H at 3:28…Well said my friend. Piper is a perv on so many levels! And his heresies are driving so many well-intentioned ‘believers’ over the edge. It’s all so terribly sad.
I would tend to go along with Lynne T’s interpretation. Schaeffer (to keep quoting him, sorry!) used to say that the Bible gives us “true truth” but not “exhaustive truth”, which I think is the majority Protestant (if not Christian) view, ie it gives us true information about God and salvation, but it does not claim to be a sort of universal encyclopedia (or Wikipedia, if you will). I believe some of the early church’s time was taken up in refuting what Peter called “myths”, either the fanciful, elaborate or plain wrong pictures presented in some of the apocryphal gospels, or the (sometimes slanderous) stories about Jesus put about by opponents of the church. In that case, we affirm that the Scriptures are true against these legends or libels.
Numo, thanks for your thoughts on the Puritans. I really ought to read Nathaniel Hawthorne, as well as some of the earlier colonial writings.
Re Puritanism in England, this may sound odd but Cromwell was in some ways a harbinger of democracy in that he was unwilling (at least before the interregnum) to be an arbiter of men’s consciences (though clearly there were limits to his tolerance!). Perhaps he viewed himself as steering a middle course between the former Royalists (including “Arminians” (not the same thing as theological Arminians – long story) and Catholics) on the one side and Protestant groups such as the Levellers, Ranters, Diggers and Fifth Monarchy Men on the other. Unfortunately his tolerance did not cover the Irish, nor did it restrain what was essentially authoritarian rule until the Restoration. Perhaps one can liken him to the modern figure of Kemal Atatürk, who brought Turkey into the modern era and threw off many of the old restrictions yet who also ruled as a despot, albeit a reasonably benevolent one. It is important to realise that during the Interrregnum England was not a theocracy, but rather subject to a Parliament dominated by non-conformist Protestants and the Army.
Probably the real reason why Puritanism became unpopular in England was its perception as a legalistic and killjoy force. Up to that point the English had been largely Protestant, especially since the Spanish Armada had associated Catholicism with foreign aggression. It remained largely so after the Restoration.
JJ,
Congrats on your Ph.D. studies! Awesome. Do you mind saying what your field is?
Oh…yeah, the language thing. I got over that years ago. I just could not be convinced that yelling “that catch was bad-a**!” during a football game (American) was somehow sinful speech. I wasn’t going to tiptoe around innocuous words like that. But that’s just my conviction.
Anon1,
I agree. Is the bible the Word or is Jesus? Reading in John, seems like Christ is. How can there be two Words of God. And if the answer is both, then…er, I guess we no longer have a Trinity. If the Bible is just another manifestation of Jesus, then that must make it the fourth Person of the…Trinity? Hmm…
Do you see why I find this whole “infallible Protestant bible” thing so hard to swallow? But still I’m the one who is the heretic. Last I checked, I wasn’t the one declaring an inanimate object : God.
Um…incidentally, what DOES the bible have to say about those who do? Any good things?
On the issue of foul language, it’s worth noting that the word “skubala” in Philippians 3 some argue shoud be translated as being a lot more offensive than “dung” and certainly moreso than “rubbish”.
I’m no scholar to know if that’s true, but I do think our emphasis in speech should be more about the content than the words we choose, though I think both are important. We cannot say we are speaking wholesomly on the bases of avoidance of curse words if we are treating someone badly.
My immediate thought was that John Piper is afraid of being attracted to a woman with masculine muscles because that might lead him to be attracted to men with masculine muscles.
More and more I feel that unwholesome speech is lying, slander, aggression etc. People get so caught up in policing a random assemblage of letters that social conventions have deemed to be ‘swear words’ and then miss the manipulation and deceit that can be couched in ‘clean’ language. — JJ
I remember Jewish sources stating flat-out that the original and primary application of “Taking God’s Name in Vain” meant doing evil and claiming God’s sanction or inspiration for it. Effectively, God was saying “You do your own dirty work! Don’t drag me (by my Name) into it!”
This is related to the modern Jewish expression “Shanda fur die Goyim”, i.e. doing something in the name of God or Judaism that brings reproach upon God or the Jews.
But, if you’re into doing Evil and claiming “God Saith!” to justify yourself, redefining the commandment to be all about cussing is VERY convenient.
Diane asked: “How does one do this- getting up in the middle of the night to investigate a scary noise with a “feminine demeanor”? This is quite insane.”
Diane – perhaps by painting your gun pink?
Kathi: And if that happens, the so called ‘reason’ behind his doctrine is ruined i.e. ‘gender roles stop homosexuality’.
…I feel like I’ve stepped out of line with my above comment or put my foot in it in some way. But I’m not sure how. Can anyone correct me?
Actually, in the ordinary course of things, a woman can’t have masculine muscles. Being a woman, anything she does or has is automatically feminine.
“Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive.”
What is lost is Piper’s approval. : (
We’ll gloss over the masculine role having to do with appearance, which is just too stupid to address.
Diane – you wrote: “How does one do this- getting up in the middle of the night to investigate a scary noise with a ‘feminine demeanor’? This is quite insane.”
Yes, it is, and thank you for quoting Piper on this – it was good for a laugh. I recall that he also wrote somewhere that a man should always be the one to check for intruders even if his wife has a black belt in karate.
The “Mishna” was the written version of the so-called “Oral Torah,” compiled by Rabbis. It could get very specific. For instance: If a man was lifted in the air by a wind gust and deposited on top of a woman so that his penis penetrated her vagina, should that be considered rape? Sounds to me like an elaborate made-up excuse, but I believe the verdict was “No.”
I wonder if Piper will ever compile his learned observations in a Mishna-like form. Would make for some entertaining reading.
Numo, Most of the groups who came here including the Ana Baptist groups seperated themsevles (at least at first) and were quite legalistic for a while. Some worse than others.
Although in researching about Ana Baptist groups in Swiss cantons is interesting when it comes to gender roles. Many of the men had been on the run or were evanglizing and not home. We read of most of them havng very supportive wives. Some even shouting encouragements at them when they are being led to be drowned or imprisoned. When they, as a group, were finally fleeing the Reformers they were literally camping out in the woods, etc. They did find one sympathetic prince (his name escapes me) who gave them protection on his land for a while but even he was brought under discipline by the Reformers. But they were not able to hold on to strict gender roles simply because of their cirucmstances. I am not saying they did not believe them but that they simply were not pragmatic in their situation. It is too bad they did not learn from that as they came here.
As one looks at comp doctrine today, we have to admit that circumstances play a role in how strict we can be with gender roles. Poor people usually do not have the luxury of the strict roles.
Anne – I don’t see the problem with your comment…I think if there is one thing some of these complementarianists fear more than a ‘manly’ woman, it’s same sex attraction.
Just to note, I think English Puritans in England are a whole other breed. They were very political and sought political power to reform the CoA to their standards. This had been going on for a long time. I would never put them in the same category as most of the Ana Baptists fleeing the state church in Europe who wanted to be free from state coercion to worship and from state mandated sacraments.
“The “Mishna” was the written version of the so-called “Oral Torah,” compiled by Rabbis. It could get very specific. For instance: If a man was lifted in the air by a wind gust and deposited on top of a woman so that his penis penetrated her vagina, should that be considered rape? Sounds to me like an elaborate made-up excuse, but I believe the verdict was “No.”
”
This is blowing my mind!
“I agree this is true generally, but even Williams didn’t necessarily get there right away. It’s my understanding that he believed for a time that the only two people fit to take communion were him and his wife.”
Interesting, I had not heard this. I wonder if it included the persecuting, lording it over Puritans he lived around at the time? If so, not sure I blame him. But I certainly do not know the historical timeline of when he made such a statement.
@Anne Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 01:14 PM said:
“I feel like I’ve stepped out of line with my above comment or put my foot in it in some way. But I’m not sure how. Can anyone correct me?”
Not at all, I think your comment is probably correct, and someone with a masters degree in psychology or similar might attest to that! There’s no group-think or censoring of comments here. Weird to have that freedom hey? The way to put your foot in it would be to blunder in and attempt to bludgeon your doctrinal worldview on folks.
So, does the inverse of Piper’s logic also hold true? If being muscular makes a woman “masculine”, does the lack of muscle make a man “feminine”? That only makes sense.
Maybe someone has mentioned this earlier in the thread, so my apologies if I ‘m being redundant.
Numo, I would like to hear about your experience of L’Abri. Was this when Schaeffer was running it or when John Sandri had taken it on? Apparently it’s changed over the years.
JJ
Best wishes on your studies. You are a long way from home!
So, does the inverse of Piper’s logic also hold true? If being muscular makes a woman “masculine”, does the lack of muscle make a man “feminine”? — ScotT
Is Piper built like Arnold Schwarzenegger?
JeffS
I am far more interested in what someone is trying to say than in how they say it. This blog is open to people in all walks of life and belief and people communicate with different styles. We may occasionally, as editors, may soften a particularly vulgar term. When I go into the world in my day to day life, I am not in the habit of correcting the language of those who speak to me in the public square. It takes more than a vulgarism to offend me.
Diane – you wrote: “How does one do this- getting up in the middle of the night to investigate a scary noise with a ‘feminine demeanor’? This is quite insane.”
“Ummm…. Uh…. Rainbow Dash? Can I hold you down so Twilight can cast her spell and cure you? Uh… That is, if it’s all right with you…”
— Fluttershy
Anne
From what I can tell you did not step out of line. Why would you think you had?
Retha
Thank you for the laugh. “by painting your gun pink?” Both Deb and i hold concealed weapon permits and one of these days I am contemplating a cute, pearl handled deal. But, now, perhaps a pink, peral handed one.
Hack
I am not so sure that he is a perv but rather strange, eccentric, etc. I truly believe that something is wrong and I hope people around him are encouraging him to get a medical check up.
My immediate thought was that John Piper is afraid of being attracted to a woman with masculine muscles because that might lead him to be attracted to men with masculine muscles. — Kathi
op cit Josie Cotton
Kathi: And if that happens, the so called ‘reason’ behind his doctrine is ruined i.e. ‘gender roles stop homosexuality’. — Anna
And so again it comes down to “Fear Of Teh Fag”….
I kinda have a thing for Reformed, muscular women
Am I just imagining things or is Piper (as he ages) getting more and more like Pat Robertson with each new pronouncement?
Jimmy
Did you ever pull this stuff with people in your church? What a pile of codswallop, even for you.
Whatever [Piper] can do, however he can wax long on the ‘dangers’ of muscular women, this he will do to discourage any woman he can away from becoming strong and therefore intimidating to his wounded, fractured, needy ego. — Mara (way up near the top)
In which case, I’d like to see Piper forced to watch a season of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and see how long before his head explodes from the strong female characters in the show. Let’s see how the “Mane Six” characters shape up to the patrio ideal of “non-muscular women”…
* Applejack (feminine archetype “The Boss”): Take-charge country pony, runs the family farm/apple orchard after the (presumed) death of her parents. As for “muscular”, she has the meanest “buck” (hind-leg kick) in town.
* Rainbow Dash (feminine archetype “The Athlete”): Fiercely competitive, fiercely athletic type, heads up the town Weather Patrol (weather control) while trying to get onto a prestige stunt-flight team.
Twilight Sparkle (feminine archetype “The Scholar”): Highly-intelligent, highly-educated nerd (realistically nerdy); a grad student in town on an internship. Protege of the world’s (female) god-figure.
Even the three more feminine archetypes are subversive to Piper and the patrios:
Rarity (feminine archetype “The Artist”): Most “ladylike” of the “Mane Six”, very cultured and fastidious; runs her own business in town and like RD above is trying to break into the big time in her chosen profession.
Fluttershy (feminine archetype “The Nurturer”): Painfully shy and timid, almost Piper’s ideal of the meek and passive female — until you corner her in a life-or-death situation and her inner strength overcomes her outer fear. Then watch out. You’d rather be facing Applejack’s kick.
Pinkie Pie (feminine archetype “The Free Spirit”): Completely unique (and hyper), does not take anything (including herself) seriously at all, but she has shown a goofy wisdom and an ability to see beneath surface appearance to hidden reality; apprentice pastry chef (and party organizer/planner) at the local bakery.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: When Lauren Faust re-booted My Little Pony, she came up with six attractive archetypes of femininity (above) while Piper (allegedly speaking for God Almighty) could only come up with one unattractive one — the Doormat. (“What is Thy Will, Milord Husband? How Might I Better Submit?”) Either Lauren Faust is more creative than God Almighty or Piper et al are full of it (probably because they’re full of themselves).
Thanks for the tip — I had no idea they’d done anything so interesting with My Little Pony. Last time I had anything to do with MLP was when my daughter was a little girl. (She loved MLP, but we never had a Barbie doll in the house)Sounds like something I would enjoy. However old we are, those of us who have been deeply wounded by the patriarchal church need these female archetypes to help redress the balance.
Also, to whoever it was who posted that brilliant link to the letter to girls, thank you so much. I read that last night to my daughter on Skype, and I think we both felt more renewed, healed and empowered by that than we have by many church services. God speaks through many things and in many ways
Did I miss the link with the letter to girls?
I bookmarked it on my computer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/message-to-girls-about-re_b_1518849.html#s327395&title=Rabbi_Sharon_Kleinbaum
JJ,
“People get so caught up in policing a random assemblage of letters that social conventions have deemed to be ‘swear words’…”
The religiosity of my youth in America came to a bend in the road the 1st time i went to England to meet my future in-laws. After spending some time with them and the people in their little village church, I was surprised to encounter such genuinely God-seeking people who thought nothing of saying “ass”, “shit”, and enjoying each other’s company (vicar & all) over a few pints and cigarettes. As far as they knew, these were non-issues. Devoid of all electric charge of controversy. And they and their relationships were the happier and healthier for it.
I’ve looked at these things much differently since that trip long ago.
Retha~
🙂 I think they make guns in various pastel colors…I’ll take lavender.
Anon1~
“Poor people usually do not have the luxury of the strict roles.”
No worries–Kevin Swanson (Generations Radio) has made a way. Oh, no, he is not donating money or setting up a fund or anything sacrificial like that. He did tell his listeners that they were to sell their homes so the wife can stay home and homeschool. Move into an apartment. And if that is still too expensive then move into a trailer home. The husband is also to get two jobs so the wife can homeschool. Sounds inviting, doesn’t it? He will protect us from the evil government. lol…wow.
I think he has a pretty nice home in CO himself.
So, are they supposed to have unlimited children in those conditions as well?
Thank you Lynne!
@ Diane:
“And if that is still too expensive then move into a trailer home.”
I once saw a documentary about purity balls (linked to by Lewis at Commandments of Men) that followed several of the families who attended one of the largest balls (in Colorado, of course – I think CO Springs). One of the families consisted of a single dad with 9 kids (though I think he only had 4-5 at home) by several different women, who had become a Christian later in his life. They were living in a trailer on a ranch and the dad may have had lung cancer. You’d think he wouldn’t have the money to travel all the way to CO (they lived in MT) for a formal grand ball with his teenage daughter. I hope he wasn’t sold some line that this was the only “Christian” thing for a “patriarch” to do…
@Diane: I suspect Kevin Swanson is another one of those people who has found himself a niche in the far corners of very conservative American evangelical Christendom and is exploiting it for all it is worth. He reminds me of Vision Forum and Doug Phillips (and there are others, as well).
Do you know where he said families should sell their homes so the wives can homeschool?
Hester, I think I saw that documentary. Was that the one where the girls passed under two swords held by their fathers?
I respect the intention of the men – after all most fathers probably have nightmares about their daughters getting involved with low-lifes who get them pregnant and dump them – but it did strike me as a bit strange, although I don’t remember seeing Gothard’s ring thing in there.
“So, are they supposed to have unlimited children in those conditions as well?”
“BIRTH CONTROL: Is It Up to Us?
We believe that it is not, and we have the facts to prove it. In our upcoming, engagingly fast-paced documentary that argues against birth control and family planning, we lay out factual and biblical evidence through logical argumentation.
We will present evidence for, and tackle the objections to, some of the greatest arguments for a life without contraception; a life where God is in control of our womb.”
http://thebirthcontrolmovie.com/2012/02/
I guess so.
So, are they supposed to have unlimited children in those conditions as well? — Lynne T
Of course. Extreme Homeschooling, Quiverfull, Godly Complementarianism, it’s all part of the same package deal.
Every Nine Months.
Outbreed the Heathen and Take Back America.
God Hath Said!!!!!!
I saw that same documentary too, Hester.
@ SD~
I heard it last year on his radio show but I have no idea what show that would have been.
There is plenty to criticise in human government – waste, inefficiency and sometimes (or often) corruption, even in the democratic West – but the whole thing about the “evil government” in some extreme circles strikes me as bizarre. For a start, all authority in principle is from God according to Romans 13.
It also seems to me that in the end the whole shift of the Christian life in these movements is shifted away from the Gospel and the Cross and towards an ideology of us-vs-them. Really it’s no different IMO from a form of revolutionary politics.
And it sounds as if it also places an intolerable strain on families. Reminiscent of the nutty ideologue in Dostoyevsky’s “The Devils” – “”I begin by proposing unlimited freedom, but end in absolute despotism.”
Kolya – I was there in 1977, and not for very long. so I’m not the best source – however, I thought it was a very odd place then, and nothing has happened to make me change my thinking. (Odd as in eccentric, btw.)
Anon1 – when you mentioned “poor people,” were you meaning those in Europe who were being persecuted? I’m assuming so (please correct me if wrong), because most Mennonites, Church of the Brethren etc. folks are pretty solidly middle-class, no matter how they make their living. (Some Mennonites still farm in this area, though mostly, it’s the Amish who stick to agriculture. Where I live, very few Amish work at other kinds of jobs – unlike the Amish in Ohio, Indiana, etc.)
Also, I am not so sure that all of the so-called “puritans” in England were such wonderful people. Some of them were extremely dictatorial, though by no means all.
There seems to have been some movement back and forth between England and the Mass. bay Colony. A book I’m reading now (Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgement: Popular Religious Beliefs in Early New England) has a bit on the number of Mass. settlers who went back to England to fight in the Civil war (and, presumably, in Cromwell’s brutal subjugation of Ireland).
Diane@ 7.48PM: Please tell me this is a spoof film.
Oh sweet Lord it’s real… http://tinyurl.com/9bzx6jm
‘Anon1 – when you mentioned “poor people,” were you meaning those in Europe who were being persecuted”
Yep. When you ar bannished as part of punishment or have to flee for your life, you cannot take your home or your business with you. You lose it all. They had to do it the old fashioned way, living off the land. Makes gender roles a bit more difficult.
The only thing that saved Roger Williams life when he escaped being siezed by the posse sent out by the Puritans were the Indians who took him in. Interestingly enough, it is easy to believe in genderr roles but hard to live them in such circumstances. :o)
To me, the Puritan leaders in England come off as very political. They wanted power, it seems, to reform the church.
Anne –
Definitely real and they are absolutely serious about it. You are probably considerd to be in sin if you are led differently by your conscious.
Interesting thoughts, all.
For the record, I never said Piper is a “perv,” nor did I mean to imply this. I simply meant that, based on his public statements, he seems to have some serious issues that would benefit from some sort of quality mental healthcare.
Also, after reading some more of the comments, had the thought: How on earth is Piper qualified to discuss such a complex topic as gender identity? How does he even define “masculine” and “feminine?” It seems as if he defines it by actions (men do X, Y, Z, and women do A, B, C), but I don’t think this can be easily supported by Scripture. It seems more the result of his cultural and religious (fundamentalist Neo-Reformed) context.
The problem with this is that women in Scripture (both OT and NT) actually do a wide variety of activities, to the extent that it makes it quite difficult to define gender based on actions.
Anyone else have any thoughts/posts/reflections on this? I’m sure this has been discussed before.
Anne –
It looks like that site has not been attended to since August of this year.
@ Kolya:
I don’t remember if there were swords in the documentary, but I know that is widely practiced. Personally I think it’s a bit Freudian, but some of these folks probably don’t believe in psychology so maybe we can’t fault them for not knowing? : )
The theology underlying purity balls is really quite disturbing. It presumes the man/father as the spiritual head of his daughters, and if you actually look at the “covenants” they sign, it is often the FATHER pledging to guard his daughter’s heart – which of course assumes that the daughter is not responsible for her own heart, her dad is (and after that, her husband). It’s also not uncommon for girls too young to even have a good understanding of what “purity” refers to (i.e., sex) sign these pledges. And even if they don’t actually sign, they’re often brought along to the ball with their older sisters, so they’re primed to sign it from a young age. (One would think signing a VOW BEFORE GOD that you didn’t understand would be the epitome of a “rash vow,” but I digress.)
Bridget: Even so, you know how diligent these Patriarchs get when they feel they have a ‘godly message’ to spread. I bet the film will still be going ahead as planned.
Sproul, Doug Phillips, Geoff Botkin…oh dear, they’ve really gone to town on this haven’t they. Not to mention all the false information (‘birth control pills increase the chances of breast cancer’) and scripture twisting.
Anyone notice how it’s a big bunch of MEN deciding on what should happen to women’s bodies?
Anne:
You said:’Anyone notice how it’s a big bunch of MEN deciding on what should happen to women’s bodies?”
It is truly amazing is it not.
Very similar that in the Southern Baptist Convention it is the men who decided that God can not call a woman to preach.
Anne –
It’s always the men who decide everything for women in that bunch.
I wasn’t inferring that they weren’t going through with the video. We can only be hopeful on that 🙂
Really it’s no different IMO from a form of revolutionary politics.
It is that. It’s dominionism.
What strikes me is that these guys neglect how God has put certain orders and laws in the physical, natural realm. For instance, the turning of the Earth means that every year there will be spring, summer, fall, winter. Without fail. Our hearts beat by themselves, our stomachs digest by themselves, our brains send out millions of messages and our bodies perform outstanding levels of micromanagement all the way down to chemical reactions. All by themselves, without fail (unless you’re ill, but that’s another matter).
Likewise, a healthy female body will produce an egg every month. Naturally, without fail. And when sperm meets egg, a child begins to form. Or don’t they teach that in Quiverfull homeschooling?
It’s not a case of ‘God’s in control of the womb’. It’s a case of: God has ordained for female bodies to behave in a certain way, and by promoting false doctrine that a) submissive wives must submit to sex and b) use no birth control whatsoever, you WILL have difficult amounts of children. The evidence is already there: Quiverfull families have about 10 once the procreating is over. And not all of them can make a husband’s salary stretch that far!!
This is not demonstrating faith, this is testing God. End of.
Sorry, I should have said ‘Quiverfull families have at least 10’.
“What strikes me is that these guys neglect how God has put certain orders and laws in the physical, natural realm.”
This is what I was speaking of earlier about immutable laws that many Calvinistas ignore. Drug addicts can have tons of kids. In fact, some friends of mine keep adopting them when they are abandoned. There are godly women who cannot bear children. So, is God punishing one of His kingdom but blessing the drug addict who does not care one bit? No. This is what living on a fallen, corrupted earth is about.
This is the problem with Calvinism and the determinist God. I recently met a woman who left the Reformed movement after trying so long to have a child and told she is not praying enough or has some sin she has not repented of.
What is the real reason they don’t want people to use birth control? We know it’s not based on Scripture OR logic. What is their agenda?
Anon 1 – they might have wanted power to reform the C of E, but that meant temporal power as well as ecclesiastical.
Result: beheaded the king, started a civil war that destroyed many lives in England, and *then* they took the war to Ireland, with devastating results.
Oliver Cromwell was pretty tyrannical, imo…
As for gender roles among anabaptists in the US & Canada, I’ll stick to what I’ve already said. It is very hard for many people to break out of the accepted norms, and I think that you’ll find plenty of people out there who can attest to it.
Not all the patriarchal types are calvinistas, though I doubt that many of the Mennonites, C. of the Brethren and Amish would accept the label “patriarchal.”
well, part of it is to keep the women in line (there are limits to what else you can do if you’re flat out bearing and raising children) and part of it seems to be that this is the way to grow the Kingdom of God, by raising up “godly seed” to take over the world.
There seems to be an almighty confusion between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of men, and no comprehension at all that the Kingdom of God grows by the work of the Spirit in people’s hearts, not by elect families having enough children to outbreed the rest
“…told she is not praying enough or has some sin she has not repented of.”
That is horrible. How could you ever know if you had repented of all your sins properly to “get” your answer as if it was some bargain you made with God? And do they believe that quantity of prayers gets you your answer? That’s so wof sounding- if you did not get what you asked for it is your fault…lack of faith, not praying hard enough, loud enough, fast enough, you let your faith lapse, you doubted, etc.
I’d guess there are multiple agendas for not using birth control. Interfearing with God’s order established in nature is probably one. Another is probably a nostalgic look at the past where everything was clearly better coupled with a distrustful view of anything modern. Perhaps even more deep seated and unrealized is an agenda of wanting a clear example of faith that can demonstrate Godlyness and sepearate-from-the-world-ness. If we can do outlandish (and more points if they are dangerous) things for the Lord, then we have something to hang our hat on. Thus we do not have to rely on our love for fellow Christians to demonstrate our faith- we have something much less messy and undefinable. I totally understand that this sounds snarky; I can only say it this way because I am guilty too of looking for ways other than love to prove my faith.
re: comments by @Anne 10.01pm
It made me wonder what ‘quiverful’ then makes of men who are infertile?
Strictly speaking, I would think that for infertile men it’s a pretty strong indication that God has “closed the womb”.
My guess is it doesn’t play out that way in reality.
fwiw, this writer tries to pin down some of the major topics that come under “puritan/puritanism,” but even they acknowledge that most of the discussion is beyond their scope:
http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/puritans.html
Excellent bibliography there (for the page I’ve linked to, plus there’s a whole separate bibliographical section that can be reached via the home page).
Mr. H: “For the record, I never said Piper is a “perv,” nor did I mean to imply this.”
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
The much celebrated preacher does a good job of leading people to that conclusion with his own bizarre proclamations. You just cannot top his own pronouncements. He creates his own “implications” without you even trying.
Anne asks What is the real reason they don’t want people to use birth control? We know it’s not based on Scripture OR logic. What is their agenda?
Anne -It’s part of Dominionist and/or Reconstructionist agenda.
This is from Vision Forum: A patriarch is a man of integrity who represents God, His kingdom and His will to those given to his charge, training, instructing, guarding, guiding and equipping them to be responsible and fruitful in their calling of dominion and discipleship, seeking first the Kingdom of God, lawfully expanding it through the church, the family and the state, and successfully transferring this vision to the next generation.
And when he means “fruitful”, he’s saying babies, babies, and more babies.
Phillips is big on a 200-yr plan – – putting out as many babies so they can take over the US with their brand of patriarchal Christians all going to family-integrated-churches, homeschooling, adult children can only court those who father says “ok” and if no guy passes the muster for daughter, the daughter “gets” to stay home and serve her father. Oy!
For Anon 1 –
an excerpt from The Concise Encyclopedia of the Amish, Brethren, Hutterites and Mennonites (by Donald G. Kraybill, who is, after the late John Hostetler, the foremost scholar on many German anabaptist topics) – http://tinyurl.com/8lk4vwy
More than anyone could want to know about gender roles, today and historically, in the German anabaptist churches. (Note the “headship/submission” part…)
For a moment, I wondered if a pink gun would really be considered feminine. It might be regarded as a phallic symbol.
But then, going after a scary noise with a phallic symbol means letting a man do the job, so it might be staying in your role…
My head hurts.
About purity balls – I agree with Hester that this is a rash vow. http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/whats-wrong-with-purity-balls-one-virgins-perspective/
I think there’s a strong strand of anti-intellectualism in a lot of this: the dislike of government, the ‘education system’, and modern medicines like contraception. There’s more than a whiff of ‘I don’t need those book-learned people telling me what to do’. The Bible is just manipulated to justify the already existing mistrust.
Also, do the dominionists realise that if the men are all working 80 hours a week to support their huge family, while their wife is at home with a birth canal like a waterslide looking after and homeschooling so many children, that no evangelising is going on? They’re not really witnessing to anyone? Who’d have talked about Jesus to those of us who aren’t from Christian homes?
And JJ – congrats on starting your PhD! What’s your field and topic? I’ve got a bit under a year to go in mine (geography and flood risk and responsibility in Australia), it’s a big experience. You’ll be excited, overwhelmed, inspired, and sometimes questioning what on earth you’ve let yourself in for, but it’s worth it (at least so far – I might be questioning that when I’m bogged down in the final writing up!).
Hi all,
a bit surprised this morning to see how this thread has grown! It will take me a while to read it all and don’t really have much time… But here are some comments.
Dee – Thanks for the welcome. I’ve been here for a little while as I’m the same as “Martin Romero”. I didn’t realise that I used another of my family names 🙂 Better stick with one of them.
Hester – Did’t know about those diaries. That micro-management of their motivations and sins was obsessive! I can’t see it as healthy in any way, neither physically nor spiritually.
What you and others are mentioning (Julie Anne, writing about ‘sin sniffing’; Dee) reminds me of particular doctrines in my previous denomination which, in my opinion, made people take two different attitudes with respect to their salvation.
– One was a type of micro-management of their sins. They had to account every single sin, because what if they died without asking for forgiveness? They would weigh against them when Jesus judged them… Especially because they were claiming the name of Christ. Consider this point: they already were Christians, but Jesus had to judge them to see if they were worth it of receiving the final reward. That judgement was supposedly reserved to Christians.
– The other, which was the one I had taken, was to recognise that I would never be that perfect… So I kind of gave up in a way, just hoping that whenever God decided that it was “game over” He’d look at me and think that I was good enough.
Those doctrines led towards perfectionism and/or legalism… And I’m not surprised if similar doctrines in other groups may lead to similar results. Needless to say that when I really realised that it didn’t work in that way, it made a huge impression on me and it started a big change on the way I thought.
Argo and Anon 1 – I’ve long noticed certain points of tension in the Calvinist system of doctrine. In my opinion there are issues and logical conclusions within that system which are not easy (or maybe even possible) to harmonise with other points in Christian belief. As I mentioned a friend who struggles with the “rigidity” that is seen in certain Reformed circles, I don’t know if they read the Bible and reach the conclusions presented in Calvinist doctrine, or if they actually reach the conclusions because they started with presuppositions that led them to “read” those in the Bible.
Numo and Kolya – My friend saying that “the need to always having to reconsider your motivations may be a more Protestant attitude” was what made me think about the cultural side of things… About alcohol, I was initially surprised to find that in Anglican-evangelical circles in England it wasn’t really a problem to have a pint of bitter, for example. Meanwhile other groups in the same country may consider that quite sinful, but I guess that those may think of the former as corrupt… By the way, isn’t that similar to how Puritanism started in Britain?
Thank you all for your comments. It was really interesting.
Very interesting posts:
Numo, thanks for your observations of L’Abri. Someone else on the Net recently said that it changed even in the years between the 50s-60s and the 70s.
Retha, I read that web page on purity balls – very cogent argument. I also question the idea that the man is the “High Priest” of his home. Even if you accept that a man is head of his household, that is hardly the same thing!
Martin, you’re right that in Anglican Evangelical circles, a pint of bitter would be considered perfectly normal. However in some nonconformist circles, it might be frowned upon. For example, Peter Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle is apparently of the opinion that Christians should not drink alcohol at all.
@ Kolya:
I’ve read only one article by Peter Masters, and in it he said that going to CCM concerts represents such a high degree of worldliness that the Puritans would never have baptized the person who did such a thing. My first thoughts after reading this were:
1) Because our standard for baptism should be the Puritans’ views…? I thought it was supposed to the Biblical standard (repent and believe).
2) Is he actually implying that he would refuse to baptize someone if they went to CCM concerts? Doesn’t this mean he thinks that enjoyment of CCM is an automatic sign of lostness?
@ Pam:
“I think there’s a strong strand of anti-intellectualism in a lot of this: the dislike of government, the ‘education system’, and modern medicines like contraception.”
I think you mean “gubmint.” ; )
“Also, do the dominionists realise that if the men are all working 80 hours a week to support their huge family, while their wife is at home with a birth canal like a waterslide looking after and homeschooling so many children, that no evangelising is going on?”
Have you ever noticed that no one in these circles ever mentions evangelism? And I think the Great Commission, in their theology, is turned into a restatement of the “Dominion Mandate” (Genesis 1:26-28). I’m pretty sure evangelism is the last thing on their to-do list.
Interestingly the Puritans in New England tended toward the same thing (neglecting evangelism), though they got there by a different theological route than the patriarchs. Even more interesting was that it was their English brethren that called them on it. Their response?
“We evangelize our children.” Sound familiar? Apparently there really is nothing new under the sun.
@ Kolya:
“I also question the idea that the man is the ‘High Priest’ of his home. Even if you accept that a man is head of his household, that is hardly the same thing!”
To me, the man as High Priest/Prophet-Priest-King of his home thing is heresy, plain and simple. We already have a High Priest and there’s no Biblical warrant for anybody else calling themselves one under the New Covenant. It puts mediators between women and Jesus and at that point, you’re preaching a false Gospel.
Addendum @ Kolya:
I also wonder if the Puritans would have refused to baptize Martin Luther, since he didn’t object to most of the physical trappings of the Catholic church and thus would have been an idolater under their formulation of the Second Commandment. Heck, he actually merged the First and Second Commandments because he thought they meant the exact same thing (don’t worship idols) – i.e., he didn’t derive some super-esoteric prescription against “images” out of the 2nd. (And it can get pretty esoteric – I’ve heard some Calvinists claim that it means we can’t even picture Jesus in our minds when reading the Gospels.) This is why Lutherans number the Ten Commandments different after #1.
Thus why we should use the Bible’s standard for baptism and not the Puritans’.
@ Hester
If going to CCM concerts taints a person with a ‘high degree of worldliness’ I hate to think how my listening habits would be assessed! I must be super lost because I listen to artists who – gasp! – swear in their songs.
Hi Hester,
Thanks for your observations. I too read Masters’ article on CCM concerts (or at least a similar one). I have read similar stuff by him going back a number of years. He also wrote another article (maybe it was the same one) about the worldliness of the New Calvinists and the YRR crowd, largely it seems for similar reasons, eg the sort of “worldly music” they attended while at the conferences. Doug Wilson, interestingly enough, weighed in against that one and suggested (so I’m told) that Masters was confusing true separation/godliness with a “Victorian residue”. I think in this case Wilson is right.
Just for the record I personally prefer hymns and liturgical music in church, but I’ve nothing against choruses if they’re not overly repetitive. At home I like my heavy rock but I also like organ music and classical symphonies. I certainly don’t listen to stuff to become a slave of it (as Masters suggests) and I have never written songs (nor have any of my current bandmates) under the influence of drugs.
I also agree that the “High Priest of the home” is Jesus, not the human father. The human father obviously has an important role, but it is not representing his family to God – the latter idea is more Catholic than the Catholics! As Paul’s letter to Timothy says, “there is but one mediator between man and God, Christ Jesus”.
How on earth is Piper qualified to discuss such a complex topic as gender identity? How does he even define “masculine” and “feminine?” It seems as if he defines it by actions (men do X, Y, Z, and women do A, B, C), but I don’t think this can be easily supported by Scripture. It seems more the result of his cultural and religious (fundamentalist Neo-Reformed) context.
@Mr H – This is a biggie with patriarchalists. Below is a link to an entertaining thread (pop some popcorn and settle in to enjoy!) to read as the hard core patriarchs try to ‘splain that it IS all about the actions defining what is feminine vs masculine. A blogger who processed her journey from hard-core patriarchy to egalitarianism on her blog once cited this thread as being a defining light bulb moment for her:
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2006/08/feminists-scripture-twisting-mutual-submission-does-have-its-limits
Thanks for your well wishes, Dee!
Argo
Thanks for your support and interest! My research is in the literary/historical field.
I agree with you, HUG and Elastigirl on this issue of swearing (thank you both for your comments!). The pastor whose behaviour pretty much put me off church entirely a few years ago didn’t swear, but thought nothing of misrepresenting others’ statements to suit his agenda. He was consistently duplicitous.
On a slightly different note – my experience at that church was so scarring that I cringe at the thought of committing to a church again. At the societies fair at my university I avoided the few stalls manned by happy-shiny Christian people. I’m not sure what it says about me that my heart rate increased when I saw them!
But I did manage to randomly get asked whether I wanted to join a Christian drama group. I politely declined.
Pam
Thanks so much for your encouragement and advice! It’s always helpful hearing from others who are further along this PhD journey. I’ve run the gamut of emotions in the last few weeks! If your conference attendance ever brings you to the UK we should meet up for tea 🙂
JJ,
I hear you! Especially about the PhD 🙂 I’m aiming to finish mine in the next few months, between March and June next year. The pressure has manifested in different ways during the last 3 years: stress, anxiety, sleeping badly… But especially in these last few months, as I’m getting closer to the end and feeling the pressure of the last push. At the same time I would like to be able to publish at least one paper and I’m looking for jobs or other things to do after I finish.
Now I’m curious about which university in the UK you’re attending. Good luck with everything. Hope you (and Pam as well) will be able to finish soon and keep your sanity intact in the process 😀
JJ, I wonder if I’m scaring you rather than encouraging with what I wrote about PhD’s! Keep healthy and do a bit of everything as you go along. And don’t make it the centre of your life for the next few years… The PhD will try to do it on its own, so you don’t even need to encourage it 🙂
JJ
“…my experience at that church was so scarring that I cringe at the thought of committing to a church again. At the societies fair at my university I avoided the few stalls manned by happy-shiny Christian people. I’m not sure what it says about me that my heart rate increased when I saw them!”
Perhaps because it is the biggest human disappointment. It’s complete incongruency on every mental/psychological level that “the church of the living God” would be a bad place to be. Where unethical, destructive things happen from the top down. I mean, it’s not like you can just change religions. There’s no where else to go.
nterestingly the Puritans in New England tended toward the same thing (neglecting evangelism), though they got there by a different theological route than the patriarchs. Even more interesting was that it was their English brethren that called them on it. Their response?
“We evangelize our children.” — Hester
i.e. “Bedroom Evangelism/Outbreed the Heathen”.
(And it can get pretty esoteric – I’ve heard some Calvinists claim that it means we can’t even picture Jesus in our minds when reading the Gospels.) — Hester
i.e. Taking abstraction to the point of Pneumatic Gnosticism. God becomes so abstract you might as well go with The Force or a cosmic bowl of tapioca pudding.
You want to make their heads explode? Tell them the Incarnation means God having to squat down and take a dump behind a bush on a Judean dirt road.
Have you ever noticed that no one in these circles ever mentions evangelism? And I think the Great Commission, in their theology, is turned into a restatement of the “Dominion Mandate” (Genesis 1:26-28). I’m pretty sure evangelism is the last thing on their to-do list.
Again – the dominionist and reconstructionist view is that evangelism is accomplished by outnumbering the non-Christians and infiltrating the world with next-generation Christians in government, in media, etc. That is why the push to have more and more babies. Each new baby is a “blessing”.
BTW, you don’t call children “kids”, ever. That is degrading – as a goat. Children are always a “blessing” from the Lord. Children become an “idol” – it is more important that the womb is perpetually filled with a “blessing”, regardless of the mom’s physical state. If the mom has some medical condition and doctor decides that having a baby could be dangerous, then the story becomes, “you are not trusting God” and she is not obeying the be fruitful and multiply mandate. The couple does not have enough faith if they decide to obey doctor’s orders for no more babies. The pressure is huge to keep popping out babies. If finances are tough, “you are not trusting God to provide for His blessings”. This stuff is crazy.
Re: Dominion Mandate
I remember when I first heard about Vision Forum’s film festival back in 2007 or 2008. I was intrigued, so I went with a guy from work, and ended up being confused and weirded out. (This was my first introduction to the Vision Forum crowd). They spoke about film as if they were going to completely ignore Hollywood and any type of secular film, and instead just establish their own separate film-making industry that would “out-Hollywood” Hollywood. When I saw the quality of films they were showing, I thought, “Ummm…good luck with that!” Why not train up dedicated Christians to infiltrate Hollywood from the inside out? Isn’t this how God intervened in our sinful world through Israel, Jesus, and the Church?
Looking back, it makes much more sense. Their dominionism is predicated on the idea of completely separating from anything “secular” and establishing their own rival “kingdom/culture.” This, to me, is not faithful to how God has set about redeeming our world through Jesus. Additionally, it bears painful reminders of the hyper-fundamentalist trends of the 50s-70s.
Also, do the dominionists realise that if the men are all working 80 hours a week to support their huge family, while their wife is at home with a birth canal like a waterslide looking after and homeschooling so many children, that no evangelising is going on? They’re not really witnessing to anyone? Who’d have talked about Jesus to those of us who aren’t from Christian homes? — Pam
Doesn’t matter. Once they’ve Outbred the Heathen and overwhelm them by sheer numbers for the takeover, it won’t matter. Because the Heathen will cease to exist. (They were never the Predestined Elect, anyway.)
“Come the Revolution, Comrades…”
Perhaps even more deep seated and unrealized is an agenda of wanting a clear example of faith that can demonstrate Godlyness and sepearate-from-the-world-ness. — Jeff S
Like the proper-length beard, dishdasha, and burqa-clad wives walking the prescribed two steps behind their owner?
If we can do outlandish (and more points if they are dangerous) things for the Lord, then we have something to hang our hat on. — Jeff S
Like Jacking a couple airliners and kamikazeing them into the WTC?
Anon1 7:57 Sat. “Another Luther contradiction. I read where Luther said he (paraphrase) “dreamed of a church of true believers next to the state church.
It is like he knew there was a contradiction in having a mandatory state church with mandatory sacraments instead of a free church of believers who were there because they wanted to be.”
I’ve still been thinking of Luther on and off since reading his anti-predestination article Hester posted.
Guess he doesnt qualify to be considered a “reformer”.
At risk of repetitiion, here’s some of Luther’s thoughts on the ideal church compised of earnest Christians.
“Those, however, who are desirous of being Christians in earnest, and are ready to profess the Gospel with hand and mouth, should register their names and assemble by themselves in some house to pray, to read, to baptize and to receive the sacrament and practise other Christian works. In this Order, those whose conduct was not such as befits Christians could be recognized, reproved, reformed, rejected, or excommunicated, according to the rule of Christ in Matt. xviii. Here, too, a general giving of alms could be imposed on Christians, to be willingly given and divided among the poor, after the example of St. Paul in 2 Cor. ix. Here there would not be need of much fine singing. Here we could have baptism and the sacrament in short and simple fashion: and direct everything towards the Word and prayer and love. Here we should have a good short Catechism about the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. In one word, if we only had people who longed to be Christians in earnest, Form and Order would soon shape itself. But I cannot and would not order or arrange such a community or congregation at present. I have not the requisite persons for it, nor do I see many who are urgent for it.”
IE: Luther doubted he could have a true, free church of believers because he doubted he could find enough true, free believers. So he settled for something else.
Kolya: “I also agree that the “High Priest of the home” is Jesus, not the human father. The human father obviously has an important role, but it is not representing his family to God – the latter idea is more Catholic than the Catholics! As Paul’s letter to Timothy says, “there is but one mediator between man and God, Christ Jesus”.
I am TOTALLY buying one of these products to combat the patriocentric belief. http://www.shopwiki.com/l/Christ-is-the-Head-of-this-House
Also, food for thought on the products in question. http://ngureco.hubpages.com/question/39381/do-husbands-feel-challenged-by–jesus-christ-is-the-head-of-this-house
If the mom has some medical condition and doctor decides that having a baby could be dangerous, then the story becomes, “you are not trusting God” and she is not obeying the be fruitful and multiply mandate. The couple does not have enough faith if they decide to obey doctor’s orders for no more babies. The pressure is huge to keep popping out babies. If finances are tough, “you are not trusting God to provide for His blessings”. This stuff is crazy.
It IS crazy. And what I find amazing is how they bifurcate trust in God from wisdom and common sense. What they propose is not trust. It is presumptuous foolishness.
If the mom has some medical condition and doctor decides that having a baby could be dangerous, then the story becomes, “you are not trusting God” and she is not obeying the be fruitful and multiply mandate. The couple does not have enough faith if they decide to obey doctor’s orders for no more babies. The pressure is huge to keep popping out babies. If finances are tough, “you are not trusting God to provide for His blessings”. This stuff is crazy. — Julie Anne
Like I said before, OUTBREED THE HEATHEN.
And if the female breeding stock dies in the process, what of it? She was either Saved as one of the Elect or Damned as Not one of the Elect. (“God’s Will.”) Either way, the man can get some new stock and resume “colonizing, conquering, penetrating”. OUTBREED THE HEATHEN. MAKE MORE GODLY WARRIORS FOR THE JIHAD.
Mr. H,
“Why not train up dedicated Christians to infiltrate Hollywood from the inside out?”
Why use war words like “infiltrate”? I get physically, mentally, emotionally tired with all the allusion to war, conflict, military mission.
Why isn’t it reasonable for people who have an interest and expertise in film-making and who know God to simply pursue their careers & be the best they can be? Certainly they are vehicles of the Holy Spirit wherever and however, and can be a positive influence without a clandestine mission based on us-versus-them.
If the mom has some medical condition and doctor decides that having a baby could be dangerous, then the story becomes, “you are not trusting God” and she is not obeying the be fruitful and multiply mandate. The couple does not have enough faith if they decide to obey doctor’s orders for no more babies. The pressure is huge to keep popping out babies.
Not only did this belief keep my neighbors in poverty with 8 children, it also ended with their mom dying when her youngest was 5 because her body just couldn’t take it anymore.
Why use war words like “infiltrate”? I get physically, mentally, emotionally tired with all the allusion to war, conflict, military mission. — Elastigirl
Ever wished someone had turned these guys on to Warhammer 40,000 instead of Calvin? Then they could WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR away (“WAAAAAAAGH!!!! DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!!!!!”)without forcing the rest of us into their fantasy game as Red Shirts.
Their dominionism is predicated on the idea of completely separating from anything “secular” and establishing their own rival “kingdom/culture.” This, to me, is not faithful to how God has set about redeeming our world through Jesus. — Mr H
And it suggests a way to subvert their little Lebensborn program. Expose their children (i.e. future Warriors for the Jihad) to the GENUINE versions of music, art, etc instead of the second-rate Christianese knockoffs which were the only things they were permitted to have. Once they’ve tasted the genuine thing, they won’t settle for the Christianese imitations. Various pop-culture fandoms are full of ex-Fundagelicals for just that reason.
“It IS crazy. And what I find amazing is how they bifurcate trust in God from wisdom and common sense. What they propose is not trust. It is presumptuous foolishness.” – anonymous
Trusting God is when things go wrong out of your control and you hold faith that He will see you through. Or perhaps, when you make a genuine mistake, repent, and have faith that God will ease the consequences/ help you get out of trouble.
Consistently and deliberately getting yourself into hot water, be it physical health risk or financial strain, and expecting God to bail you out is foolishness like you said and testing the Lord like I said. It. Is. Not. Faith.
It shocks me to the core when patriarchs shrug their shoulders about the risk of a mother dying (and a mother of a dozen kids! What trauma for them!). Truly, they only value women for their wombs and wifely submission. And, as it seems, they only value kids as Christian culture-war cannon fodder.
(P.S: Can anyone tell me how to put quotes in italics? Thanks).
It shocks me to the core when patriarchs shrug their shoulders about the risk of a mother dying (and a mother of a dozen kids! What trauma for them!). Truly, they only value women for their wombs and wifely submission. — Anne
“WE CONQUER THE LANDS OF THE INFIDEL!!!! OUR WOMBS SHALL BE OUR WEAPONS!!!!!” — attr to a Jihadi Euro-Mullah
(P.S: Can anyone tell me how to put quotes in italics? Thanks). — Anne
Most HTML formatting commands have a common format:
To begin the italic, bold, whatever —
* Less-than sign ( )
To end the italic/bold/whatever —
* Less-than sign ( )
No spaces between the characters of the command.
Never mind that — you can’t put the actual characters in (even separated) without the characters triggering the formatting sequence.
To begin italics/boldface:
Less-than sign, command (i for italic, b for bold), Greater-than sign
To end italics/boldface:
Less-than sign, forward slash, command (i for italic, b for bold), Greater-than sign
Bold: [b]words to bold[/b]
italics [i]words to put in italics[/i]
But use the greater and less than signs, shift+comma and shift+period on the keyboard instead of brackets.
Elastigirl, I agree with you, though I sympathise with Mr H’s comment. If people have a calling to or gift for the arts and to make films, then let them do so.
I think one can be too self-conscious about adopting a posture for film-making. One used to see this a lot with Marxist/East European film, or other films with an ideological bent – for each one that was brilliant (Buñuel had a good reputation although I’ve not seen any of his films), there were probably a lot more which were plodders or just doggerel. Everyone acclaims Leni Riefenstahl’s [i]Triumph of the Will[/i] as genius, but I don’t recall the same acclaim being given to other works of Nazi propaganda.
Now, why didn’t my italics work? LOL
Retha, slight correction there: you need to put the letters in the arrow brackets (above , and . on a QWERTY keyboard), not in the square brackets next to the letter P.
Sorry Retha, correction to myself, I see that you in fact indicated that LOL.
Back on post topic #2 (Muscular Women) in Piper’s tribute to his Dad linked by Diane http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/evangelist-bill-piper-fundamentalist-full-of-grace-and-joy
he quotes a Song-of-Songs-like poem written by Dad to “celebrate the body of his wife”.
(to me, just the fact that a son would quote something like this from his father seems a bit creepy, and bordering on Ham-like uncovering)
“Her legs are like pillars of granite, strong and firm”. Strong? Firm?
Apparenty Dad wasn’t into romantic moonlit walks and meaningful conversations, like John is!
I think one can be too self-conscious about adopting a posture for film-making. One used to see this a lot with Marxist/East European film, or other films with an ideological bent – for each one that was brilliant (Buñuel had a good reputation although I’ve not seen any of his films), there were probably a lot more which were plodders or just doggerel.
That’s why Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were such great “Christian storytellers” – they were NOT trying to tell a great Christian story per se, they were just trying to tell great stories, period.
@ Kolya:
What I think is amusing about the “contemporary music is worldly” argument is that it can be equally applied to all music at the time when that music was written. For instance, many Christians now would consider Liszt’s music okay (as it’s “classical”), but Liszt was essentially a rock star and had women publicly swooning over him at his concerts. Description from the Wikipedia article “Lisztomania” (a real term coined in the 1840s):
“Liszt’s playing was reported to raise the mood of the audience to a level of mystical ecstasy. Admirers of Liszt would swarm over him, fighting over his handkerchiefs and gloves. Fans would wear his portrait on brooches and cameos. Women would try to get locks of his hair, and whenever he broke a piano string, admirers would try to obtain it in order to make a bracelet. Some female admirers would even carry glass phials into which they poured his coffee dregs. According to one report, ‘Liszt once threw away an old cigar stump in the street under the watchful eyes of an infatuated lady-in-waiting, who reverently picked the offensive weed out of the gutter, had it encased in a locket and surrounded with the monogram “F. L.” in diamonds, and went about her courtly duties unaware of the sickly odor it gave forth.'”
Now granted, some of the behavior described above is pretty psycho, but dial it back to normal and you have, essentially, modern fangirl behavior. If anti-CCM Christians saw their daughters doing this over Justin Bieber, they would say that Bieber’s music was “worldly” and that it was luring their daughters into idolatry and other ungodly behavior. But Liszt and his music, even though they provoked the exact same reactions in women in the 1840s, are somehow still acceptable.
So yes, strange as it may sound, in this case I agree with Doug Wilson – we cannot call things good simply because they are old, which is essentially Masters’ argument here.
(BTW, that paragraph from Wikipedia is heavily footnoted, folks. People really did go crazy over Franz Liszt.)
Leila
Your comment at 2:05 is stunningly accurate. I am afraid that these pastors are so stupid that they do not know the limits of their medical knowledge.Women with mulitple pregnancies, ala the Duggar model, can experience uterine tearing, etc which is life threatening. And people listen to their pastor, believing that God has given him judgment in this area.
DaveAA
Major creepy.i am concerned that something is a bit off with him.
HUG
I dedicate the you tube video on today’s post to you and Eagle. I bet anything you both know of this episode.
Dee– If my son found something like that after I passed on, I’d trust him to quietly dispose of it, not shout it from the housetops! There’s a one line in Piper Sr’s poem which ol’ puritanical Dave would be embarrased even to copy here!
DaveAA
You know, I have half a mind to send these statements to Dr Keith Ablow who does the Normal or Nuts segment on Fox and Friends. The problem is that I do not think they could read this stuff on the air.
DaveAA
PS I watch Dr Ablow to keep a pulse on myself. I sometimes wonder….
Dee, I believe excessive reproduction (to coin a neutral, scientific phrase) in many creature (or at least one belonging to the Kingdom Animalae) can cause problems. This may not be a problem for, say, frogs and toads which usually breed once a year and then forget about sex for the next x months, but think of the outcry that there has been in recent years over, say, puppy mills.
If people feel that way about canine breeding, surely we ought to be even more careful about a woman’s welfare in this area. Or have I got the argument completely back to front?
Hester, thanks for your timely observation on Liszt. In a (rather scurrilous book) on Led Zeppelin, the writer noted a similar vein of extravagant praise and also rumour followed the violinist Paganini. I wasn’t sure that this was true, but Wikipedia certainly claims that he did have many lovers, contracted syphilis and was supposed to be in association with the devil. Probably none of us would condone that sort of lifestyle, but as you and Wilson say, it does refute this “if it’s old it’s okay” argument, or the idea that modern musicians are somehow one more harbinger of the imminent tribulation.
Oedipus complex?
Election: Freedom to offer; freedom to choose?
Hello,
Election appears to be a question concerning the freedom to offer (God) and the freedom to choose (Man). God does not of necessity need to offer Salvation, and Man for what ever reason (rebellion, perceived freedom of choice, etc. need not accept (receive) the offer.
The Calvinist (as I understand the question) do not believe man has a choice in his salvation. If God offers, Man as a matter of course accepts, as he can not do otherwise (irresistible grace). If God does not make the individual offer, that person is, well, -doomed.
However, Man is not a robot. Man is an image made being, from God’s image pressing mold. Man was created for sonship not “sentient” slavery.
Expanded: [Words related to “sentient” : Synonyms: alive, apprehensive, aware, cognizant, mindful, sensible, conscious, ware, witting. Antonyms: insensible, oblivious, unaware, unconscious, unmindful, unwitting.]
IMHO sons are birthed, not made; else God would have simply started over when Man’s “failure to comply” first presented itself in the Garden. God did not. Man was allowed to continue (in God’s forbearance, and mercy) until a remanent could be saved (Noah and his family, later Abram and his descendants, later those other called out ones, Christ bride, God’s Holy Spirit birth’d sons. In each of these cases God’s call was heeded, his invitation accepted. Scripture then measures the results.
“In My Father’s house there are many rooms. I go to prepare are a place for you”, our Saviour declares. This speaks of the wondrous work of mercy and grace. What a wonderful God we serve! We certainly do not lose sight of this idea of “room” in the gospel. In fact, it is emphatically pointed out to us in John 6:37: “All that which the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out.”( See also John 6:44.) “everyone that has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes to me” (John 6:45).
The concept of “Election” is a deep one.
However, God in his infinite mercy and grace has indeed made his offer of Salvation and Eternal Life through his Son, what say ye?
That invitation still stands.
Let us all be filled with the grace that brings salvation (Titus 2:11) through Him who gave Himself to set us free. (Titus 2:14).
Decision, acceptance, rejection of the offer, your choice?
You decide. (See the Bible for details)
IronClad
Martin –
No, your words were more encouraging than scary! Thanks so much for your advice. It’s actually more reassuring to hear of the reality of PhD studies than to think it’ll all be smooth sailing and then be shocked when it isn’t 😉
I’m just starting out so will have to pace myself and, like you say, keep it all in healthy perspective. Since you asked…I’m at Cambridge.
Good luck with the final writing up! I’m sure it’ll all be worth it when you can add ‘Dr’ to your name!
Elastigirl –
You have a way of getting to the heart of a matter. Thanks for your insightful words.
My experience at that church was productive but very painful. It’s made me even more attuned to others’ suffering, and at the same time has left me as a kind of spiritual nomad and deeply cynical about most expressions of church and cultural Christianity.
Ironclad
Thank you for your thoughtful explanation of election.
@ Leila,
Speaking of upcoming films, I look forward to Aronofsky’s (Black Swan fame) Biblical epic “Noah”. Talk has it that Russell Crowe will play Noah and Anthony Hopkins will play Methuselah.
If Aronofsky is as smart as I think he is, he’ll find ways to rankle both conservative & progressive evangelicals. The conservatives dismayed over no “salvation” message according to current orthodoxy, and the progressive Christian academics at odds with the idea of a cataclysmic global flood.
Muff
i knew about Crowe but did not know about Hopkins. He will make a stunning Methusaleh.
Folks – apologies in advance for a long and multi-pronged post, but I’ve been away for the last week and have some steam to let off…
Hester – you could have pushed your comment above re “contemporary music is worldly” and “old is good” at least half a step further, of course. Because back in the middle ages, the very idea of any instrumental music at all in a church meeting was considered sinful and even blasphemous. Pipe organs were worldly, after all. There are still those who believe that Gregorian plainsong is the best vehicle for expressing true christian spirituality. (Although the authors I read recently on the subject stated exactly that, they did not denounce other forms of music as worldly or sinful, let me add. They’re as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine.) There’s a very widespread tendency to idolise whatever was around when we first became Christians, and this contributes to the tragic confusion between “spreading the gospel” and spreading last century’s christian “culture”. That culture, moreover, is often very weak and insipid because it’s based so much in ideology and so little in rich, real-life experience. Some things can’t physically be seen because they’re spiritual; but other things can’t physically be seen because they’re just not there.
Dave AA – your comment above on Luther’s ideas about a real church touches on a fascinating subject. One of the problems he faced was the embedded practice of indiscriminate (indeed, practically universal) infant baptism whereby everybody was officially a member of the church. The reformers never addressed this problem, and in fact second-generation “reformers” violently persecuted the so-called Anabaptists for doing so. Another case of defending tradition against the Holy Spirit?
And finally (bear with me, I’m nearly there), a number of comments on the idea of banning birth control and thereby condemning women to “pop till they drop” (a phrase I borrowed from the Simpsons, but that may not be original thereto). One of the major contributors to over-population and consequent suffering of the world’s poor is the stubborn opposition of professing believers to birth control. It is a terrible thing when, in the name of the good news of the Kingdom, we hurt people to uphold our rules as though the King had never lived.
(Thanks for reading – I feel better now – ed)
Nick
Welcome back. i love the “pop til you drop” !
Hmm… I seem to be awaiting moderation – evidently I’ve been away too long.
Oops – sorry, dee, just read your 4:57 comment. Just goes to show that when you go downstairs for pancakes you should refresh your screen… btw, are you actually up and running at 5 in the morning, or is that not your timezone?!?
Dee – I wish I could get on the homeschool speaker circuit and that would be my title: I Popped, I Dropped, and I’m Done
Little would they know, they’d be hearing about full quiver, patriarchy, courtship, purity rings, and other homeschool movement nonsense that has produced a whole lot of hurt people.
BTW, I just got a Vision Forum magazine in my mailbox (don’t ask). I was going to throw it out, but have different intentions now.
Nick
It is 5 PM in the evening. It is the end of a fine North Carolina day and the colors in the mountains were fabulous! What kind of panckes?
Nick
It is an automated system and it needs to be refreshed every once in a while. Just so you know, if we do not accept a comment or we delete a comment, we leave a message to that effect in the comment section. It is rare but Jimmy is experienced in this matter. It is rare we delete comments. iI think we have one of the most liberal comment policies of any Christian blog out there but I could be wrong.
I would tend to agree with Nick re the birth control thing. I remember a very committed evangelical minister (Reform) saying to me once that we had actually fulfilled God’s command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. I hope I am not stretching the point here, but it seems that God has higher priorities than the mere reproduction of the human race, otherwise he would not have subsequently wiped out most of Noah’s generation for filling the earth with violence.
I have to tread a fine line here because I am so interested in animals that I am aware of the impact of the human species on all others. The danger for someone like me is of putting animals’ needs above humans’. Some people may have the opposite temptation.
It seems however that as societies become more affluent and settled, their birth rate tails off to a point where the society is merely sustained or even starts to shrink somewhat in numbers. An article in the Economist magazine a few months ago suggested that this might be as early as 2050. There are certainly new challenges to be met as a result of this, but I don’t think abandoning birth control is one of the answers.
Scripture doesn’t say how many children a couple must have to qualify as having been “fruitful.” Hasn’t one “multiplied” after giving birth to one? And there are some who cannot conceive; are they disobedient? I think not.
Kolya – I’m pretty much in the same spot re. giving high priority to other forms of life, animal and bird alike.
It makes me sick to see the indiscriminate destruction of wildlife habitat… and *then* (even worse) people get angry when the animals and birds they’ve displaced come in and eat their gardens. Saw a lot of public outcry over this when prime woodlands in VA (right outside of D.C.) were destroyed by real estate developers – and new residents got very nasty about the deer.
Hi Numo,
I understand that people need homes to live in. I’m also not an expert on building, construction and housing, so I can’t comment too much. However it seems to me that some developments address more people’s wants than needs – after all how many beachside condos can you have, and can people afford? Plus the danger of building in some areas is, as you point out, that displaced fauna doesn’t automatically go away – a particular problem in Florida with the alligators.
Here in the UK there is a housing shortage in the south-east, which comes down to being a small island with 60 million people. The lesson to me seems fairly straightforward: don’t put too many people in one place, have moderate sized families and work longer rather than having more kids to support the economy and pension.
BTW, do you know why raccoons have now become an urban pest in the US? We have a similar problem with foxes which in the last 25 years seem to have decamped from the countryside to the towns – in this case I’m not sure it was developers driving them out.
skunks are also an urban/suburban problem in the U.S. Small predators like the suburban environment if they can navigate over, around or under fences. Garbage cans proliferate, small animals are there, and large predators, other than diurnal humans, are not. So nocturnal small predators find a great place to live. Also humans like gardens, trees, parklands, all contributing to a nice habitat for small animals.
We have had 3 or 4 litters of kittens within 100 yards of our house in the last 3 months. A fox would find those great prey. We have relatively fewer birds and squirrels than before, probably due to the momma cats need to eat to nourish their offspring. And no one in the immediate area is feeding. We are trying to get the trap, neuter, release team to pay attention here. It is the best means of control for cats, feral dogs, raccoons, foxes, and other small predators. Occupies some of the food opportunities without reproduction, so the population maintenance and growth depend on in-migration.
Dee – sorry, late with this one. And I just spotted the letters “pm” in the time… I think it was the leading zero that threw me! Duh.
Anyway, back to the important stuff: Pancakes. As a wee family tradition, we have scotch pancakes (plain flour, eggs, milk, sugar and almond essence to taste) at weekends. They can aid slimming only as part of a calorie-controlled diet [burp]. Autumn colours aren’t too bad over here in Scotland too!
Scotch pancakes… I’d love to have the recipe. Have you seen the section of our blog called “When you get mad, cook”? I should add my made from scratch pancake recipe to that section. They are really yummy!
Nick
Scotland is on my short list for a visit. After my next trip, a train tour through Switzerland and a tour of Ireland and Scotland are the next two on the list . So, when’s the best season to visit your fair country?