John Piper and Burger King: He Says Good-Bye But Jesus Says Hello

“For every goodbye, God also provides a hello” ―Donna Gable Hatch link

hintergrund-583

link

Today, we are responding to this tweet by John Piper.

Screen Shot 2014-07-09 at 1.19.04 PM

The purpose of this post is not to rehash the whole gay issue. I want to challenge the presumption behind Piper's ill advised tweet. Here are the four areas I want to discuss.

1. Jesus and the Roman Empire
2. Christians in the United States
3. How many farewells is enough
4. Theology trumps acknowledging abuse.

Background:

Here is the video that Piper is addressing.

Make no mistake, this is an ad to increase sales so "virtue" is a bit of an afterthought.

The Wall Street Journal wrote about this campaign:  LGBT Equality: Burger King Unveils the Rainbow-Wrapped Whopper.

The film and limited-time offer are part of Burger King’s efforts to evolve its long-time “Have it your way” tagline to what it sees as the more modern “Be your way,” said Fernando Machado, Burger King’s senior vice president of global brand management

Creating an inclusive image is a tactic other retailers have used as a way to boost sales among a population of Americans that has almost twice the disposable income as the population overall.

Let's get this out of the way. A burger as a symbol for LGBT equality is a bit weak but, hey, this is Americana at its best.

Christ and Pop Culture aptly pointed out the flaws in this rather cheesy stand for LGBT rights in Citizenship Confusion: The Fast-Food Culture Wars are BACK!

For Burger King’s part, that YouTube video uses customer reactions to imply that they’re taking a real and meaningful stand for LGBT rights by wrapping their strictly meh burger in a rainbow wrapper with the words, “We Are All the Same Inside.” So, sex, gender, and orientation are just like cheap, fattening, mediocre burgers? Setting aside the problematic division of outside/inside as an analogy to orientation and gender/humanity, doesn’t this promotion trivialize advocacy for LGBT rights? Isn’t it kind of condescending? And the jokes about wanting “meat” and going “both ways,” how did they make it past the marketing department? Middle school jokes about gays hardly seem supportive, but if that’s the style they were going for, they at least could have changed their name to “Burger Queen” for the commercial.

Back to the issue at hand.

John Piper/USA vs Jesus/Roman Empire

John Piper has become known for his "Farewell" tweets. He is also considered by a few as the mouthpiece for accurate NeoCalvinist theology so one would presume he is aware of life in the early Roman Empire. Wikipedia does a decent job in discussing, succinctly, some of the sexual "goings on" of that day in Sexuality in ancient Rome.

Some sexual attitudes and behaviors in ancient Roman culture differ markedly from those in later Western societies.[13] Roman religion promoted sexuality as an aspect of prosperity for the state, and individuals might turn to private religious practice or "magic" for improving their erotic lives or reproductive health. Prostitution was legal, public, and widespread. "Pornographic" paintings were featured among the art collections in respectable upperclass households.[14] 

It was considered natural and unremarkable for men to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes, and pederasty was condoned as long as the younger male partner was not a freeborn Roman. "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" did not form the primary dichotomy of Roman thinking about sexuality, and no Latin words for these concepts exist.[15] No moral censure was directed at the man who enjoyed sex acts with either women or males of inferior status, as long as his behaviors revealed no weaknesses or excesses, nor infringed on the rights and prerogatives of his masculine peers.

While perceived effeminacy was denounced, especially in political rhetoric, sex in moderation with male prostitutes or slaves was not regarded as improper or vitiating to masculinity, if the male citizen took the active and not the receptive role. Hypersexuality, however, was condemned morally and medically in both men and women.

Women were held to a stricter moral code,[16] and same-sex relations between women are poorly documented, but the sexuality of women is variously celebrated or reviled throughout Latin literature. In general the Romans had more flexible gender categories than the ancient Greeks.[17]

In summation, pedophilia, pornography, homosexuality, along with flexible gender roles were common. Unfortunately, those on the lowest rungs of society were the victims of lawful sexual abuse by Roman citizens. Slavery was rampant.

Obviously, this is totally against the worldview as proposed by Piper so I guess we should see Jesus actively condemning the Romans. I would imagine that He arranged for boycotts against businesses that supplied food for the temple prostitutes and Roman orgies. Looking……….

In fact, Jesus stayed out of the political arena, preferring to talk to mostly Jewish people and their religious leaders about a new Way which He was instituting. He was more concerned about what was going on inside the church than He was about the surrounding culture. Many American Christians seem to be more concerned with what is going on outside the church. Perhaps it is easier to point at the sins of the world instead of have to deal with our own very evident sins.

Maybe John Piper should look to the example of Jesus and the disciples before he starts his next farewell tweet.

Time for Piper to get on the stick.  So many companies, so little time. 

Sometimes people boycott only those things that they can do without. In other words, most people could live without a Whopper. But, what if it meant take giving up their cable TV and grocery store? Now we are getting too close for comfort.

Do we carefully avoid being informed that many, many companies that support LGBT equality and even provide benefits? If Piper wants people to boycott Burger King, shouldn't he also be talking about the following? I say be consistent or cut out the nonsense.

CNN writes Record number of US firms offer same-sex benefits.

Heading into 2014, a record 304 U.S. companies boast perfect "corporate equality" scores of 100 from the Human Rights Campaign, according to the LGBT advocacy group's new report examining more than 900 businesses on 40 different policies and practices. That's up from 252 perfect scores last year and 189 two years ago.

A perfect "corporate equality" score means a company has a non-discrimination policy in place protecting LGBT employees, provides same-sex partner health benefits, offers transgender-inclusive medical insurance, publicly supports LGBT equality and has organization-wide LGBT initiatives.

Industries boasting the highest percentage of companies with perfect scores include law,banking and financial services, and retail and consumer products. Companies new to the 100% club include Nissan (NSANF), General Electric (GE) and Procter & Gamble (PG). Other companies among the most improved this year (though they haven't achieved perfect scores yet) include Wal-Mart (WMT), which saw its score jump from a 60 to 80 after it introduced same-sex benefits for employees, and Cracker Barrel (CBRL), which rose 10 points to a score of 45 after it launched a LGBT employee network and implemented a non-discrimination policy for LGBT employees.

A record 90% of all companies in the HRC report and 67% of Fortune 500 companies offer health benefits for same-sex couples. Meanwhile, 46% of all companies and 28% of Fortune 500 companies offer transgender-inclusive health care, with an all-time high of 340 companies now covering transitional medical procedures for transgender employees — up from only 49 companies in 2009.

I decided to visit the Human Rights Campaign website to see which companies they believe are doing the most for LGBT equality. I have included a partial list of companies who get the highest rating from the Human Rights Campaign. There are many more and you can find out if your favorite company is on the list at this page. This is merely a partial list. Maybe someone can make sure that Piper has the list so he can start farewell tweeting. It is going to take him awhile.


Here is a sample of companies link that provide these benefits.

Aerospace

Boeing Co. | Chicago, IL
Lockheed Martin Corp. | Bethesda, MD
Raytheon Co. | Waltham, MA

Airlines

AMR Corp. (American Airlines) | Fort Worth, TX
United Continental Holdings Inc. | Chicago, IL

Automobiles

Chrysler Group LLC | Auburn Hills, MI
Ford Motor Co. | Dearborn, MI
General Motors Co. | Detroit, MI
Nissan North America Inc. | Franklin, TN
Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. | Torrance, CA
Volkswagen Group of America Inc. | Herndon, VA

Financial/Credit Cards

American Express Co. | New York, NY
Bank of America Corp. | Charlotte, NC
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. | New York, NY
Barclays | New York, NY
MasterCard Inc. | Purchase, NY
Moody's Corp. | New York, NY
Morgan Stanley | New York, NY

Chemicals

Dow Chemical Co. | Midland, MI
E I. duPont de Nemours and Co. (Dupont) | Wilmington, DE
Monsanto Co. | St. Louis, MO

Computer

Apple Inc. | Cupertino, CA
Dell Inc. | Round Rock, TX
Lexmark International Inc. | Lexington, KY
Xerox Corp. | Norwalk, CT
Microsoft Corp. | Redmond, WA

Consulting and Business Services 

Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. | McLean, VA
Deloitte LLP | New York, NY
Ernst & Young LLP | New York, NY
International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) | Armonk, NY
Nielsen Co., The | New York, NY
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP | New York, NY
Thompson Reuters | New York, NY

Energy and Utilities

Portland General Electric Co. | Portland OR
Sempra Energy | San Diego, CA
Southern California Edison Co. | Rosemead, CA

Entertainment and Electronic Media 

AMC Entertainment Inc. | Kansas City, MO
Sirius XM Radio Inc. | New York, NY
Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. | Culver City, CA
Time Warner Inc. | New York, NY
Viacom Inc. | New York, NY
Walt Disney Co. | Burbank, CA

Food, Beverages and Groceries 

Campbell Soup Co. | Camden, NJ
Coca-Cola Co. | Atlanta, GA
E&J Gallo Winery | Modesto, CA
General Mills Inc. | Minneapolis, MN
Kellogg Co. | Battle Creek, MI
Kraft Foods Inc. | Northfield, IL
Land O'Lakes Inc. | Arden Hills, MN
Miller/Coors LLC | Chicago, IL
PepsiCo Inc. | Purchase, NY
Safeway Inc. | Pleasanton, CA

Healthcare 

Aetna Inc. | Hartford, CT
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota | Eagan, MN
Humana Inc. | Louisville, KY
Kaiser Permanente | Oakland, CA
United Health Group Inc. | Minnetonka, MN

High-Tech/Photo/Science Equip. 

Cisco Systems Inc. | San Jose, CA
Eastman Kodak Co. | Rochester, NY
Medtronic Inc. | Minneapolis, MN
Nokia Corp. | Irving, TX

Hotels, Resorts and Casinos 

Caesars Entertainment Corp. | Las Vegas, NV
Choice Hotels International Inc. | Silver Spring, MD
Hilton Worldwide Inc. | McLean, VA
Hyatt Hotels Corp. | Chicago, IL
Marriot International Inc. | Bethesda, MD
MGM Resorts International | Las Vegas, NV
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide | Stamford, CT
Wyndham Worldwide Corp. | Parsippany, NJ

Insurance 

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company | New York, NY
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida Inc. | Jacksonville, FL
CIGNA Corp. | Bloomfield, CT
MetLife Inc. | New York, NY
Nationwide | Columbus, OH
Progressive Corp., The | Mayfield  Village, OH
Prudential Financial Inc. | Newark, NJ
Sun Life Financial Inc. (U.S.) | Wellesley Hills, MA
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities Fund | New York, NY

Internet

eBay Inc. | San Jose, CA 
Groupon Inc. | Chicago Il.  

Internet Services and Retailing 

Google Inc. | Mountain View, CA
Yahoo! Inc. | Sunnyvale, CA

Manufacturing 

Corning Inc. | Corning, NY
General Electric Co. | Fairfield, CT
Herman Miller Inc. | Zeeland, MI
Rockwell Automation Inc. | Milwaukee, WI
United Technologies Corp. | Hartford, CT
Whirlpool Corp. | Benton Harbor, MI

Mining and Metals 

Alcoa Inc. | New York, NY

Miscellaneous 

Sony Electronics Inc. | San Diego, CA

Oil and Gas 

Chevron Corp. | San Ramon, CA

Pharmaceuticals 

Biogen Idec Inc. | Weston, MA
Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp. | Ridgefield, CT
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. | New York, NY
Eli Lilly & Co. | Indianapolis, IN
GlaxoSmithKline LLC | Research Triangle Park, NC
Johnson & Johnson | New Brunswick, NJ
Merck & Co. Inc. | Whitehouse Station, NJ
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. | East Hanover, NJ
Pfizer Inc. | New York, NY

Retail and Consumer Products 

3M Co. | St. Paul, MN
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. | New Albany, OH
American Eagle Outfitters Inc. | Pittsburgh, PA
Avon Products Inc. | New York, NY
Barnes & Noble Inc. | New York, NY
Best Buy Co. Inc. | Richfield, MN
Clorox Co. | Oakland, CA
GameStop Corp. | Grapevine, TX
Gap Inc. | San Francisco, CA
Limited Brands Inc. | Columbus, OH
Nordstrom Inc. | Seattle, WA
Office Depot Inc. | Boca Raton, FL
Procter & Gamble Co. | Cincinnati, OH
Replacements, Ltd. | McLeansville, NC
Sears Holdings Corp. | Hoffman Estates, IL
Staples Inc. | Framingham, MA
Target Corp. | Minneapolis, MN
Unilever | Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Walgreen Co. | Deerfield, IL

Telecommunications 

AT&T Inc. | Dallas, TX
Comcast Corp. | Philadelphia, PA
Sprint Nextel Corp. | Overland Park, KS
Time Warner Cable Inc. | New York, NY
T-Mobile USA Inc. | Bellevue, WA
Verizon Communications Inc. | New York, NY

Transportation and Travel 

Orbitz Worldwide Inc. | Chicago, IL

It would seem to me that if we were to do as Piper models, we should a gospel™ toodle loo to far more companies.. Or do we get to pick and choose? That brings me to my next point.


John Piper weeps over the BK video but glad hands his buddies: CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll.

In 2013, John Piper preached at Mahaney's Louisville based SGM church as reported by ABP.

Alluding to Mahaney, who was off-camera and moments earlier introduced the morning’s preacher, Piper quipped: “He’s a pretty persuasive guy, but I really, really wanted to be here, and therefore the opportunity arose and I snatched it, and I’m thankful for it.”

Piper said he is excited about Mahaney’s church plant and supports Sovereign Grace and “what God is doing in it across the country and around the world.” But he said his “most emotionally significant” reason to be there was his personal bond with Mahaney.

“He is my friend,” Piper said. “He has meant a lot to me over the years, both at the encouragement level of preaching and professional life — though nobody in ministry is a professional — but even more at the personal, family level of caring.”

“So it’s real easy for me to stand here and be with you,” Piper said. “It’s what I want to do.”

Piper made no direct mention of a lawsuit

In Piper's world, he weeps over a child raised by two mommies but doesn't waste a sniffle for those families and children who filed a lawsuit alleging serious child sex abuse cover up against SGM and CJ Mahaney. So what's the deal? 

Also, he loooooves Mark Driscoll's theology. The Mark Driscoll who has happily throws people "under the bus."

Jesus loved the outcasts and didn't boycott squat.

Tim Fall had this to say about Piper's tweet

You see, Mr. Piper’s tweet sends a message of goodbye not to Burger King but to the people in the video: Goodbye all you people who like the rainbow wrappers, goodbye.

This is not at all of Jesus. He did not tell people on the margins of society, “I don’t like your lifestyle choices. As far as I’m concerned, you are a bunch of people unworthy of my attention.”

No, Jesus preached a different message than the sermon contained in Mr. Piper’s tweet. In his very first synagogue sermon recorded for us, Jesus read from the Prophet Isaiah and then explained its meaning:\

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:18-21.)

Jesus spent a lot of time with people others rejected. He loved them, knowing that there was no way these people could ever act in a way that would please God but that he, God incarnate, could do that for them. He’s done that for me too.

Let's pray inside of Burger King and love the people who go there.

At Holy Heteroclite,  Dave directs us to a post written in 2000 called  Praying at Burger King by Richard Mouw. Here is my take. Mouw gets it far better than Piper. 

There is no place in all of creation that is outside the scope of God's mercies–not even Burger King. Cheeseburgers and french fries are, properly understood, gifts from the Lord. The children running past my booth are fashioned in the image of their Creator. Fast food restaurants are a part of a larger world in which many people are starving. I find it good for my soul to acknowledge these facts.

And in making my quiet gesture, I might even be able offer a reminder to the people around me that there is more going on in restaurants than meets the secularist eye.

It appears that Piper wants us to "kiss off" those companies and people who do not toe his exacting line. The problem is that he defines when and where the line should be drawn. He limits this "kiss off" to those outside of his group and and his particular list of sins. From what I can find, Piper has never tweeted "Farewell" to molesters, wife abusers, and those in the pulpit who are abusive and vulgar, etc. This latest tweet demonstrates to me that Piper is just another throwback Pharisee who back slaps his theological comrades while ignoring their sins. 

I think The Beatles express my feeling exactly.

Lydia's Corner: Hosea 4:1-5:15 2 John 1:1-13 Psalm 125:1-5 Proverbs 29:9-11

Comments

John Piper and Burger King: He Says Good-Bye But Jesus Says Hello — 351 Comments

  1. And thank you–I can’t for the LIFE of me understand why Christians think its any of their business what non-Christians do!! Period!! Piper won’t stand against child abuse or spousal abuse done bu CHRISTIANS, so he has no business whatsoever telling any unbeliever what to do.

  2. So, what happens between a member of pair of consenting adults and their employer or service provider is anathema if they share a gender, but those who protect those who abuse children or who engage in abusive church discipline practices are to be treated as saints?

    Piper is a source of anathema whenever he speaks.

  3. I know I am the new guy, so I don’t want to create a mess.

    However, I remember reading that Jesus did make some comment about dusting one’s shoes off if the house or town would not listen to the message.

    Look, I don’t need to defend Piper. Lord knows I won’t, but to argue that Jesus NEVER said goodbye, how about speaking in parables so the Jews wouldn’t understand Him?, I think is reading into the scripture something that doesn’t exist.

    Now, if we want to look at who Jesus did and didn’t say goodbye to and in what kind of sense He said, sure, I think that is fair. And sure, Jesus never used the English word Goodbye, but I think there were times when a goodbye was understood.

    Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

  4. Leave it to John Piper to take a stand on an issue the importance of which cannot be understated.

  5. OCDan wrote:

    Now, if we want to look at who Jesus did and didn’t say goodbye to and in what kind of sense He said, sure, I think that is fair. And sure, Jesus never used the English word Goodbye, but I think there were times when a goodbye was understood.

    Please give me some examples. Secondly, why would you say “Raca” when you haven’t spoken to them?

  6. @ OCDan:

    I think you’re missing the point.

    First: Jesus’ critique of the 1st century Jewish religious establishment would, if compared to a modern context, be akin to Mr. Piper saying “goodbye” to fellow Christians who are in grievous sin. Dee’s point was that Jesus didn’t waste his time with people or institutions outside his community of faith.

    Second: from a theological standpoint, Jesus won’t say “goodbye” to anyone until his Second Coming, at which point he will render a final judgement on all those who first said “goodbye” to him. So, no, during Jesus’ earthly ministry, he didn’t “say goodbye” to anyone. He critiqued and he warned, but he didn’t render any specific final judgements.

  7. dee wrote:

    OCDan wrote:
    Now, if we want to look at who Jesus did and didn’t say goodbye to and in what kind of sense He said, sure, I think that is fair. And sure, Jesus never used the English word Goodbye, but I think there were times when a goodbye was understood.
    Please give me some examples. Secondly, why would you say “Raca” when you haven’t spoken to them?

    Judging entire groups of people and walking away from them without ever engaging with them (Piper) is quite different than engaging with people, where they live, about Jesus, being rejected, and leaving the town (Jesus and disciples). These are two entirely different scenarios. Leaving the town didn’t mean that Jesus or the disciples spewed hatred toward them or never interacted with them again either.

  8. Piper’s attitude is so different than Wade Burleson’s toward homosexual. When a group was threatening to picket his church, here’s what he told them:

    I explained that they were welcome to picket our church, and that if their members were driving a long distance to come, we would provide a meal for them after church. In addition, if SoulForce intended to picket after the evening service and wished to remain overnight, I was positive we could provide for them some accomodations.

    He reflected God’s grace to those who needed Jesus. You can read the whole post here: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2011/06/militant-homosexuals-loving-them-to.html

  9. Not in defense of Piper as a whole, but to speak towards the early Churches response to sin. As mentioned, the first few centuries of Christianity the world around them was highly sexually immoral. One of the great challenges for early Christians was it wasn’t just what their neighbor chose to do in their private lives, but idol worship and sexual sin related to idol worship were tightly interwoven in peoples professional lives.

    Many guilds had patron deities and ceremonies that could often involve sexual immorality to participate in. A new Christian wasn’t just claiming to be a Christian at home, but was now in the unenviable position of professionally suffering because they had to say “goodbye” to participating with these organizations. Historically we know many of the criticisms of Christians were related to the Christian refusal to participate and condone these activities. By doing so they were considered enemies of the state, rabble rousers, attacking social order, etc. Some of the slurs against Christians were that they were “atheists” because they refused to acknowledge idols as gods.

    When we look at our culture today, it is not completely off base to say, “Hey I want to dialogue and be graceful to show them Christ!” The difficulty is at what point do we say, “goodbye” to organizations when they begin to stand in direct defiance of God? Perhaps actually tweeting “goodbye” is not very helpful or articulate, but the point is the same. The earliest Christians refused to go along with the sin in the world around them, and were ostracized for that choice.

  10. At one time I had a hard time with people being gay. I no longer do.
    It took me a long time, but I had a former student who came out after doing everything they could to be “straight.” Counseling, hormone treatment a doctor recommended, prayer…. He’s gay. And he told me he’d do anything not to be.
    I am now of the conclusion that being gay is not a choice, but genetic.
    Unless you have had long, long talks, and I mean several days worth, you won’t understand.
    Their life is between them and God.
    If a company wants to give them and their life-partner benefits, why should we as Christians protest? How does this hurt or hinder you? The fact that you believe it’s a sin? The fact that gays make you uncomfortable?
    Come on…

  11. YTo be fair, I do know one couple that won’t buy anything from Amazon, I believe because of something to do with either benefits directly, or at least $$$ flowing to LGBT causes. And if they want to do that, fine. But are they still buying from any of these other companies? Here’s just a sampling of consistency problems faced by boycotters:

    -For obvious reasons, it’s pretty hard to avoid Proctor and Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, etc. Toothpaste, shampoo, etc.
    -Being a PC user won’t save you because Microsoft and Dell are on the list. (Sorry PC fans, Mac users aren’t the only latte-sipping pomo progressives anymore! 😉 )
    -Can Christians have bank accounts, 401(k)s, credit cards, or carry insurance? Most of the big names providing these services (Morgan Stanley, MasterCard, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc.) are on the list.
    -All the major pharmaceutical manufacturers are on the list, so can Christians take drugs made by these companies? What if their child requires a drug made by one of these companies to survive?
    -What would Piper say to someone who works at one of those companies? Just using that list, I know Christians who work at Monsanto, Staples, GameStop and Pfizer. Should they quit their jobs?

    Whenever I hear of someone boycotting based on XYZ, I always remember that Jesus told people directly to pay their taxes to Caesar. Thing is, those taxes were flowing directly to state-sponsored pagan temples, which included not just sacrifices to the Roman gods, but also things like temple prostitution. Granted, taxes are taxes and purchases are purchases, and the government cannot force you to buy from Burger King like they can force you to pay your taxes. But clearly, if $$$ flowing to support pagan beliefs/behavior was automatically a problem in all circumstances, Jesus could never have told people to keep paying their taxes to Caesar.

    Basically, if you want to boycott something, go right ahead. But be consistent; don’t act as if I’m obligated Biblically to do the same; and provide a cogent explanation for why you’re allowed to buy from one company but not another. In other words, don’t boycott Disney, Burger King, etc. for supporting LGBT rights, but then keep on buying baby shampoo from Johnson & Johnson (which does the exact same thing) and act as if you’re somehow holier than the next guy. (And if the only explanation for inconsistency is “I didn’t know that company did that” – fair enough, but now you do, because I just told you. Now are you going to act on the information?)

    As for “We’re All the Same Inside,” I left a comment on Tim’s Blog about it but I’ll repeat the gist of it here. I find it amusing that Piper had a problem with it because if we’re all created “from one blood” (source: Paul preaching at the Areopagus) and all in the image of God, doesn’t that mean we are “all the same inside”? Because if we’re not, we can go down some really nasty roads, like calling women the derivative image of God or claiming that Christians are some kind of superior race because of election.

  12. Another historically extremely possible situation:

    It is the 2nd century A.D., and the church in a given community is very small. There is only one blacksmith in town and he is a pagan. What do the neighborhood Christians do when they require his services (which they absolutely will at some point)?

  13. Wait, the last 5 seconds, with the adorable little girl saying “I love my two mommies!” is the portion of this that makes him weep? This dude always creeps me out. As an outsider though I would say this seems like he’s just giving up. I mean seriously, picking on a little girl and a fast food company? That’s where the battle is for this super serious and spiritual tic you’ve got about homosexuals: a family and fast food. That’s not even trying seriously, that’s just taking an easy way out to keep the troops riled up.

  14. To me, Piper is right on. Yes, many companies do support the gay agenda and support same-sex unions and marriage. It will get so much worse until Christ returns. This cannot be compared to a political issue. It is moral, and Burger Kings shameless ad is abominable to a regenerate believer. I can do without a whopper but I hope Krystal does not follow suit!:)

  15. I read the part about sexuality in the Roman empire and noticed these words

    “It was considered natural and unremarkable for men to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes,”

    I would suggest that we have a modern day version of this based off the scandals that keep coming out of this. Its called the Southern Baptist Convention nad Sovereigm Grace Ministries! 😛

  16. Thanks for the shout out, Dee. One thing I noted in my post too is that this marketing ploy was staged in a single restaurant in a particularly supportive part of San Francisco, yet even in that neighborhood there were people who were not supportive of the LGBT community. We should be saying not “Get lost!” as Mr. Piper conveys but “Hey, come on in!”

    My friend Laura Droege wrote a great post in the form of an open letter to Mr. Piper that shows him what it means to invite people into a conversation on faith matters.

  17. Allowing people equal rights, including equal access to benefits from employment, is not the same as endorsing their choices. It is the third way, the middle road. Advocating for equal rights is also on the middle road. I am not required to participate in what they do as a couple, nor to endorse it, just to recognize that they are human beings and should have the same rights we grant to other human beings. And perhaps, by not being hateful (which denying them equal rights is), perhaps I can share that I have a very intimate relationship in addition to the relationship with my spouse, a relationship that has changed my life. And perhaps I can share the message of Christ.

    The above comments have pointed out how integral to life in Roman culture were abusive relationships that men had with young men, slaves, slave women, etc. It is my impression that it was this kind of relationship that Paul taught against in his letter. That is, pedophilia and abuse of slaves. Plus the temple prostitution. Peter wrote to a church in Asia Minor that had many slave women who were obligated by Roman law to accommodate the sexual advances of their male owner, even if they were married to another slave. It was a horrible situation. BTW, it was replicated in the U.S. prior to and during the Civil War, which was about the right of states to allow such.

  18. Adam Borsay wrote:

    The earliest Christians refused to go along with the sin in the world around them, and were ostracized for that choice.

    We are not in the same position as the early Christians. We will not be killed for our stand. Therefore, we can use the Pax Americana (take off on Pax Romana) and engage the people around us instead of engaging the culture. There are people behind those faces. I doubt Piper has ever said “hello” to them. They don’t fit his standard of dress, actions, etc.

    Why on earth do we believe that people will act like Christians when they are not Christians? I have spent years being kind and thoughtful to some decidedly non Christians. I love them and care for them. It is my hope that my life will serve as an example of the long-suffering God who put up with extreme nonsense from His chosen people for millennia. Heck, we can’t even be patient for decades.

  19. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    That’s where the battle is for this super serious and spiritual tic you’ve got about homosexuals: a family and fast food. That’s not even trying seriously, that’s just taking an easy way out to keep the troops riled up.

    Great comment! Thanks for the insight!

  20. Sorry to take so long to get back, but I am at work.

    You guys gave me something to chew on, as well.

    Bridget and Mr. H., agreed with your comments. No argument w/them. As I always say, context is very important and you two brought that out and reminded me of that.

    Dee, as to your comment, I think Jesus’ comment about speaking in parables so they wouldn’t understand says a lot about his feelings. As Mr. H pointed out, maybe not a permanent goodbye, but at least a sense that I am not going to make it easy for them. Also, the fact that the crowds always dwindled after a time makes it clear that while Jesus was welcoming, following Him was going to cost you, at least in the sense that you were going to do things His way. Lastly, while Jesus could be very welcoming we do know that He did tell people to go and sin no more. Also, I am not sure about the use of Raca since I wasn’t trying to go there.

    However as Bridget and Mr. H pointed out, context is everything. I do find it interesting that Mr. H brought up Jesus not wasting His time with people and institutions outside His purview. While I realize that His kingdom is not of this world and that the disciples were/are to go and make more disciples, it is interesting that His sense of urgency is/was not like ours, esp. if lack of faith in Him equals eternal hell/damnation. Should make us wonder.

    Not trying to be argumentative, just fleshing this out.

  21. John wrote:

    It is moral, and Burger Kings shameless ad is abominable to a regenerate believer.

    At the risk of sounding stupid, is this comment a joke or for real?

  22. Another issue to consider with Jesus’ statements is to consider who he was mainly ministering/speaking to. I’m sure there were some Romans present, but he was mainly interacting with Israelites. What they were rejecting was Him, the Kingdom of God, their Messiah, the Gospel. The same Gospel would be preached to the Gentiles (including Romans) along with much teaching on what honors God. The Jews knew what honored God, they just didn’t do it, or added to it, heaping heavy burden’s on their brothers and sisters.

  23. John Piper should trademark the word “farewell”. He should also trademark his disaster proclamations.

  24. @ John:

    On the one hand… Are you doing without the goods and services of all the corporations listed in the main article? If not, you are a sunshine patriot. I’m not even talking about the merits of the issue at hand… to boycott BK is NOTHING, no hardship at all. But look at that list…

    On the other hand… Jesus would hang out and talk with just about anyone, no matter how marginalized, and was generally not judgemental (unless you were a Pharisee). But don’t forget that at the end of the conversation came the ol’ “go and sin no more”.

    I don’t really even know where I’m going with this. Something like, engaging-with is not necessarily approving and accepting, and in any case the judging is not for us.

  25. I don’t think boycotting companies that offer same-sex benefits and a company actively promoting sin on their menu as equal. A better equation is Burger King and Planned Parenthood.

  26. John wrote:

    To me, Piper is right on. Yes, many companies do support the gay agenda and support same-sex unions and marriage. It will get so much worse until Christ returns. This cannot be compared to a political issue. It is moral, and Burger Kings shameless ad is abominable to a regenerate believer. I can do without a whopper but I hope Krystal does not follow suit!:)

    And I’m glad I work for my GLBT-affirming too big to fail financial institution. Unlike the owners of closely-held corporations, the bank doesn’t want to know about my personal contraceptive decisions. It has no problem recognizing gay and lesbian partnerships. It doesn’t care about my religious beliefs or lack thereof. And when a certain formerly-famous “family” organization decided to farewell my employer back in 2005 because it was too nice to Teh Gheys, it was like, sorry to see you go, but this is our policy.

    And not to put too fine of a point on it, I’m sure a few people who were opposed to interracial marriage thought the world was going to end and Jesus would be soon returning because whites and blacks married each other. As a Lutheran pastor once told me, “It’s much more likely you’re going to meet Jesus at the end of your life, like every other person has for the last 2000 years, than in the Second Coming.” I’m not worried.

  27. I am very familiar with the thinking at some (non-abortion) Planned Parenthood clinics. I do not see any equivalence, as they do not promote sin, and in fact advocate against it.

  28. For all of Piper’s faults, I don’t think that we should assume that he was also saying goodbye to LGBTs. He was saying goodbye to a company that is pandering outrageously to a certain group of people in probably the safest city, commercially speaking, in the US in which to do it. Imagine if Burger King wrapped their burgers in wrappers that promoted Christianity – or even just promoted the belief that God exists. Now THAT would be courageous! Imagine the outcry!

    I don’t know for sure what was in Piper’s head when he wrote the tweet, but why criticize him for giving his opinion of a public event? Yes, it’s an easy target, and it’s worse than a shame that he hasn’t publicly said a word about SGM except for praising Mahaney. But that doesn’t disqualify him from ever giving his opinion again.

    If he is, in fact, bigoted against LGBTs, and thinks they are beyond hope, then it’s a different story.

  29. G@ JeffB:

    He and other Christian leaders, who love to tweet, should learn how to convey their message without being ambiguous . . . you think? He reminds me of Doug Wilson.

  30. Does Piper own a pair of shoes that do not have his teeth marks on the toes? He continually makes comments that show that he is losing it or has lost it. Really makes a laughing stock of Christianity in the mainstream world. With more like him, the Devil would win hands down.

  31. Years ago on a forum, a fundamentalist Baptist got upset with another person and myself because we each mentioned we had in the past bought albums or singles by singer Elton John.

    I may not agree with John’s sexual behavior or views on everything, but I don’t see why I can’t buy or enjoy his music. I asked the fundamentalist about that, and he felt I was indirectly funding homosexuality by buying copies of Captain Fantastic or England’s Rose.

    I asked him how it was he didn’t know if maybe some of the singers of albums he had purchased did not dabble in sin, maybe some of his favorite singers were drug addicts, or had affairs (if they were married hetero guys). He didn’t answer that.

    Sometimes people on the left side of the spectrum boycott too, they talked about boycotting Chik-Fil-A, the Duck Dynasty show, Duck Commander products, and here lately, Hobby Lobby.

    I saw an editorial a few days about by a homosexual person who was unhappy over the Burger King Pride Whopper.

    He felt the commercial and product was pandering to homosexuals, and instead of being respectful and treating them like anyone else, it was singling them out, which he felt was contradicting the intent.

    He had some other good criticisms of the ad/product, but I can’t remember what they were, and I don’t think I saved the link.

    Here is a related editorial:
    “The Culture War’s Sore Winners”
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/the-culture-wars-sore-winners/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&

  32. An Attorney wrote:

    I am not required to participate in what they do as a couple, nor to endorse it

    But what of people who have been driven out of business for not baking a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding and the like?

    Or the elderly couple in the UK whose B and B was driven out of business because they did not allow homosexual couples to stay in the same room over night (they also did not allow hetero, non married couples to stay in the same rooms, but that part was ignored – this couple also got hate mail over this stuff, someone nailed a dead rabbit to the fence on their property).

    To some people with traditional values, having to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding is a form of endorsing the person’s lifestyle. You may disagree, but that is how it feels to them.

    There have also been cases of wedding photographers who have been driven out of business, or close to it, for not wanting to photograph homosexual weddings.

    People have lost jobs or close to for expressing homosexual marriage views, where they say they support traditional marriage, on their own time, on their private Facebook page. Other people on their account reported them to their employer over it.

    We’ve gone far beyond homosexuals getting equal rights – which they already have – to anyone who does not fully jump on board with it is getting harassed.

  33. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1 Cor 5:11-13 (KJV)

    if piper followed this scripture above, he would have to put away from himself the guy that fornicated, or fondled the girls in his ministry, and no not even eat with him. he would have to put away the extortioner that said we can’t have communion unless you tithe more and extorted money under the pretext of helping poor people in ‘global missions’

  34. “and Cracker Barrel (CBRL), which rose 10 points to a score of 45 after it launched a LGBT employee network and implemented a non-discrimination policy for LGBT employees.”

    it is illegal to discriminate against people, any people. for cracker barrel to implement a non-discrimination policy for LGBT employees only makes the point, ‘why did you allow that before anyway?’

    are Christians trying to say that, not in church but in the world of commerce and business, when they own a company, they are free to discriminate against a person because of their religion, marital status, gender, race, etc?
    I don’t know about ‘calvinista or reformed’ what those things actually mean, but just from learning about these churches lately, yes they discriminate in church and out of church against women, other religions, marital status, and race, for the most part all do as far as I have seen.

  35. sam h wrote:

    it is illegal to discriminate against people, any people. for cracker barrel to implement a non-discrimination policy for LGBT employees only makes the point, ‘why did you allow that before anyway?’

    Many people are surprised to find out that you can still be fired simply for being gay in 29 states. For what it’s worth, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act mentioned in the linked article is dead in the water; the recent SCOTUS decision on the Hobby Lobby case gutted any efficacy ENDA would have had, so some groups that were in favor of it have pulled their support. Besides, a certain political party (guess who?) would’ve never let it pass anyway.

    are Christians trying to say that, not in church but in the world of commerce and business, when they own a company, they are free to discriminate against a person because of their religion, marital status, gender, race, etc?

    When it comes to gender identity (if it doesn’t match birth sex), and marital status (if it happens to be same-sex), and sexual orientation (if someone seems to be gay), then yes, actually, some Christians are fighting to encode in the law freedom to discriminate in public businesses.

  36. @ Josh: call me a cynic, but aren’t Piper’s tweets every bit as much a ploy to gain a market share as Burger King’s ads? They seem nothing if not calculated (in more than one sense).

  37. numo wrote:

    @ Josh: call me a cynic, but aren’t Piper’s tweets every bit as much a ploy to gain a market share as Burger King’s ads? They seem nothing if not calculated (in more than one sense).

    Then I’m a cynic also. His tweets spur discussion, which potentially exposes him to people who were unaware of him, although I’m not sure that many of them will view him in the light in which he thinks he’ll be viewed. You could call that the law of unintended consequences. 😮

  38. @ Josh: but he’s going to end up selling even more books (etc.) as a result, so…

    My comment about the Burger King ad has everything to do with the manipulative nature of the ad industry and nothing to do with perceptions (mine r theirs) of lgbtq people. They could just say “hey, we want your money, gay peeps!,” but I don’t think that would be quite as socially acceptable.

  39. numo wrote:

    They could just say “hey, we want your money, gay peeps!,” but I don’t think that would be quite as socially acceptable.

    That also wouldn’t work as well as using a story with which people can identify as an ad. It may be the tiredness talking, but for some reason, it strikes me as funny that many churches are still on the “hey, we want your money” level of campaigning for contributions… Sorry, I feel like I’m getting way off topic. 😮

  40. @ Adam Borsay:
    1 Cor. 10:28 …27If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; 29I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?…

    I suppose you could have a point…that is if the cow that the whopper beef was made from was sacrificed to the gender blending god maybe you wouldn’t want to offend a weaker believer such as John Piper who might be influenced by your freedom and then eat also thus going against his conscience and that would cause him to sin.

  41. but why criticize him for giving his opinion of a public event? @ JeffB:

    I don’t think TWW is criticizing him for giving his opinion. TWW is criticizing his opinion. And in turn TWW takes criticism on their opinion of Piper’s opinion.

    As far as the marketing ploy? Ingenious. I’ve never desired a whopper more than now, nothing like the law laid down to make me want what I shouldn’t have.

  42. This story has been going on for a while. And people who think it was OK for Piper to go after Burger King just don’t get it.

    This has been going for at least 20 years. Back then the SBC was all up about boycotting Disney for first giving out same sex benefits then for having LGBT days at their parks where they specifically marketed for the LGBT communities to come to their parks. All kinds of righteous indignation in many churches. This was big in the church I was attending at the time.

    But if you wanted to shut down conversations or get the cold shoulder fast you could bring up many of the companies on the list above. And explain how, even back then, they had same sex benefits and also specific marketing groups that targeted the LGBT communities. This was very upsetting to the day to day life of many of these church goers. Because they worked for these companies. So they were advocating boycotting companies that did exactly what their company did. IBM. Cisco, American Airlines, etc… As long as it wasn’t one they worked for.

    Some were in denial. “My company would never do that.” Some just got mad and would walk away. But none wanted to have a real discussion about how to deal with a society that was basically telling them to “stick it”. That was just too unpleasant a thought to really allow to exist in their brains.

  43. @ JeffB:
    I think you have injected a bit of common sense there.

    There is a lot of complaint about Piper being a self-appointed pope, but giving too much attention to what he says on this topic means his critics are making him a kind of pope! He gave his opinion – you can agree with it or disagree with it, he is only speaking for himself. I don’t think he is always wise in what he says, but then he is only human. He only has as much influence over how I think that I am prepared to grant him.

  44. If anybody replied to my comment above, I won’t be able to reply to you because my computer is probably gonna have to go to the shop for repairs and God only knows how long that will take. (Here’s hoping it’s done before I go on my choir trip to England in 10 days! Singing in Ely Cathedral will be a blast!) So I’ll be signing off TWW until my laptop is back in commission. I have a lot to do to get ready for my trip anyway so maybe it’s best that I’m not distracted. 🙁

  45. K.D. wrote:

    At one time I had a hard time with people being gay. I no longer do.
    It took me a long time, but I had a former student who came out after doing everything they could to be “straight.” Counseling, hormone treatment a doctor recommended, prayer…. He’s gay. And he told me he’d do anything not to be.
    I am now of the conclusion that being gay is not a choice, but genetic.
    Unless you have had long, long talks, and I mean several days worth, you won’t understand.
    Their life is between them and God.
    If a company wants to give them and their life-partner benefits, why should we as Christians protest? How does this hurt or hinder you? The fact that you believe it’s a sin? The fact that gays make you uncomfortable?
    Come on…

    Well said!

  46. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Wait, the last 5 seconds, with the adorable little girl saying “I love my two mommies!” is the portion of this that makes him weep? This dude always creeps me out. As an outsider though I would say this seems like he’s just giving up. I mean seriously, picking on a little girl and a fast food company? That’s where the battle is for this super serious and spiritual tic you’ve got about homosexuals: a family and fast food. That’s not even trying seriously, that’s just taking an easy way out to keep the troops riled up.

    Bingo!!

  47. JeffB wrote:

    why criticize him for giving his opinion of a public event?

    I critiqued his opinion and how it was expressed. That is the nature of blogging. Someone says something publicly, it gets to be critiqued publicly. I do not like how he approaches his subjects. He is becoming known for his good-bye tweets. Soon, in his world, it will be Piper and Piper wannabes.

    If he is truly consistent, he would be working his way through the above list-saying farewell to all of them. But that would interfere with his lifestyle.

  48. When I watched the video I was wondering what awful thing happened in the last five seconds that Piper thought I should weep about. All I saw was a happy toddler. Personally I don’t eat from fast food chains (I can’t eat gluten so they tend not to have much I can eat, and I just don’t like their food) but I’m really struggling to see why a happy toddler is a reason to boycott Burger King. Piper focusing his distaste on such a young child seems very mean-spirited.

  49. Ken wrote:

    There is a lot of complaint about Piper being a self-appointed pope, but giving too much attention to what he says on this topic means his critics are making him a kind of pope! He gave his opinion – you can agree with it or disagree with it, he is only speaking for himself.

    No. Piper also claims to be speaking for God! He alleges that some events are God’s warning or punishment for what people have done or are doing. So he is a self-appointed spokesperson on earth. At least the Pope is elected by the college of cardinals.

    BTW, I once saw a college of cardinals. President’s day weekend, just south of Sandusky, Ohio, passing on the highway through a heavily wooded area, saw hundreds of cardinals in the trees and air.

  50. Josh wrote:

    You could call that the law of unintended consequences

    I truly don’t think Piper cares. he has successfully entrenched himself into his own world in which his views are ratified by a bunch of fanboys and girls. He sees things in one way only.

    My job at this blog is to get people to see another point of view which fits within a Christian worldview.

  51. An Attorney wrote:

    saw hundreds of cardinals in the trees and air.

    God put cardinals everywhere as a symbol of the particular beauty of North Carolina. 🙂 Its the state bird.

  52. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Wait, the last 5 seconds, with the adorable little girl saying “I love my two mommies!” is the portion of this that makes him weep?

    I wish John Piper would spend a little time weeping for children who have been sexually abused in evangelical churches as opposed to backslapping his theological buddies instead.

  53. @ dee:
    And in at least five other states: Ohio, Kentucky and others in a fan north and west of NC. Perhaps all have a noticeable concentration of the beautiful birds. We even see them in Central Texas.

  54. An Attorney wrote:

    Allowing people equal rights, including equal access to benefits from employment, is not the same as endorsing their choices. It is the third way, the middle road. Advocating for equal rights is also on the middle road. I am not required to participate in what they do as a couple, nor to endorse it, just to recognize that they are human beings and should have the same rights we grant to other human beings. And perhaps, by not being hateful (which denying them equal rights is), perhaps I can share that I have a very intimate relationship in addition to the relationship with my spouse, a relationship that has changed my life. And perhaps I can share the message of Christ.

    This is basically where I stand on this issue.

    Furthermore, I think there are aspects of our sinful natures that we CANNOT fight without God’s help. I’m willing to postulate that homosexual behavior is one of them. I don’t like the idea of holding non-Christians to Christian behavior standards. They don’t have a relationship with God (well… the relationship is one-sided), so they can’t possibly live up to His standards, even a wee bit.

    To me, this makes the issue NOT homosexuals versus heterosexuals. The issue is Christians versus Non-Christians. I don’t care what your sinful-bent is, it doesn’t matter, the answer is the same. I’m not gonna tell you that you shouldn’t be sleeping with someone your own gender (in part because I don’t have much clarity on that issue- but it’s also none of my business….). I’m going to tell you that God loves you enough to die for you and wants to bring you to Him. Then I’ll let God work on that person’s heart to make it more like His, however that looks.

    Basically, as a heterosexual Christian, it isn’t my business. Yes, they are sinful, because we’re all sinful. They need God, we all need God. I know from personal experience that God is capable of pointing out and helping me with sin in my life, and I never had anyone outside my parents when I was a child lay out all that I was doing wrong in a memorandum. Why do I think that God needs me to do that to other people specifically homosexuals? Why???? Instead, I try to love and minister to them the way I would ANY non-Christian and let God do the rest.

    From a legal standpoint (I’m a lawyer), I am going to fight for equal rights because that is a secular problem, not a faith problem. We don’t strip adulterers of their legal rights.

  55. dee wrote:

    Why on earth do we believe that people will act like Christians when they are not Christians?

    Precisely.

  56. numo wrote:

    @ Josh: but he’s going to end up selling even more books (etc.) as a result, so…
    My comment about the Burger King ad has everything to do with the manipulative nature of the ad industry and nothing to do with perceptions (mine r theirs) of lgbtq people. They could just say “hey, we want your money, gay peeps!,” but I don’t think that would be quite as socially acceptable.

    The cheerios ad (with the mixed race couple) was much more subtle in this regard, I felt. Just toss in two actors of different races and let them be a family.

  57. Mr.H wrote:

    Dee’s point was that Jesus didn’t waste his time with people or institutions outside his community of faith.

    Good grief, Mr. H! Please read John 4:5-42; Jesus had a very lengthy conversation with the “woman at the well” a Samaritan. She was outside his community of faith and certainly his conversation with her was not a waste of his time.

  58. An Attorney wrote:

    BTW, Today is the Birthday of John Calvin! At least according to Garrison Keillor.

    Be careful, people will accuse you of listening to NPR….
    Local station, KVLU, 91.3FM….:)

  59. Tim wrote:

    My friend Laura Droege wrote a great post in the form of an open letter to Mr. Piper that shows him what it means to invite people into a conversation on faith matters.

    This is a great post!

  60. JeffB wrote:

    I don’t know for sure what was in Piper’s head when he wrote the tweet, but why criticize him for giving his opinion of a public event?

    Because he specifically criticized the last five seconds of the commercial, which showed a little girl saying, “I love my two mommies!” It wasn’t just about Burger King, it was a deliberate slam against a family, a family that Piper refuses to acknowledge exists. I hope that the girl in the video never hears about John Piper.

    What Piper did reminds me of what a prominent Mormon woman said when describing a married male couple and their twin adopted daughters back in 2004. She said she couldn’t stomach that and she was “heartsick.” (The original article was removed.) As to why Sheri Dew picked on these two legally-married gay men, perhaps she knew one of them was a returned Mormon missionary. (As of December 2012, the two men were still together; according to a USA Today article, they had to engage lawyers in four states to make sure they were the legal parents of the twin girls.)

    So yeah, that’s why it’s offensive. Not because it hurt a big company, but because it was an attack on a family.

  61. Caitlin wrote:

    The cheerios ad (with the mixed race couple) was much more subtle in this regard, I felt. Just toss in two actors of different races and let them be a family.

    That’s the way to go. Of course, it’ll still rile up the same group of people just as well. And since you mentioned the Cheerios ad, did you see the parody?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwReRl4Z7EQ

  62. Daisy wrote:

    But what of people who have been driven out of business for not baking a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding and the like?

    Think about this for a minute. How do you drive a person out of business for failing to bake a cake? They had a license to do business from the state. As part of that license, they have to sell to all comers. To do otherwise would be to open up a can of worms: “Oh, I won’t bake a cake for you, you’re a Mormon and you get married in that scary temple building,” for example. Maybe they shouldn’t be in business if they can’t bake cakes for all comers.

    Or the elderly couple in the UK whose B and B was driven out of business because they did not allow homosexual couples to stay in the same room over night (they also did not allow hetero, non married couples to stay in the same rooms, but that part was ignored – this couple also got hate mail over this stuff, someone nailed a dead rabbit to the fence on their property).

    I have no idea about British law (and how it might be modified based on Britain’s membership in the European Union), but perhaps their law says they have to take all comers? Here in the USA, up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a hotelier didn’t have to rent rooms to black people. As it is, there are no federal protections for GLBT persons in housing (in general), so that means states, cities and towns have had to enact legislation piecemeal to prohibit discrimination against GLBT persons in housing and employment. And, if what happened in Houston over the past couple of months is any indication, the people who were most opposed to the ordinance were–good devout Christian people who pulled the Jesus card every time they got up to speak. In other words, Jesus would have them to discriminate in housing and employment.

    Tell me, how is that so different from discriminating against people of a different skin color in housing and employment? And yes, I’m asking you to ask yourself why GLBT persons shouldn’t have the same rights and responsibilities as you?

    As for the nailing a dead rabbit part, that is wrong. Britain’s way of dealing with this sort of thing is to put people under what are called Anti-Social Behavior Orders or ASBOs. I think we Americans would consider that a lot of nannystating and be generally opposed.

  63. numo wrote:

    They could just say “hey, we want your money, gay peeps!,” but I don’t think that would be quite as socially acceptable.

    I dunno, I work for a bank, that’s exactly what we do. 🙂 We figured out years ago that GLBT money was just as green as anyone else’s and it spends quite nicely.

  64.   __

    Dee,

    Hey,

      As you know, historically, when the un-saved are properly addressed, the focus is upon their individual need for what Jesus abundantly offers.

      With that in mind, one would rightly consider that a world renowned pastor would know and consistently practice this. 

      Thus, the advocating of ‘any’ boycott of ‘any’ American business would be simply outside the normal purview of any properly educated Christian religious proponent.

    *

      On a somewhat lighter note, is it in the realm of possibilities that these stranger that fiction tweet actions, on his part, are being publicly generated simply because he failed “The Burger King Challenge”, or sadly, are these grandiose leanings indicative of someone who is possibly suffering an acute medical condition such as narcissistic personality disorder, perhaps? In ether case, he is a strong candidate for our earnest prayers.  

    ATB

    Sopy

  65. An Attorney wrote:

    I am very familiar with the thinking at some (non-abortion) Planned Parenthood clinics. I do not see any equivalence, as they do not promote sin, and in fact advocate against it.

    Planned Parenthood is an agent of Satan. Have you seen the latest under cover videos of them promoting bondage? How about encouraging a sonogram to see if it is a certain gender to determine if it should be aborted. Companies who actively kill children will do anything.

  66. Dear Mr Piper,

    I don’t believe for one second Jesus would ever condone sin. Neither would He miss a single opportunity to go and evangelize the lost. If that commercial had come on in Jesus day, he would have immediately recognized the field ready for harvest, turned to His disciples and said, “Hey, anyone up for a Whopper?”

  67. Daisy wrote:

    We’ve gone far beyond homosexuals getting equal rights – which they already have – to anyone who does not fully jump on board with it is getting harassed.

    Equal rights, that is, other than being able to marry the person they love in 31 states. Not that I would do that myself, but there is no reason to deny people who believe that it’s within the blessing of their religion or lack thereof to marry a partner of the same gender the right to do so. Oh, and in many states, unless you work for the government or a company that goes above and beyond, you can be fired if your employer perceives you to be gay (no same-sex partner required) and, well, it makes them feel uncomfortable, bless their hearts.

  68. Josh wrote:

    it makes them feel uncomfortable, bless their hearts.

    The appropriate phrase is “bless their LITTLE hearts.” With “little” being the operative word. To be spoken with a real deep South drawl.

  69. @ OCDan:

    Thanks. I didn’t see Piper’s tweet as a call for a boycott, but rather a “goodbye” to morality. I could care less about rainbow wrappers, but I do think this move and all the companies listed (and others that aren’t) speak volumes about the state of our culture.

  70. In summation, pedophilia, pornography, homosexuality, along with flexible gender roles were common. Unfortunately, those on the lowest rungs of society were the victims of lawful sexual abuse by Roman citizens. Slavery was rampant.

    ANIMAL FORCED DOMINANCE DISPLAY.

    Note that the Freeborn Roman Male is always the one on Top doing the Penetrating.

  71. This is where having a degree in the Classics comes in handy. 🙂 Sexual attraction to younger males was very common in ancient Rome. Sexual attraction to teenage girls was a must as they were married at a young age (before 20) and expected to start procreating immediately. Here is where it gets interesting. A Roman wife (classified as a citizen of Rome) had a far different role than her husband’s mistress. The wife was expected to bear children, teach them how to be good citizens and maintain the household. But she was not expected to be her husband’s friend, to discuss politics with him, meet his s*xual desires, etc… That was reserved for his mistress, a woman who would not have been a citizen of Rome. Should the mistress bear children through this relationship, they would not gain Roman citizenship and more than likely would meet an unpleasant end. As far as same-sex relationships between women are concerned, its a little harder. From what little writings of women we can find, we can deduce that there were relationships among men. Lets just say that the poetry of one particular poetess leaves little to the imagination. But those relationships would not have been known to their husbands or condoned in proper society like the male relationships. At the end of the day men always had more rights than woman and citizens more than non-citizens. Roman women weren’t even given the privilege of names – all daughters were named after the father. It makes it really hard to figure our family trees when a man named Iulius has five daughters named Iulia. 🙂

    As far as discrimination goes, I face a lot of discrimination in my community as a disabled woman. Why on earth would I tolerate, much less promote, the discrimination of any other person in the world? If anything I have even more respect for those who fight this battle. Any person who faces discrimination endures far more than anything they will ever share with those outside their community.

  72. John Piper weeps over the BK video but glad hands his buddies: CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll.

    “These three Kings said one to another:
    ‘King unto King o’er the world is Brother’…”

  73. dee wrote:

    John wrote:

    It is moral, and Burger Kings shameless ad is abominable to a regenerate believer.

    At the risk of sounding stupid, is this comment a joke or for real?

    I would assume it’s real until proven otherwise. Too over-the-top to be a joke, and True Believers can top any attempt at satire. As well as safer; True Believers can act out in some very dangerous and destructive ways.

  74. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    In summation, pedophilia, pornography, homosexuality, along with flexible gender roles were common. Unfortunately, those on the lowest rungs of society were the victims of lawful sexual abuse by Roman citizens. Slavery was rampant.

    As in:
    “The Freeborn Roman Citizen Penetrates! Colonizes! Conquers! Plants!
    His Inferiors lie back and accept upon pain of whip and cross”?

  75. Okay. Old joke from my school days, when Burger King was just getting started:

    “How did Burger Queen get pregnant?
    Burger King’s Whopper.”

    Us proto-Bart Simpsons also found the early Burger King jingle very funny:
    “Takes two hands to handle a Whopper.”

  76. dee wrote:

    I wish John Piper would spend a little time weeping for children who have been sexually abused in evangelical churches as opposed to backslapping his theological buddies instead.

    His theological buddies are Freeborn Roman Men like him.
    With Freeborn Roman privileges over their Inferiors.
    Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!

  77. I am sad to see Burger King do this, as it is just one more example of the celebration of something that should not be celebrated.

    I believe participating in homosexual activity is not healthy physically or spiritually. I believe that a healthy society would be one in which that belief was agreed upon.

    Short of that, however, an open society would tolerate that message, among many other messages.

    Burger King’s message is it’s free choice. I don’t believe that Burger King will see any huge increase in sales or decrease in sales as a result of this.

    I would not try to impose some boycot on Burger King for this. Nor would I refuse to eat there because of what Burger King is doing.

    But I would point out the difference treatment Burger King is receiving vs. what Chick-fil-A went through.

    Chick-fil-A made no statement by doing something such as serving a “no-gay” sandwich, or a “man and woman only” sandwich.

    Their owner simply said that his personal conviction was that marriage was between a man and a woman. And all hell broke loose.

    There were protests, kiss-ins by gay people, counter protests. Etc. Etc.

    It seems that political forces have left no option for people who believe that homosexual practices are immoral, but don’t hate gay people. That is the tradjectory of the discussion and practice in the U.S. It is very sad.

    As I said, I don’t believe a boycott is my thing here, so I don’t really care about Piper’s tweet.

    And while I don’t care for Mahaney or Driscoll, I don’t think that Piper’s statement about Burger King has anything to do with his statements about Mahaney and Piper.

    Burger King will probably get a lot of good press for this. It won’t help their company. BK’s success will depend on the quality of its product. That’s how a free society works.

    But I agree that Christians should not make a big deal about this. It’s really not that big a deal, as the list of companies providing benefits to same sex partners shows.

    That’s just where we are in the U.S. for now. Christians will adjust, as we always have.

    The thing that makes me sad is not that Christians adjust to the new reality about reacting to homosexulaity. What makes me sad is when Christians reject the clear teaching of scripture about that because of the influence of culture. Christians have always been susceptible to that. But it is sad to witness it nonetheless.

  78. Anonymous wrote:

    And while I don’t care for Mahaney or Driscoll, I don’t think that Piper’s statement about Burger King has anything to do with his statements about Mahaney and Piper.

    I disagree. I am searching his website and tweets for expressed concerns about child sex abuse in the church. So far, I can’t find anything. For some, this could seem quite hypocritical.

    As for ChikFilA, what do you think about Dan Cathy’s friendship with a homosexual activist? Now some of the right are calling Cathy a coward.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/04/21/why-jesus-understand-abuse-and-why-dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-is-now-called-a-coward/

  79. Sopwith wrote:

    Thus, the advocating of ‘any’ boycott of ‘any’ American business would be simply outside the normal purview of any properly educated Christian religious proponent.

    Well said@

  80. Ken wrote:

    but giving too much attention to what he says on this topic means his critics are making him a kind of pope

    Piper is at every blasted conference, church, etc. His words are hung onto by his acolytes. U know one pastor who said he was in a depressions because John Piper retired. His fans repeat his messages all over the Internet. Kathy Keller high fived Piper at the recent TGC Women’s conference. Yes, he speaks at all of the Reformed women’s conferences- a man who said women should not get muscular and be careful of how women give directions to men so as not to usurp their authorities.

    The only response is to answer him and disagree. If all the critical blogs were to disappear, Piper would still be lecturing all over the earth.

  81. Dee:

    Did not know that Chick Fil A’s President has a gay activist friend, but that does not surprise me. I have friends who are gay. In real life, aren’t we all that way unless we are insulated. My gay friends and I disagree over some issues, and those disagreements are profound. But we are still friends. I believe that, in reality, is how most people live their lives.

    It’s only when politics enters and everything is seen through that lense that we create an unreal world.

    We’ll obviously disagree on what constitues hypocrisy here. Piper needn’t tweet about this issue or that issue to tweet about another.

    I was wondering is the world would implode if Rob Bell was caught eating the gay hamburger at BK, and he was between served by Jonathan Merritt!

    That would result in some tweet!

  82. @ Mandy: iirc, it was clear to me (via classes on the art of Greece and Rome) that women *stayed at home* and that the public sphere was for men. I know there are exceptions (and not just for courtesans), but those few women either excelled at writing or philosophy/science and/or were from powerful, wealthy families. Civil society was for men, not women.

    Look at the green and Roman playwrights: I don’t know of any women playwrights whose work has survived (if it ever existed). There’s some poetry by women, but what has survived is the exception that proves the rule. Art was created by men, etc etc. I’m sure there were *some* women who worked on their own, in private, but no names have come down to us.

    Women’s lives were very tightly controlled. It’s no wonder that male-only socializing produced a lot of sexual liaisons. I don’t want to broad brush both Greece and Rome (there are lots of differences), but if you look for information on the lives and duties of Roman vestal virgins (priestesses of Vesta, who was the goddess of home and hearth), it quickly becomes clear that women were *really* not free agents.

  83. To put my 2 cents in regarding a business(baker,photographer) having the freedom to not participate in a same sex wedding…

    The oft heard criticism of this position is to (incorrectly) equate this refusal of service to Jim Crow era laws, and/or, claim hypocrisy on the part of the business because they most likely provide services for a “Mormon” wedding.

    Why the Jim Crow Comparison is Incorrect:

    Racially based discrimination was used as a general catch all to avoid any and all service based on nothing more than the color of someones skin. If these were comparable issues then the “baker” would have to be taking the position that they would never for any reason serve a homosexual customer. In the widely discussed specific cases that has NEVER been the contention. Their contention is not providing service for a specific EVENT. I think it was the baker who said that they gladly served the couple for a variety of other reasons, but could not in good conscience provide services for an event they felt to be absolutely diametrically opposed to their religious beliefs.

    To look at it another way. I would 100% support an African-American baker refusing to bake a cake for a “KKK” rally. But I would not support them to refuse general service to a KKK member.

    What you may personally feel convicted to do regarding your Christian conscience is up to you, but it IS an arguably defensible position to refuse to participate in a specific event that celebrates sin.

    Logically there is a clear difference between serving an individual and participating in an “event”.

    Why the “Mormon” Wedding Comparison is Incorrect:

    If the Biblical argument is accurate that the God designed definition of marriage is one woman to one man than we are comparing apples to oranges. The Bible does not say that marriage was designed by God for two “Jews”, male and female, to get married. But simply, a man and a woman.

    Therefore, though a Mormon wedding is not a “Christian” wedding, the design and purpose of God is still upheld. Secondly, and I think more importantly, the Mormon couple, AS A COUPLE, have the possibility of their marriage BECOMING a Christian marriage. In the case of a same sex couple, the possibility of at some point down the road their marriage becoming a God design honoring Christian marriage is NEVER possible.

    When a baker of photographer provides their services to a non-Christian marriage they are still supporting and affirming the general design and purpose that God created marriage to be.

    An addendum related to 2nd or 3rd marriages:

    While John Piper doesn’t believe in re-marriage EVER(even in the case of death), the vast majority of Christians have always held that their are legitimate and Biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. The responsibility for verifying the veracity of a couples claims to legitimacy falls upon the shoulders of their local Church community. And, as a baker/photographer it is reasonable to defer to the decision of that local church regarding that specific couple.

    If the thrice married couple are NOT Christians, then it goes back to the point about the Mormon marriage. The hope of a future redeemed state of their union is still possible, regardless of their spiritual condition upon their receiving your services.

  84. An Attorney wrote:

    @ K.D.:
    The least slanted news on the air, in the most depth and detail.

    I love “All Things Considered”…it was my drive home show for years after school.

  85. Adam Borsay wrote:

    The Bible does not say that marriage was designed by God for two “Jews”, male and female, to get married. But simply, a man and a woman.

    Actually, it takes some interpretation to get to that statement. The Bible does not say what you said it says, at least literally, and one must interpret to get there.

  86. Adam Borsay wrote:

    The hope of a future redeemed state of their union is still possible, regardless of their spiritual condition upon their receiving your services.

    …Since when are we trying to redeem unions? I thought we were trying to redeem individuals?

  87. Caitlin wrote:

    Adam Borsay wrote:
    The hope of a future redeemed state of their union is still possible, regardless of their spiritual condition upon their receiving your services.
    …Since when are we trying to redeem unions? I thought we were trying to redeem individuals?

    What I mean is that the current spiritual state of a couple upon the day of their marriage is not an absolute indicator of their forever/future state as a couple. Which is the argument for why affirming marriage for a mormon couple is not the same as affirming the marriage of a same sex couple. Because in the case of a same sex couple, there marriage relationship will never be Biblically supported.

  88. @ Adam Borsay:

    I’m still not following. The same sex couple doesn’t much care about whether their relationship will be Biblically supported, and Biblical support is not a great indicator of future success(divorce rates are similar across populations), and there is no marriage in heaven? So what does future/forever state have to do with anything?

  89. Adam:

    Thanks for your patient participation on this thread. What you have said makes lots of sense.

    The OT and the NT, including Jesus’s statements, affirm the union of a man and woman.

    There is no affirmation of an attempted “union” of two people of the same sex. And sexual activity by those of the same sex is clearly condemned in both the OT and NT.

    That part is not complicated at all.

    But life is complicated. And how to love people, even people who engage in behavior that the Lord condemns, knowing that we are no better, is the challenge for all of us.

    The part of the BK thing and much of the energy that has gone into the public discussion of homosexuality over the last few years that I can agree with is the desire to love people and make them feel part of the human community.

    Ironically, that actually becomes harder to do, not easier, in a genuine way due the failure to acknowledge the Lord’s standard for sexual behavior.

  90. Anonymous wrote:

    The OT and the NT, including Jesus’s statements, affirm the union of a man and woman.

    Please cite chapter and verse for this statement. I believe it is an interpretation of the text, and that, for example, multiple marriage is as readily supported and monogamy. There is a lot of interpretation to get to marriage as only one man with one woman.

  91. “Let the dead bury their dead.”
    Succinct, callous, and unloving words by Jesus?
    Or a call for men to devote themselves to the Gospel, without regard for making others feel “part of the human community.”
    It is hard to discern when/how to follow Jesus in that way – but what is not hard to discern is that there are situations (Piper thinks Burger King is one; Cathy has not reached that point with his friend) where we can publicly walk away from associating with those (“dead”) who intentionally provoke God’s commandments which Jesus said “I have come to uphold”.
    Piper is right to call out openly abhorrent pagans; he’s right to do that even when you think he should focus more on abhorrent churchmen (Jesus loved the woman at the well by calling out her adultery, and He called out the Pharisees in the temple).

  92. @ An Attorney:

    Matthew 19
    3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

  93. And now for a brief excursion along a tangent line of irrelevancy (but not too far from the curve) y’all:
    With such a wide choice of small, locally owned and really good burger joints, why would anybody pay their hard earned cash to eat the corporate crap from Burger King?

  94. An Attorney wrote:

    Anonymous wrote:

    The OT and the NT, including Jesus’s statements, affirm the union of a man and woman.

    Please cite chapter and verse for this statement. I believe it is an interpretation of the text, and that, for example, multiple marriage is as readily supported and monogamy. There is a lot of interpretation to get to marriage as only one man with one woman.

    I’m waiting right along with you, for Anonymous to return & answer the question.
    Funny how s/he suddenly forgot how to tell us all “Bad, bad, naughty, naughty” when asked for a citation……..

  95. Anonymous wrote:

    I was wondering is the world would implode if Rob Bell was caught eating the gay hamburger at BK, and he was between served by Jonathan Merritt!

    And I would be sitting there with them having one heckuva conversation. 🙂

  96. @ Conservatus:
    Welcome to TWW and thank you for commenting!
    Conservatus wrote:

    Piper is right to call out openly abhorrent pagans; he’s right to do that even when you think he should focus more on abhorrent churchmen

    In the next two weeks, we will discuss this subject in detail as we publish the long awaited story of Eagle, lost and found. I shall tell you how God has called me to reach out to “abhorrent pagans.” To begin, I do not find them abhorrent. I love them dearly.You will understand it better if you read the story.

    Finally, He told her to “go and sin no more.” But He knew she would sin. What do you think the take away is from this fact.

  97. Conservatus wrote:

    Jesus also placed himself at the well in the middle of the day when only the outcasts come to the well. He sent his disciples away. He spoke to the outcast woman at the well and accepted water from her which was totally unacceptable in his culture, and he shared himself (the Gospel) with her.

    And what did Piper do? Tweet his displeasure from afar . . .

    How is that sharing the Gospel?

  98. @ dee: Sounds yummy. Oh, I forgot to tell you I’m coming over to your house this weekend. Fire up the grill!

  99. dee wrote:

    I disagree. I am searching his website and tweets for expressed concerns about child sex abuse in the church. So far, I can’t find anything. For some, this could seem quite hypocritical.

    Disclaimer: The following statement is only my opinion:
    I think that for Neo-Reformed and Complementarian (Patriarchal) leaders and even in the rank and file, it is far more horrifying for a child to be raised by a gay couple who treat the child well than it is for that same child to be raised by a pedophile who spouts the correct doctrinal line – I think they may actaully believe it is better, as a child, to be raped by a Bible-Believing-Patriarch™ that to be raised by loving same sex couples. And that, to me, is truly sick.

  100. Joe2 wrote:

    Mr. H

    I struggle to understand this wing of theology, ie not helping or giving to those outside your “community of faith”. I must be too much of a universalist or humanist or something.

  101. It is easy to be frustrated or roll your eyes at this kind of behavior. I, however, take it more seriously than that. When Piper speaks this way he is tearing the heart out of the gospel and telling the world a lie about the teachings of Jesus and how we relate to God. And frankly, given his love affair with Edwards, his position is ludicrous – Piper is under the same damnation for lusting after the actors in Game of Thrones.

  102. @ dee:

    “As for ChikFilA, what do you think about Dan Cathy’s friendship with a homosexual activist? Now some of the right are calling Cathy a coward.”
    ++++++++++

    about as bright as “She’s a witch! She’s a witch!”
    “How do you know she’s a witch?”
    “She turned me into a newt once….. I got bettah.”
    ———-

    “He’s a coward! He’s a coward!”
    “How do you know he’s a coward?”
    “Because he was kind to someone that we don’t like! & God doesn’t like him either!”
    “Should he have been mean instead?”
    “…..well,…. YES!”
    “Ahhh, bravery indeed.” (ironic sneer emoticon here)

  103. mirele wrote:

    They had a license to do business from the state. As part of that license, they have to sell to all comers.

    Sheesh. Sounds like the USSR. And I went into a “licensed business” today who refused to serve someone without shoes on. If the Baker wants to lose money why do folks object? If the government still allows us mere peasants SOME business competition surely there are other cake bakers in town?

  104. Haitch wrote:

    Joe2 wrote:
    Mr. H
    I struggle to understand this wing of theology, ie not helping or giving to those outside your “community of faith”. I must be too much of a universalist or humanist or something.

    Is the bit about not helping/giving to thouse outside your community of faith true about Piper? I know some in the reformed camp believe that, and while I’m not a fan of Piper, I didn’t think he was of that mindset. I know Keller and some of the neo reformed guys, to their credit, are stridently not of that mindset.

  105. Josh wrote:

    Oh, and in many states, unless you work for the government or a company that goes above and beyond, you can be fired if your employer perceives you to be gay (no same-sex partner required) and, well, it makes them feel uncomfortable, bless their hearts.

    I have been judged exactly this way all my life, not at work, at churches. haven’t found one that didn’t look at me and say I was gay. no questions, just not allowed either in the church, or in their groups. because people think I am gay, without even asking or checking my lifestyle. that is why I am so very vocal against big leaders in churches and their anti gay, God’s judgment etc speeches.

  106. Adam Borsay wrote:

    What I mean is that the current spiritual state of a couple upon the day of their marriage is not an absolute indicator of their forever/future state as a couple. Which is the argument for why affirming marriage for a mormon couple is not the same as affirming the marriage of a same sex couple. Because in the case of a same sex couple, there marriage relationship will never be Biblically supported.

    a man that beats and divorces his first 3 wives, leaving them penniless, even though he is remarried to his 4th wife now, that marriage relationship will never be biblically supported either. do we interview heterosexual couples and see their past to see if we want to make a cake for them or are we offended that we might be aiding the event of the guy who beat his first wife and now is on his second wife and because there is a chance that he might come to salvation it is ok to make a wedding cake for him, but not a gay couple. I think your reasoning is not. I think when we decided to judge others and whether we should take part, as a business, in any ‘event’ in their lives, we are playing God, and we don’t know what God knows. a baker might be judged by God for providing a cake to Judas Iscariot and his wife by your logic because Jesus said he was the son of perdition, never to be redeemed. if you are in a business that is in America you do loose the right to discriminate in my opinion.

  107. Muff Potter wrote:

    And now for a brief excursion along a tangent line of irrelevancy (but not too far from the curve) y’all:
    With such a wide choice of small, locally owned and really good burger joints, why would anybody pay their hard earned cash to eat the corporate crap from Burger King?

    because I happen to like burger king burgers better than almost any burger in the U.S. : )

  108. dee wrote:

    I have yet to find any expression of concern by Piper. I am looking.

    My guess is that you could search from now until the ice sheets start moving South again and still come up empty handed. But for a screed on how the Almighty engineers this horrific stuff (child abuse) so that he might bring glory to himself? You’d probably come up with a gem quicker than you can say sovereignty.

  109. An Attorney and Zooey111:

    Have been away for a while for dinner and such.

    Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t accept assignments on the internet.

    I’ll let you two do your own scripture searches.

    It will be interesting, however, to hear why you believe that OT and the NT, and Jesus’ statements do not affirm unions between a man and a woman.

    That would be a first theologically. I have never heard anyone suggest that. But I am all ears.

  110. Lydia wrote:

    mirele wrote:

    They had a license to do business from the state. As part of that license, they have to sell to all comers.

    Sheesh. Sounds like the USSR. And I went into a “licensed business” today who refused to serve someone without shoes on. If the Baker wants to lose money why do folks object? If the government still allows us mere peasants SOME business competition surely there are other cake bakers in town?

    I think you are right but I also think that after spending 20 years being treated like less than a person and always walking away and finding another bakery without saying anything, the wounded have had enough.

  111. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    I think that for Neo-Reformed and Complementarian (Patriarchal) leaders and even in the rank and file, it is far more horrifying for a child to be raised by a gay couple who treat the child well than it is for that same child to be raised by a pedophile who spouts the correct doctrinal line – I think they may actaully believe it is better, as a child, to be raped by a Bible-Believing-Patriarch™ that to be raised by loving same sex couples.

    Purity of Ideology, Comrade.
    Purity of Ideology justifies Anything.

  112. Lydia wrote:

    Sheesh. Sounds like the USSR. And I went into a “licensed business” today who refused to serve someone without shoes on. If the Baker wants to lose money why do folks object? If the government still allows us mere peasants SOME business competition surely there are other cake bakers in town?

    The shoe store applies their rule to *all comers*. It would be discriminatory if they said, “Black people without shoes, we don’t serve you.” But it’s *everyone* who needs to wear shoes. Why is this so very, very difficult for people to understand?

    Let me point out that this is the sort of thing has a name: it’s Balkanization and it *destroys countries*. Your baker who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a GLBT couple this week will tell a Mormon couple next week that she won’t bake a cake for them, because as far as she’s concerned, the Mormons are just non-Christian pagans. Where will it stop?

  113. Marie2 wrote:

    @ Daisy:

    Wonder what the pastor thought of Sandi Patti after her affair and divorce. ..

    Preach against Divorce and the tithe money might take a hit.

    Besides, you might want to keep your options open in case you need the escape route…

  114. Caitlin wrote:

    …Since when are we trying to redeem unions? I thought we were trying to redeem individuals?

    Ever heard of the phrase “Salvation by Marriage Alone”?

  115. Ken wrote:

    There is a lot of complaint about Piper being a self-appointed pope, but giving too much attention to what he says on this topic means his critics are making him a kind of pope!

    To the Truly Reformed he’s already a God, so Pope would actually be a step down.

  116. An Attorney wrote:

    Does Piper own a pair of shoes that do not have his teeth marks on the toes? He continually makes comments that show that he is losing it or has lost it.

    Or he’s trying out for Pat Robertson’s succession.

  117. Conservatus wrote:


    Piper is right to call out openly abhorrent pagans; he’s right to do that even when you think he should focus more on abhorrent churchmen (Jesus loved the woman at the well by calling out her adultery, and He called out the Pharisees in the temple).

    How lovely of you to call us non Christians inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant. The dictionary definition of abhorrent. I’m wondering if you mean that, or perhaps were being a bit flowery and didn’t realize what you’re saying? As for he’s right to do that, fair enough, we can all have our opinions. But why should his opinion matter at all to non Christians? Especially if we’re abhorrent by your standards? I mean do you find the pronouncements of Muslims, Sikhs or Buddhists on YOUR moral position particularly concerning?

  118. Sam H:

    Are you fully awake?

    “If you are in business that is in America you do “loose” (sic) the right to discriminate in my opinion.”

    I cannot imagine the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution even beginning to understand what in the world you are talking about.

    If you will back away from a results oriented perspective (i.e. I want the gay guys to get a cake for their wedding from this bakery) and look at what you are saying from a legal/freedom/rational perspective, I believe you will come out with a rule that will produce a much happier society.

    Freedom is the absolute first principle of a free society.

    If we give that up for – Freedom – but only when I say so, when end up with a mess.

    If it were my bakery, I might bake the cake.

    But it’s not my bakery. I did not make the capital investment. I do not do the work. I have not put anything at risk in that business.

    I can’t imagine even beginning to think about telling these people what events they must cater.

    Aren’t we better off letting these people be free? Isn’t the market going to take care of this? Aren’t there hundreds of bakeries in the town that will serve the gay guys?

    This is the kind of thing they do in communist, Soviet, and Nazi countries.

    Do you want these bakers to start turning in lists as to who their customers are, whether they are gay or not, whether their customers have been married multiple times, and if so, on what grounds, and identifying the events that they are catering and those they have refused to cater?

    Doesn’t such a level of coercion make you the least bit uncomfortable?

    It is not only immoral, but that kind of suggested approach is completely at odds with the liberal constitutional democracy that is our country.

    I just read a story where Costco stopped selling a new book that is critical of Obama. Well, there’s discrimination right there. Should we mandate that Costco sell the book, and if they don’t, let’s burn down Costco?

  119. numo wrote:

    @ Josh: call me a cynic, but aren’t Piper’s tweets every bit as much a ploy to gain a market share as Burger King’s ads? They seem nothing if not calculated (in more than one sense).

    “Just like our regular Whopper, Except LGBT(TM)!”
    “Just like fill-in-the-blank, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

  120. Anonymous wrote:

    It will be interesting, however, to hear why you believe that OT and the NT, and Jesus’ statements do not affirm unions between a man and a woman.

    And I’m going to be extremely rude and point out something that maybe has escaped you.

    Up until the early 20th century in most of the West, women were *property*. We were *chattel*. The first women’s rights advocates who met at Seneca Falls in 1848 recognized that their legal status was virtually the same as slaves, even if women weren’t actually sold at the slave auction. However, we were given in marriage, passed from father to husband like so much baggage. We were treated as incompetent under the law from birth until widowhood, if we happened to live long enough to be widowed. In the case of divorce, the property right of the husband was upheld–the woman was sent away without her children. And then, if you got married again, it was back into legal incompetency.

    I’m really, really sorry, but this is a huge problem for the church and the church has done a terrible, horrible, awful job of facing the fact that its model of marriage is based on the idea that wives (and children) are property. In Ephesians 5-6, for example, wives, children and slaves were all treated in order–and there’s a reason for that. They were all property.

    Nobody wants to talk about the rickety foundations of marriage in the church, which is based on ownership. Instead, we have people who want to push *patriarchy* and go back to the good old days of chattel ownership via marriage vows.

    NO THANKS.

  121. Daisy wrote:

    We’ve gone far beyond homosexuals getting equal rights – which they already have – to anyone who does not fully jump on board with it is getting harassed.

    When you’re on top and in power, you’re going to throw your weight around.

    Especially if you were on the receiving end of it in the past when you were powerless. Payback Time.

    And that holds regardless of sexual orientation.

  122. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    How lovely of you to call us non Christians inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant. The dictionary definition of abhorrent. I’m wondering if you mean that, or perhaps were being a bit flowery and didn’t realize what you’re saying? As for he’s right to do that, fair enough, we can all have our opinions. But why should his opinion matter at all to non Christians? Especially if we’re abhorrent by your standards? I mean do you find the pronouncements of Muslims, Sikhs or Buddhists on YOUR moral position particularly concerning?

    I’m standing over here with Abq Blue and agreeing with every word.

  123. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    I think they may actaully believe it is better, as a child, to be raped by a Bible-Believing-Patriarch™ that to be raised by loving same sex couples. And that, to me, is truly sick.

    A hearty amen here Jeannette. Google up Zach Wahls, a beautiful young man who was raised by a committed lesbian couple. His story is one of family, love, courage, and a triumph of the human spirit.

  124. Daisy wrote:

    We’ve gone far beyond homosexuals getting equal rights – which they already have – to anyone who does not fully jump on board with it is getting harassed.

    I’m calling you out on this, Daisy. THAT IS A LIE. A flat-out, rotten, stinking LIE.

    If it were true that GLBT persons have the same rights as straight people, then why is it that in 29 states people can still be fired for being gay? That’s just ONE example, just one. Otherwise, why did Houston have to go to the trouble a month ago to ensure GLBT residents the same rights to housing and jobs as straight people? Because Texas doesn’t give them those rights. The USA doesn’t give them those rights.

    The fact of the matter is GLBT persons do not have the same rights as straight people. I am getting very, very, very tired of people saying that GLBT people want more rights when that is simply not the case. They just want the right to have jobs and housing just the same as you. *Just The Same As You.*

    I’ve had it up to *here* with this notion found in some areas of the Christian community that GLBT people are asking for special rights. NOPE. It’s for the same rights I have. And what disgusts me about this the most is how some Christians will use Jesus as a cudgel.

    PS. My employer, a too big to fail bank I’ll not name here, was left off Dee’s list above. We’ve been giving benefits to GL couples for as long as I’ve worked there (15 years).

  125. Mirele:

    I enjoyed reading your comments about women and history.

    What, pray tell, did that have to do with my simple assertion that the OT and NT, including Jesus’ words, affirming the union of a man and a woman?

    There is nothing sinister in that simple assertion.

    If you believe that neither the OT, nor the NT (including Jesus) affirmed the union of a man and a woman, that’s fine. As I said to An Attorney and Zooey111, it’s a most unusual position to take, but have at it. I would be interested in hearing why you think that is the case.

    But your non-sequitur response reminds me of a question that Mia Wallace asked Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction. “Do you listen, or wait to talk?”

  126. HUG:

    “Payback time?”

    So, we’re moving from argument and reasoning to pure force.

    How very French-revolution like.

    The founders should have realized the French had it right all along.

    Get the guillotine oiled up.

    It’s going to make for a wonderful, liberated society I tell you.

  127. @ mirele:
    Well said. Civil rights are not a zero sum game. LGBT people getting the same rights as me does not take anything away from me. If anything it betters the society that I live in. We have same sex marriage here in my state, and it certainly hasn’t hurt my heterosexual marriage at all. My wife and I are not diminished, we have had our lives enriched by being a part of a marriage ceremony for a colleague of mine in particular. I was able to be her celebrant (woohoo I’m an ordained minister, bet you didn’t know that) as she and her partner married after 20 years together. The witnesses were couple friends of theirs with similar long histories together. What an inspiration to my wife and I, these people staying together through so much for love.
    Beyond marriage though, LGBT certainly deserve and need the same rights as everyone else, couldn’t agree with you more Mirele.

  128. ABQ Blue:

    You have stated the point exactly in your reference to Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists.

    I went to a Muslim bakery just the other day. I ordered a cake for the COEXIST party I was throwing for the neighborhood and I wanted the bakery to cater the event.

    I ordered a cake – and they refused.

    They especially got mad when I asked it they could draw depictions of Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and Mohammed on the cake. They said it was against their religion to draw Mohammed on the cake.

    I reminded them of the invasion of Spain by the Moops! And how all of the Christian churches in the Middle East have been destroyed. I told them that they were in America now, and it was payback time.

    I have sued to make them supply me a cake for my COEXIST party. I have also asked for the likenesses to be put on the cake, as requested.

    I told them exactly what Sam H said: “If you are in business that is in America you do “loose” (sic) the right to discriminate …”

    You’ll all be reading about my lawsuit soon, I’m sure. It will be my 15 minutes of fame.

  129. @ Anonymous:
    In addendum, if your Muslim baker has issues with providing service to people with differing faiths and philosophies, I definitely think he or she should get out of the public service sector. Otherwise, it’s just ridiculous as I see you agree with your lawsuit.

  130. Conservatus wrote:

    “Let the dead bury their dead.”
    Succinct, callous, and unloving words by Jesus?
    Or a call for men to devote themselves to the Gospel, without regard for making others feel “part of the human community.”
    It is hard to discern when/how to follow Jesus in that way – but what is not hard to discern is that there are situations (Piper thinks Burger King is one; Cathy has not reached that point with his friend) where we can publicly walk away from associating with those (“dead”) who intentionally provoke God’s commandments which Jesus said “I have come to uphold”.
    Piper is right to call out openly abhorrent pagans; he’s right to do that even when you think he should focus more on abhorrent churchmen (Jesus loved the woman at the well by calling out her adultery, and He called out the Pharisees in the temple).

    I have some pagans in my family. They are lovely people and not abhorrent at all. I don’t understand what you mean.

  131. ABQ Blue:

    I thought you said to Conservatus, referring to yourself, that you were a “non Christian.”

    In the last comment to Mirele that you were an ordained minister.

    Am I missing something or am I just confused?

    If you are a non Christian (also a non Muslim, non Sikh etc., I suppose), how is it that you are an ordained minister?

    It’s not unusual for trained religious people to leave their faith. That’s been going on since the first pages of the Bible were written.

    But it is unusual for non Christians to refer to themselves as ordained ministers.

    The people whom I know who have left the faith took steps to turn in the ordination credentials etc.

    Are you keeping yours? Surely not.

    Perhaps I am confused.

    Help me out here.

    Thanks.

  132. @ Anonymous:
    Certainly, though I would say this does seem somewhat of a petty lawsuit, even one that I would think you would decry based on your comments up thread and elsewhere on this site as far as I can see. But your rights are absolutely your rights, and I support the rule of law. Keep us appraised!

  133. ABQ:

    Thanks to the link for the Universal Life Church. You may find this strange, but I actually agree with some of the tenets!

    I am a Christian. Orthodox in my beliefs. High view of scripture.

    I would be interested in knowing how long you have been an atheist, and whether your position is an affirmative – “There is no God!” or it’s along the lines of an agnostic – you either don’t know or can’t say for yourself, but you are not dogmatic in the position.

  134. ABQ:

    I was being facetious about the lawsuit, obviously.

    I actually believe in both cases that the business owners have rights, too. Everyone has rights. There is a balancing there that goes on.

    For example, we have Title VII that prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, religion, country of origin, etc., but there are exceptions for religious organizations. And the First and other amendments to the Constitution trump the statute.

    Public facilities cannot discriminate. Private ones can, subject to exceptions. The one everyone seems to conceptually acknowledge is the public accommodation – restaurants, buses etc. But even then it runs to persons, not their events. Hence, a private bus rental business could refuse to bus people to a KKK convention, but it could not refuse service to all white people.

    This kind of balancing has taken place in our history, and will take place into the foreseeable future. I believe that the influx of Muslims and other non-Christian religions into the U.S. will actually help secure religious rights going forward. We are used to seeing cases line up in a certain way. So folks who are not sympathetic to Christians, will generally be less friendly to their claims for religious exercise.

    But often those same people (for sociological reasons) will often see other religions as minorities, and may look favorably upon their claims for the free exercise of faith. In so doing, exceptions are created that apply across the board to all faiths, including Christians.

    It is interesting how that works.

    Our country was founded upon the tensions of securing different rights of different groups at different times.

    I once heard a very secular judge who sits on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, who is not at all friendly toward traditional Christians, say “We have a lot of God in our history. In our founding documents. In our practice. There is no way it is all going to be stripped out.”

    That may be disheartening to people who want a “strict separation” approach (and you may be in that group), but the basic point the judge was making was that no group on any side of these issues is going to get everything it wants. Our history and the complexity of our laws and the diversity of our nation make it so that we will have to live with one another.

    I think that is a very healthy place to be actually. If everything were settled, it would probably mean a lot of violence had taken place to make it so.

  135. @ Anonymous:
    It is a fairly innocuous organization to be sure. I suppose I could join the American Humanists for the same thing but I don’t identify as humanist.

    Pardon for the brief threadjack Deb & Dee, please delete if it’s distracting.

    Anonymous wrote:

    ABQ:
    I would be interested in knowing how long you have been an atheist, and whether your position is an affirmative – “There is no God!” or it’s along the lines of an agnostic – you either don’t know or can’t say for yourself, but you are not dogmatic in the position.

    I’ve identified as atheist for 6 years, though before that I was an agnostic and an agnostic Wiccan. Before that I was a believing and practicing Christian, not orthodox in the least actually. Assemblies of God and non denominational charismatic Protestant churches, with an American Evangelical Christian K-12 education. I identify as agnostic atheist, though I’m going to take a second to explain, please forgive me. A-gnostic – without knowledge: I lack knowledge and convincing evidence for any any god or gods, but I am willing to change if evidence or perhaps experience comes up. A-theist – without belief in god. I am without any belief in the supernatural, let alone any deities. On the Dawkins scale I’m a 6, I’m what’s known as a soft atheist since I do not say I know without reasonable doubt there are no gods. I will still look at interesting arguments or evidence for phenomena.

    Heh, that was a little long winded.

  136. Anonymous wrote:

    ABQ:
    I was being facetious about the lawsuit, obviously.

    I figured, but hey it’s a sincere response that does need to answered forth rightly.

    but the basic point the judge was making was that no group on any side of these issues is going to get everything it wants. Our history and the complexity of our laws and the diversity of our nation make it so that we will have to live with one another.
    I think that is a very healthy place to be actually. If everything were settled, it would probably mean a lot of violence had taken place to make it so.

    I turn to a Thomas Jefferson quote with issues like this.

    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    I agree with you, it’s good that we have to live with each other, we have to solve problems together.

  137. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    dee wrote:

    I disagree. I am searching his website and tweets for expressed concerns about child sex abuse in the church. So far, I can’t find anything. For some, this could seem quite hypocritical.

    Disclaimer: The following statement is only my opinion:
    I think that for Neo-Reformed and Complementarian (Patriarchal) leaders and even in the rank and file, it is far more horrifying for a child to be raised by a gay couple who treat the child well than it is for that same child to be raised by a pedophile who spouts the correct doctrinal line – I think they may actaully believe it is better, as a child, to be raped by a Bible-Believing-Patriarch™ that to be raised by loving same sex couples. And that, to me, is truly sick.

    I think you’re right. 🙁

  138. mirele wrote:

    Anonymous wrote:

    It will be interesting, however, to hear why you believe that OT and the NT, and Jesus’ statements do not affirm unions between a man and a woman.

    And I’m going to be extremely rude and point out something that maybe has escaped you.

    Up until the early 20th century in most of the West, women were *property*. We were *chattel*. The first women’s rights advocates who met at Seneca Falls in 1848 recognized that their legal status was virtually the same as slaves, even if women weren’t actually sold at the slave auction. However, we were given in marriage, passed from father to husband like so much baggage. We were treated as incompetent under the law from birth until widowhood, if we happened to live long enough to be widowed. In the case of divorce, the property right of the husband was upheld–the woman was sent away without her children. And then, if you got married again, it was back into legal incompetency.

    I’m really, really sorry, but this is a huge problem for the church and the church has done a terrible, horrible, awful job of facing the fact that its model of marriage is based on the idea that wives (and children) are property. In Ephesians 5-6, for example, wives, children and slaves were all treated in order–and there’s a reason for that. They were all property.

    Nobody wants to talk about the rickety foundations of marriage in the church, which is based on ownership. Instead, we have people who want to push *patriarchy* and go back to the good old days of chattel ownership via marriage vows.

    NO THANKS.

    Amen!!!

  139.   __

    “What must those of the LGBTQ community do to be Saved?”

    hmmm…

    (They must recognize their need for Jesus Christ…)

    huh?

    How can they find Jesus Christ? 

    Gump!

    …The first step in finding Jesus Christ is for us to recognize that we need Him, that each of us, are a sinner, that we have violated the principles of truth in the word of God. 

    big words…

    Ouch! (sorry)

    Yeah, we have all sinned (everyone of us), and because if it we must have the blood of Jesus Christ cleanse us from all sin. 

    What?

    Sadily, our morality cannot save us, our goodness cannot save us, and our random acts of kindness cannot save us non neither…

    What?!?

    Yeah, we must repent, and confess our sin. If we confess our sins, God, who is faithful and just, –will with Jesus, -will forgive us our sins, amd cleanse us from all unrighteousness, that is all the bad stuff we have done.

    Now you might be thinking that you are unable to do this. But, I want you to know that God can truly save us- It does not matter what we have done, He can truly save us!

    God loves us (each and everyone) even though we are all sinners. 

    And because of this love while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; thus God has made it possible through the gift of his precious Son, Jesus,  well…for you and I to be saved. 

    Really?

    Really.

    This is God’s free gift to us.

    What?

    Even though the wages of sin is death; the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.

    huh?

    For it is by God’s Grace that salvation is made possible for us.

    Yep!

    Believe God, accept what Jesus has done on your behalf, ok?

    Don’t worry, God can provide the faith you need to accomplish this and help you move forward in your new life.

    He is pretty cool.

    So you see, you cannot get to Heaven by being good, doing good stuff, random acts of kindness, hmmm…that sort of thing…

    So even though you cannot get to Heaven by being good or by doing good stuff or random acts of kindness,etc. we CAN get there, because Jesus made a way for you & I…

    Wow!

    Do you want it?

    Go 4 it!

    Confess your faults your- bad stuff to God, talk to Him, repent, that is have a change of mind, turn away from sin, and choose Jesus’ good news –that His death and rising up from the grave is making it posable for you and I, to be right with God, and experience the abundant life Jesus promised.

    Repentance means ta turn away, walk and go another way…ok?

    The gospel stuff is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, ok?

    Yeah, it is about – that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and if you believe in your heart, that God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved. 

    Simple huh?

    Well… it is with your heart that you believe and with your mouth that you confess your sin, and are saved, and made right before God, ok?

    Whew!

    When we do this, God will make a place for us in His heaven, and He will come and help us with our daily life, that is, help us to please Him.

    Call upon Jesus today?

    …you’ll be glad you did!

    …believe me,

    His eyes are upon da lit’l sparrow! I’ze know, cuz I’ze  one of um!

    (smiley face goes here)

    ATB

    Sopy

  140. @ Anonymous:

    Not the same as saying he said marriage was only between a man and a woman, which is what you said he said. Show where he said it is only.

  141. @ mirele:
    I disagree with you on this. Take English history as an example, for most of this both men and women had a raw deal, the lower they were in the hierarchy or class system, the fewer rights they enjoyed. Peasants under their feudal lord. Think too of working class men in Victorian England subjected the owner of the mill. Men in the lower orders were also subject to women who happened to be in the aristocracy, higher up. Such women could enjoy wealth, power and influence, own property – even become monarch! The vast majority, however, had to know their place. The situation in Europe was considerably worse in this regard.

    When it comes to conflict in British history, being female was less of a disadvantage, as it was always the men who had to go off to war.

    Genesis says a ‘man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife’, he doesn’t buy her. The treatment of wives as though they were goods and chattels does not derive from Genesis nor Jesus’ confirmation of marriage in the gospels based on Genesis. Eph 5 and 6 gives no hint that a wife is the property of her husband, nor are children the property of their father or parents, whereas the slave/servant relationship obviously does reflect ownership I agree.

    I’m not implying you are wrong to deplore the injustice of former times, nor be against it where is still continues (the class system is still something of a curse even in modern Britian), but it does need balancing up a tad.

  142. elastigirl wrote:

    “He’s a coward! He’s a coward!”
    “How do you know he’s a coward?”
    “Because he was kind to someone that we don’t like! & God doesn’t like him either!”
    “Should he have been mean instead?”
    “…..well,…. YES!”

    That conversation would have been a post in itself. Well said.

  143. Bridget wrote:

    Jesus also placed himself at the well in the middle of the day when only the outcasts come to the well. He sent his disciples away. He spoke to the outcast woman at the well and accepted water from her which was totally unacceptable in his culture, and he shared himself (the Gospel) with her.
    And what did Piper do? Tweet his displeasure from afar .

    Now that sums the whole situation up. Great comment.

  144. @ sam h:
    I agree with you, Sam. I knew couples in Dallas who divorce and immediately join another one the big SBC churches and within 6 months were leading Sunday school classes. I know the circumstances of their divorces and the ones to which I am referring involved both husband and wife having affairs. This is winked at in the Dallas culture.

    And I am talking about some of the famous SBC behemoths, not just Ed Young Jr’s show. Oh yeah, did I mention that most of these couples had money? It is amazing how far you can get by giving $100,000-something CJ discovered, I’m sure.

    The church is hypocritical when if comes to this subject. You see, divorce can be overlooked because the folks are “heterosexual.” Since most evangelical Christians are heterosexual, they like to leave an out for themselves.

  145. @ THC:
    I guess you haven’t seen some of the commercials and press releases from many of these companies. All sorts of proud announcements were issued about their corporate policy. Look into it.

    I think far too many Christians jump on the bandwagon of the latest big thing because they are lazy.They wait for the “pronouncement” of the big guy. So, when Piper says it, it must be dealt with. If he doesn’t say anything well, we ignore it and enjoy out cable TV.

  146. Muff Potter wrote:

    But for a screed on how the Almighty engineers this horrific stuff (child abuse) so that he might bring glory to himself? You’d probably come up with a gem quicker than you can say sovereignty.

    Now that is one insightful comment. I shall add it to my search parameters.

  147. Anonymous wrote:

    I can agree with is the desire to love people and make them feel part of the human community.
    Ironically, that actually becomes harder to do, not easier, in a genuine way due the failure to acknowledge the Lord’s standard for sexual behavior.

    The Romans did not acknowledge the Lord’s standard of behavior and yet the love of Christians, over time, turned the empire on its head. I actually find it easy to love those who don’t understand or do not accept what I believe. I get them, just like I got my entire biological family who did not show one ounce of understanding of the faith. By not condemning them and living out my faith, i was privileged to see my dad come to faith a few eels before he died.

  148. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    How lovely of you to call us non Christians inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant. The dictionary definition of abhorrent

    I found that Conservative’s comment repugnant. I allow it to stand because i hoped he would get pushback from nice folks like you. You show more kindness as an atheist/agnostic than many Christians do who love to point fingers at others as opposed to just loving others.

  149. Anonymous wrote:

    It seems that political forces have left no option for people who believe that homosexual practices are immoral, but don’t hate gay people. That is the tradjectory of the discussion and practice in the U.S. It is very sad.

    But Dan Cathy has done just that. In my own life, I was good friends with a gay man New Mexico. We went to the movies together and shared meals together.

    You can be friends and be loving without agreeing with a particular behavior. My trajectory is to love the people God puts in my life where they are at. You find the common shared points and you go with it. True love for others will sometimes leads to openness in a relationship.

  150. Anonymous wrote:

    Doesn’t such a level of coercion make you the least bit uncomfortable?

    I am against government coercion. There is far too much of that already. But, the church often takes advantage of tax breaks, loans, etc that are given by local, state and federal agencies. The moment we jump into bed with the government, we can expect the forces of those ideologues in power to descend upon us.

    We live in a messy world. We expect the government to had us breaks but we don’t expect the government to tell us what we can and cannot do.

    That is why I respect institutions that opt out of the mess. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about Grove City College doing just that.

    “Under President Dr. Charles S. MacKenzie, the college was the plaintiff-appellee in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in 1984, Grove City College v. Bell. The ruling came seven years after the school’s refusal to sign a Title IX compliance form, which would have subjected the entire school to federal regulations, even ones not yet issued. The court ruled 6–3 that acceptance by students of federal educational grants fell under the regulatory requirements of Title IX, but it limited the application to the school’s financial aid department.

    In 1988, new legislation subjected every department of any educational institution that received federal funding to Title IX requirements. In response, Grove City College withdrew from the Pell Grant program entirely beginning with the 1988–89 academic year, replacing such grants to students with its own program, the Student Freedom Fund.[14] In October 1996, the college withdrew from the Stafford Loan program, providing entering students with replacements on better terms through a program with PNC Bank.[15]

    Grove City is one of a handful of colleges (along with Hillsdale College, which did likewise after the aforementioned 1984 case[15]) that does not allow its students to accept federal financial aid of any kind, including grants, loans and scholarships”

  151. dee wrote:

    My trajectory is to love the people God puts in my life where they are at.

    Perfect! That’s evidently how Jesus operated. He ministered to each person He came in contact with in one way or another and they benefited and learned something from the interaction.

  152. ABQ Blue:

    Thanks so much for the explanation. That was very kind of you.

    I look forward to chatting again sometime.

    The hardest thing about internet communication is misunderstanding due to the fact that the person with whom you are speaking is not present, and lot is lost in tone and other cues that assist human communication.

    It’s no one’s fault that this occurs, but it does. Arguments erupt over points that are really not being argued.

    It is always a pleasure to meet someone with whom you don’t agree, but you communicate well because for some reason you are on the same wave length.

    I think that has happened between us. It is clear to me that you and I disagree about much, but I have not perceived one ugly jab from you, and I hope that you have not from me.

    It’s just fortunate and fun to find someone like that on the internet.

    I am not often on this site, but I’ll look for you the next time I am here.

    Wish you the best.

  153. Dee:

    I understand what you are saying and agree with much of it.

    But it always needs to be remembered that the State not being able to tax the church is a fundamental of our nation’s founding. The First Amendment says that. The church cannot dictate to the State and the State can have no power over the Church.

    We start in this country with the government being unable to tax the Church. I believe that is irrespective of 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. That could be repealed today. Educational institutions and other non-profits would lose something, but the First Amendment would protect the church.

    If the U.S. is remade into some new type of country, then we would have a new situation.

    Thanks.

  154. Dee:

    Also, business owners like these bakers should never be seen as giving up their freedoms to run a business just because they use streets, pay taxes, use utilities etc.

    This will come up in other contexts soon (I mentioned Muslims, for example), and perhaps the baggage of the Christian/gay thing will make the analysis more palatable.

    Btw, love Grove City College and Hillsdale.

  155. Actually, the Constitution does not prevent churches from being taxed. But the Congress and the states have elected not to tax churches, with churches being under the same standards as other non-profit or not-for-profit entities. And to avoid being taxed, churches must avoid some rather obvious errors. When churches start running for-profit operations (cafe in the lobby) not directly related to their normal activities, they can fall under IRS regulations requiring payment of taxes on the “unrelated” income. Churches are almost always granted 501(c)(3) status but many never apply.

    An example of such regulation is that churches must keep records of contributions by contributor and provide a receipt either for each contribution or annually to each contributor, or the contributions are not deductible to the contributor.

    Many Constitutional scholars believe that true compliance with the first amendment would treat churches like any other non-profit entity, rather than being blanket exempt. And would treat income to the pastor like income from any other source, resulting in the deletion of the parsonage deduction.

  156. And churches can be audited regarding contribution records if the IRS suspect hanky-panky — provide receipts for more than the actual contributions.

  157. Anonymous wrote:

    What, pray tell, did that have to do with my simple assertion that the OT and NT, including Jesus’ words, affirming the union of a man and a woman?

    There is nothing sinister in that simple assertion.

    If you believe that neither the OT, nor the NT (including Jesus) affirmed the union of a man and a woman, that’s fine. As I said to An Attorney and Zooey111, it’s a most unusual position to take, but have at it. I would be interested in hearing why you think that is the case.

    But your non-sequitur response reminds me of a question that Mia Wallace asked Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction. “Do you listen, or wait to talk?”

    It’s *not* a union if one party is so fundamentally unequal so as to be the legal equivalent of a slave. That’s why the history lesson. Jesus may have called the husband and wife “one flesh” but his followers didn’t take the hint and raise the status of women to that of people. Instead, wives became subsumed in the identitie of their husbands.

    And, I’ll note, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

  158. An Attorney wrote:

    Many Constitutional scholars believe that true compliance with the first amendment would treat churches like any other non-profit entity, rather than being blanket exempt. And would treat income to the pastor like income from any other source, resulting in the deletion of the parsonage deduction.

    Yep. My Con law II professor would work himself up into a lather on this one.

  159. mirele wrote:

    t’s *not* a union if one party is so fundamentally unequal so as to be the legal equivalent of a slave. That’s why the history lesson. Jesus may have called the husband and wife “one flesh” but his followers didn’t take the hint and raise the status of women to that of people. Instead, wives became subsumed in the identitie of their husbands.

    And while we’re reading between the lines, Jesus all but said that marriage was beside the point entirely. Who will she be married to in heaven? No. One.

    What does THAT tell you?

  160. dee wrote:

    You can be friends and be loving without agreeing with a particular behavior.

    Precisely. In fact, I think God is pleased with my gay and lesbian relationships. God has put people (straight, gay, old, young, women, men, whatever) in our lives, and it is our privilege and blessing to love them with the love God has freely and graciously showered upon us.

    Cheers,
    Tim

  161. An Attorney wrote:

    And would treat income to the pastor like income from any other source, resulting in the deletion of the parsonage deduction.

    A federal judge in Wisconsin found the parsonage deduction an establishment of religion earlier this year. The ruling is currently on hold pending an appeal by the Obama administration. (I love pointing this out. So many Christians think the Obama administration is anti-Christian and anti-religion, yet it is appealing this decision. So much for that, I think.)

  162. Caitlin wrote:

    And while we’re reading between the lines, Jesus all but said that marriage was beside the point entirely. Who will she be married to in heaven? No. One.

    What does THAT tell you?

    Remember how CBMW had an article about relationships in the new creation, with the assertion that even in heaven, men would be over women? I believe this is based on the belief in the “Eternal Subordination of the Son” belief. Apparently they think marriage will continue in some fashion…

    Our Deebs talked about it a few months ago.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/03/14/why-did-cbmw-driscollize-scrub-its-article/

  163. mirele wrote:

    And, I’ll note, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

    Or incest. My point is that arguing from what Jesus did not say can lead to some arguments we maybe do not want to have.

    And, BTW, for specificity we do not know whether he said anything about either homosexuality or incest or polygamy or, or,or since John tells that there was a lot more that Jesus did that was not recorded. What we do know is “there is no record that he said anything about….” Beyond that, there is a lot of room for supposition and complicated arguments and such. For example, the argument could be made that since there is no record that Jesus said anything about incest, the most reasonable supposition to explain that could be the assumption that he adhered to the Jewish religious law of the time and that therefore there was no need to mention it. Along with the argument that if he had made some statement contrary to the law, that might have been something that did get recorded since it would have been a point of contention. That argument leads in the opposite direction of what people tend to be saying when mentioning the lack of any record to the contrary. Thin ice. Maybe folks do not want to go there.

  164. @ Tim:
    I take your point that treating gays like the proverbial leper means you cannot share the gospel with them, why should they listen.

    On the other hand, if practising homosexuality is spiritually and physically harmful, then being ‘loving’ also involves trying to direct them away from this. By coincidence there is currently a page on the BBC site where WHO are recommending all men who have sex with men to receive antiretroviral drugs to reduce HIV. This is massively more or a problem with this group than the general population.

    There is always going to be a tension between how to treat people as people, and how to deal with their unbelief that manifests itself in sinful behaviour. It bothers me that in unconditionally accepting people, we could end up failing to prevent them coming to harm. This is true both physically and spiritually in this case. Hope you see what I am getting at!

  165. mirele wrote:

    Apparently they think marriage will continue in some fashion…

    Why assume that they think that the subordinate females in heaven will rise to the status of a wife, whatever they might think that is. The genesis story can be read to say that the female is intrinsically a subordinate creation (a lesser order of being) and that this is what they are hoping?? to see play out in eternity. That would certainly out compete the seventy virgins idea. I don’t have to spell this out any more clearly, I think.

  166. Nancy wrote:

    And, BTW, for specificity we do not know whether he said anything about either homosexuality or incest or polygamy

    Ah, but no one is saying that incest or polygamy are bad *because* Jesus said so. There are other, even secular, reasons these are disfavored.

  167. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    I turn to a Thomas Jefferson quote with issues like this.

    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    I too wax Jeffersonian whenever I hear of some frivolous lawsuit in which the plaintiffs want to prevent high-schoolers from invoking the name of Jesus at their football games or nixing their use of an unused room for their lunch time Bible studies. Believe me, when the the state tries to establish a state religion or institute coercion on the behalf of any religion, I’ll be one of the first to man the barricades in armed insurrection. Until that day however here’s my ruling from the bench to the plaintiffs: Get over yourselves, relax your sphincters, and learn to live and let live.

  168. @ Albuquerque Blue: Canada legalized same-sex marriage some years ago, and I have yet to see any articles about the collapse of that country, moral, social or otherwise.

    If anything, I think that allowing consenting adults to get married (regardless of whether they are gay or straight) actually *strengthens* and affirms the custom and institution of marriage, but hey… that’s just me.

  169. Muff Potter wrote:

    I too wax Jeffersonian whenever I hear of some frivolous lawsuit in which the plaintiffs want to prevent high-schoolers from invoking the name of Jesus at their football games or nixing their use of an unused room for their lunch time Bible studies. Believe me, when the the state tries to establish a state religion or institute coercion on the behalf of any religion, I’ll be one of the first to man the barricades in armed insurrection. Until that day however here’s my ruling from the bench to the plaintiffs: Get over yourselves, relax your sphincters, and learn to live and let live.

    Hm. Putting on my Fed Courts hat.

    There’s this law colloquially called the Anti-Tax Injunction Act. It basically means that you can’t sue the government to stop it from doing things solely on the basis of being a tax payer. So, while it galls me, I cannot sue the government to stop them spending money on drones solely because I pay taxes. If the government shoots my house with a drone, then I have an injury and I can sue.

    This is true for every cause of action, common law or constitutional, except The Anti-Establishment Clause (some would argue also the Free Exercise clause). The Supreme Court carved out an exception just for the Anti-Establishment clause, so if my tax dollars are going to fund the United Church of America (official), I can sue, even if I can’t prove that I was otherwise injured by it. Why? Because the Anti-Establishment clause can’t be enforced any other way, because it is specifically interpreted as a Right of Conscience and it is precisely that squeamy feeling you get that seems so nebulous that the Anti-Establishment Clause is supposed to prevent. This is just an example of how the Anti-Establishment Clause is so very different than even the rest of the First Amendment. (So much so, that if the Hobby Lobby case were about, say, their right to post signs or gather for rallies or start a newspaper, it would not have turned out the way it did.)

    So while the practical part of me says “Yeah, live and let live,” the lawyer in me knows that those lawsuits are in fact *not* frivolous but perfectly in line with the Constitution and how it is applied today (and for a long time running).

  170. @ dee:

    Sadly many evangelicals don’t believe this. Many live their life with a tribal mentality and refuse to associate with different thinking people. I think this is sad. As a result many evangelicals cut out gays, singles, elderly, “theological liberals”, atheists, academics, etc…. The family is the idol for many evangelicals and as such that is the pole they rally around. And this is what many folks from James Dobson to Al Mohler defend. However, they also have a twisted and unrealistic view of the family. Fred Ward and June Clever did NOT represent the average American family in the 1950’s. It was a television show, I would go so far to say that many evangelicals have bought into a “pornographic” version of the American family. Meaning many have bought into this fantasy life of the nuclear family with Mom baking in the kitchen, Father ruling the home and working and 2 obedient kids that sit in their parents presence and say, “Thanks Dad…you’re always right!” The family has been redefined and changes throughout history. One thing I would like to do is one day research what American theologians taught about the family in the Great Awakening, and different revivals in the 18th, and 19th centuries. And I mean beyond the claim that alcohol is going to destroy the family.

  171. @ mirele: I do believe it comes from a conflation of ESS and Temple Mormon beliefs and practices. It certainly is all but identical to LDS belief, but then ,it seems to me that Mormonism is as much a product of the revivalist cultural movements of the 19th century as many American evangelical (holiness, etc) churches. It’s the red-headed stepchild that everyone either ignores or vilifies, or some combination of both.

    Coincidentally, I kind of like the Mormon hymn “if You Could His to Kolob.” The melody is haunting and very much an expression of longing for the transcendent. (There are YouTube video of it.) It seems all of a piece w/many Victorian era xtian hymns and secular songs like “The Lost Chord.”

    But I digress…

  172. mirele wrote:

    The fact of the matter is GLBT persons do not have the same rights as straight people. I am getting very, very, very tired of people saying that GLBT people want more rights when that is simply not the case.

    I think, in some instances, they may be asking for more rights than heterosexuals. Take, for example, an individual who identifies with and dresses as the opposite sex. A man as a woman or a woman as a man, or dressed in a manner such that you really can’t tell whether they are a man or a woman. Now which rest room would they use in a restaurant – the one marked “Men” or the one marked “Women”

  173. Caitlin wrote:

    the lawyer in me knows that those lawsuits are in fact *not* frivolous but perfectly in line with the Constitution and how it is applied today (and for a long time running).

    Your comment is a nice summary of legal standing to sue, Caitlin.

  174. Tim wrote:

    Your comment is a nice summary of legal standing to sue, Caitlin.

    I didn’t get an A- for the hardest class in law school for nothing! 😉

  175. @ Caitlin:

    I do believe “an attorney” is wanting to talk about polygamy on this thread, since Jesus did not specifically denounce it.

  176. mirele wrote:

    Remember how CBMW had an article about relationships in the new creation, with the assertion that even in heaven, men would be over women? I believe this is based on the belief in the “Eternal Subordination of the Son” belief. Apparently they think marriage will continue in some fashion…

    Mormon Celestial Marriage?

  177.   __

    This minister is welcome to die on hamburger hill, ‘Today’.  ‘Yesterday’, wasn’t it a  building in a foreign country, ‘Last Week’, wasn’t it a fallen bridge in some U.S. State. ‘Tomorrow’ ?,  hmmm…Stay tuned…The sky is the limit, I’m sure it will be quite entertaining…

  178. OCDan wrote:

    I know I am the new guy, so I don’t want to create a mess.
    However, I remember reading that Jesus did make some comment about dusting one’s shoes off if the house or town would not listen to the message.
    Look, I don’t need to defend Piper. Lord knows I won’t, but to argue that Jesus NEVER said goodbye, how about speaking in parables so the Jews wouldn’t understand Him?, I think is reading into the scripture something that doesn’t exist.
    Now, if we want to look at who Jesus did and didn’t say goodbye to and in what kind of sense He said, sure, I think that is fair. And sure, Jesus never used the English word Goodbye, but I think there were times when a goodbye was understood.
    Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

    Also, the refusing to listen to the message of salvation through Jesus is not the same as speaking out against homosexuality.

  179. @ Nancy:

    NOPE!!! But Anonymous and others have suggested that the Bible explicitly limits marriage to one man and one woman. I said that that is not what it says, but how they are interpreting what is said. Jesus did support marriage between a man and a woman, but did not explicitly limit marriage to that combination in any recorded statement in the Bible. In fact, there is no statement in the Bible that says that two people of the same gender cannot be married, or that multiple spouse marriages cannot occur. There are some statements that can be interpreted as limitations on sex between two people of the same gender, but as many courts have ruled, having sex is not the same as being married (though it was in very ancient times — the act of coitus made the other person your spouse).

  180. @ dee:

    dee wrote:

    @ THC:
    “I think far too many Christians jump on the bandwagon of the latest big thing because they are lazy.”

    I completely agree.

  181. @ Joe2: Well gee, that’s actually more complicated than you seem to believe, because there are

    – intersex people (who have a variety of biological conditions that can often lead to the person having to choose a physical gender to identify with, even having surgery to fix problems with urination and assorted things)

    – trans people

    – people who dress in drag (transvestites), which is *not* the same as being transsexual. A lot of straight people engage in transvestism in private, and sometimes in public, though the latter are usually in plays or otherwise involved in entertainment/public performances.

    – pre-op vs. post-op trans people is a whole other thing.

    Of these folks, I would suspect that those who are post-op trans would use the restrooms for those of the gender that they have chosen, but pre-op, no. Transvestites would (i think) use the restroom that’s appropriate to their actual physical gender. With intersex people, it’s complicated, especially for those with ambiguous genitalia. But most would (i think) do what they feel is best for themselves and others.

  182. Muff Potter wrote:

    I too wax Jeffersonian whenever I hear of some frivolous lawsuit in which the plaintiffs want to prevent high-schoolers from invoking the name of Jesus at their football games or nixing their use of an unused room for their lunch time Bible studies.

    I’ll note that the case on point for the high school football prayers, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), was brought by families of Catholic and Mormon students, not flaming atheists. The good “Christians” who were saying the prayers were SO incensed about the lawsuit that the judge (a) allowed the plaintiff minors and their mothers to file as Does and (b) specifically ordered the school district to stop trying to find out who the students and their parents were. The Supreme Court found the whole prayer routine at the football games (school sponsored game, with school PA system, everyone there) were a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    As for using classrooms, as long as the students aren’t in class at the time, it’s like reading the Bible in school. No problem, no sweat. But during instructional time, no way.

    I *do* have a problem with prayer in the schools and football games. If you’ve never lived in a monoreligious culture, it can be oppressive. During the years I lived in Utah, non-Mormons complained about how Monday nights were basically off limits for team sports due to Family Home Evening. That’s not an example of a legal infringement, but it does show the kind of influence one religion had, particularly when that same religion has buildings next to or across the street from the high school campuses (called seminaries). I live in Arizona, and they are here too. (Wish the kids would cross at the crosswalk, PLEASE.)

  183. Joe2 wrote:

    I think, in some instances, they may be asking for more rights than heterosexuals. Take, for example, an individual who identifies with and dresses as the opposite sex. A man as a woman or a woman as a man, or dressed in a manner such that you really can’t tell whether they are a man or a woman. Now which rest room would they use in a restaurant – the one marked “Men” or the one marked “Women”

    As a woman who has her hair in a boyish pixie cut and prefers shorts and oversized gray t-shirts to just about anything else for daily wear (except that’s not what I wear to work), I’m kind of gobsmacked about this question. Some people would think that I dress across the gender boundaries because of my clothes and hair. *shrug* I’m going in the ladies’ room and doing my business because I’m a woman. (For the record, I own and wear dresses and slacks, but when I’m at home, my go to is shorts and a t-shirt.)

    In short, you go into the room where you feel you should go. I don’t think it’s a matter of special rights. But then again, I was part of the group of women at law school who took over a men’s room on one of the floors and swapped out the signs with the ladies’ room. The law school had been built in a time when women were a minority at law school and by the time I went, we were half the class and the facilities weren’t sufficient. After one day with a line out the door and the next class starting, one of us just took the restroom signs, swapped them and called it potty parity. Everyone good-naturedly accepted the change.

  184. @ Taylor Joy: Then you must have a hard time figuring out why Christians care about child sexual abuse by non-Christians, right? And I hope you don’t criticize Hitler for killing Jews— he wasn’t a Christian, after all.

    Or is it that you think homosexuality is not sinful, and that’s why you oppose Christians who fight it?

  185. @ mirele: I hear you, and I dress much like you as well. Ditto for the haircut. I don’t look “boyish” anymore (middle age has taken care of that), but the fact that I’m not conventionally “girly” often throws people.

    For me, it’s not about gender politics, it’s about comfy clothes and feeling good in my own skin. Convention be d*mned!

    As for taking over the men’s room at law school, good on ya!

  186. Deebs…my comment is stuck in moderation. I didn’t realzie the names Dobson or Mohler are obscene! 😛

  187. Eric Rasmusen wrote:

    @ Taylor Joy: Then you must have a hard time figuring out why Christians care about child sexual abuse by non-Christians, right? And I hope you don’t criticize Hitler for killing Jews— he wasn’t a Christian, after all.
    Or is it that you think homosexuality is not sinful, and that’s why you oppose Christians who fight it?

    Eric, I know this was not directed at me, but I want to address it, nonetheless.

    Are you seriously comparing child sex abuse and genocide to homosexuality?

    * Child sex abuse is a crime, no matter if the perpetrator is Pagan, Mormon, Muslim, Christian, Animistic or Christian. It. Is. A. Crime. Period. You report crimes no matter who commits them. And it is a crime with a victim in need of help.

    * The act of genocide against the Jewish people (and others) 70+ years ago again, was a crime and a national scale. Again, there were many, many victims helpless to prevent what was done to them.

    Now, homosexuality. Even if you live in a state where it is still a crime on the books, where is the victim? The is no victim. It is between to consenting adults – “consenting” being the very important word.

    To compare these two horrible crimes to homosexuality is disingenuous, at best.

    And for the record, I do not believe that homosexuality and Christianity are mutually exclusive. I used to, but life and observation and God (I know, I know…) have taught me otherwise. We do not have to agree on this point. But to compare being gay to being a pedophile or a mass murderer is, to me, ridiculous.

  188. Anonymous wrote:

    Sam H:
    Are you fully awake?

    I don’t usually respond to rude posts. if you think about it for a second, almost every 7-11 and minimarket and gas station in America is owned by someone that does not identify as Christian. by your logic it would be ok for all those people to refuse to sell you gas because they don’t agree with your religion. Nike could refuse to sell tennis shoes to anyone they didn’t like the looks of because they might wear their tennis shoes in a gay marriage. All those grocery stores that are owned by the big temple in Utah could refuse to sell to anyone that doesn’t go to their temple, like they do with their food pantry for needy people. all the stores that were Baptist could refuse to serve people that are hindu. oh yeah and all the white people could refuse to sell to African Americans and they could also not let them use their restrooms, or drink out of their water fountains.

  189. Ken

    I believe that showing unconditional love towards people over a very, very long period of time is a way to show them that you care for them as opposed to loving them enough to tell them they are abhorrent. One opens a door to listen. The other, well, see what good that has done. 

  190. Eric Rasmussen

    I deeply disagree with you. First, you need to define what you mean by homosexuality. Are you discussing the feeling or the act. And one can oppose Christians who “fight it” whatever” it is, believing that there is a better way to discuss our differences starting with, and ending with, deep love for the other.

  191. Ah, HOMOSEXUALITY(TM).

    Just the mention of the word causes a psychotic break in people.

  192. I was looking at the list of companies, and many are headquartered in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, John Piper's haunt. Why such a focus on sexuality when there is so much more that is exemplified in Scripture?

    I have known good hearted people, gay, straight and whatever, and Mr. Piper isn't telling them something they haven't already been browbeaten or bashed about, or worse. He sounds like a broken record who says, "I hate, gay people, I hate gay people, I hate gay people," in an endless torrent. Is this all Christianity is about?

    Enough said, now how will you respond to the planks in your eye, Mr. Piper? You have judged, so will you now be judged.

  193. Several people criticized my saying “Why criticize him for giving his opinion of a public event?” I agree that this statement is irrelevant – the criticism is about the *content* of the statement, not his right to make a statement. Sorry about that.

    I should have just stuck to my central argument: That I think he was being critical of BK pandering to a particular group, rather than of LGBTs themselves. Of course, he probably disagrees with the “lifestyle” of LGBTs, but he never seemed to me to be a bigot when it came to non-heterosexual sexuality. That is, I doubt that he has no compassion for them or believes that they are beyond the hope of salvation.

  194. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Ah, HOMOSEXUALITY(TM).

    Just the mention of the word causes a psychotic break in people.

    So it does.
    And I, for one, always find myslef thinking, “I wonder why [name deleted] gets so hot under the collar over gay folks. I’m keeping an ear open; I would hate to miss the scandal that’s gonna break around THAT dude”.

  195. zooey111 wrote:

    And I, for one, always find myslef thinking, “I wonder why [name deleted] gets so hot under the collar over gay folks. I’m keeping an ear open; I would hate to miss the scandal that’s gonna break around THAT dude”.

    While I don’t wish to see anyone fall into a scandal (not that I read you as trying to imply that you would), I do think that there are a few evangelical leaders who would leave the rest of us much better off if they’d just come out of the closet and stop being such overcompensating jerks. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader whom those leaders might be. No micky mousing around in your answers, now! 😮

  196. @ mirele:

    Re prayer in school. I grew up in a town that had Catholic schools, but the public schools were about 70% Catholic. My home room teacher for Jr. High was the art teacher, a Catholic, and the ceramics she made were of various saints which she painted and which had halos.

    We had prayer every morning in home room. To the “saint of the day”, Mary, etc. As a Baptist, I was in a very uncomfortable environment, to say the least. I made my objection quietly to the principal, given the relevant SCt ruling, but was told that if I did not want to participate, I could sit silent. And a reassignment was not possible, as we were assigned by alphabet to the home room.

    That was a total violation of the establishment clause toward me, as well as violating my freedom of conscience.

  197. @ Eric Rasmusen:

    Eric, your comment is the absolute stupidest thing I have read on this blog. It suggests that either you have taken leave of your senses or you are trying to start a fight.

    Dee, please put this garbage generator into moderation, permanently.

  198. Mark wrote:

    I was looking at the list of companies, and many are headquartered in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, John Piper’s haunt. Why such a focus on sexuality when there is so much more that is exemplified in Scripture?

    Because sex makes people stupid.
    Orders from Captain Bonerhelmet and all that.

  199. Mark wrote:

    I have known good hearted people, gay, straight and whatever, and Mr. Piper isn’t telling them something they haven’t already been browbeaten or bashed about, or worse. He sounds like a broken record who says, “I hate, gay people, I hate gay people, I hate gay people,” in an endless torrent. Is this all Christianity is about?

    It was to Fred Phelps.

  200. zooey111 wrote:

    And I, for one, always find myslef thinking, “I wonder why [name deleted] gets so hot under the collar over gay folks. I’m keeping an ear open; I would hate to miss the scandal that’s gonna break around THAT dude”.

    Ted Haggard, anyone?

  201. This page is pertinent to some of the topics discussed in the original post and the comments on this page:

    “How liberalism became an intolerant dogma” by Damon Linker
    http://theweek.com/article/index/264546/how-liberalism-became-an-intolerant-dogma

    An excerpt

    My own cherished topic is this: Liberalism’s decline from a political philosophy of pluralism into a rigidly intolerant dogma.

    The decline is especially pronounced on a range of issues wrapped up with religion and sex.

    For a time, electoral self-interest kept these intolerant tendencies in check, since the strongly liberal position on social issues was clearly a minority view. But the cultural shift during the Obama years that has led a majority of Americans to support gay marriage seems to have opened the floodgates to an ugly triumphalism on the left.

  202. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Ted Haggard, anyone?

    Yep.

    On a related note, I was surprised when Doug Philips’ victim turned out to be female. Sometimes you find out people are straight where you least expect it. 😉

  203. __

    Under da Proverbial Hood: “It’s More Than Rainbow Burger Wrappers, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s . . . ” [1]

    What?

    Will this present generation ‘Stop’, ‘Lõõk’, and ‘Listen’…and possibly Act?

    hmmm…

    Sopy
    ___
    [1] Center for Disease Control (CDC) ,  http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

    Exit music: Teile der Pianoversion von ‘Cunarder28’ von mir für Gitarre arrangiert.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkrutzY6CY

  204. @ Jeannette Altes:

    Child sex abuse usually *is* a form of homosexuality. It’s worse than the basic sin, to be sure. Genocide, of course, is even worse. I am saying that the logic of people who say Christians shouldn’t criticize the sins of unbelievers applies whether that sin is homosexuality or genocide. I haven’t seen an argument for why we should criticize some sin and not other sin in unbelievers. In this culture, it is easy for people to criticize Nazi sin, and sometimes socially awkward to criticize homosexual sin, divorce, fornication, etc. That, I think, is the real motivation for Christians who say that sin in unbelievers should not be criticized.

  205. @ dee: If you don’t tell them that they are on the way to damnation, you are not showing them unconditional love. Rather, it is like providing free drinks to an alcoholic to show how much you love him.

  206. An Attorney wrote:

    We had prayer every morning in home room. To the “saint of the day”, Mary, etc. As a Baptist, I was in a very uncomfortable environment, to say the least. I made my objection quietly to the principal, given the relevant SCt ruling, but was told that if I did not want to participate, I could sit silent. And a reassignment was not possible, as we were assigned by alphabet to the home room.
    That was a total violation of the establishment clause toward me, as well as violating my freedom of conscience.

    Why? You didn’t have to pray. You could pray silently by yourself. WOuld it be more fair to deny the 70% of the class that was Catholic their right to pray as they wished?

  207. “It was considered natural and unremarkable for men to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes, and pederasty was condoned as long as the younger male partner was not a freeborn Roman. ….

    While perceived effeminacy was denounced, especially in political rhetoric, sex in moderation with male prostitutes or slaves was not regarded as improper or vitiating to masculinity, if the male citizen took the active and not the receptive role.”

    Don’t believe Wikipedia on points like this. A lot of people lie about homosexuality in history. The Lex Scantinia made sodomy between citizens illegal. It was not about who took the passive role. Read Suetonius on the Roman emperors and you will see that sexual immorality of all kinds was rampant, but that does not mean people approved of it.

  208. @ Eric Rasmusen: The teacher led the prayer out loud. The Catholic kids could have prayed silently and I could have prayed silently, but the teacher was praying out LOUD. So I did not have a choice. She was denying me my freedom on conscience because I had to listen to her HERESY!!!!!

  209. @ An Attorney:

    Lay aside Eric here for a minute (he uses some strong language) and explain something you have said. It almost sounds like you meant that one should condone sin (pick a sin, any sin) because by labeling sin as sin one would send somebody to hell (ensure their damnation) if they hear that somebody thought that something they were doing was sin?

    Or are you just objecting to strong language like Eric is using, or what? For example, should a pastor “preach against sin” from the pulpit? Or are you just talking about outside the church conversation?

  210. Eric

    Child sex abuse is not usually homosexuality and that is despicable to say so. It diminishes those who have been coerced and abused.

    Abuse is one person who is in power, using that power to abuse another. Homosexuality, whether you consider it a sin or not, is two consenting adults.  Genocide, once again, is  the coercion of one race or people group attempting to wipe out another race or people group. 

    The Nazi holocauset is not the same sort of sin as divorce, fornication, etc. It is mindboggling that you would think so. It is even more incredible that you would express such a seriously flawed opinion in public. You obviously come from the rather discredited “sin is sin is sin” camp.

    Frankly, your comment is out of line. 

  211. @ Nancy:

    If you encounter a person with SGA or who engages sexually with someone of the same gender, and you condemn them for it, you will terminate any possibility of further engaging them in an on-going interaction that may lead them to encounter Jesus. That is self-righteousness and not love. Few people are condemned into salvation.

    If instead you accept them where they are and engage with them, you may have an opportunity to share the love of God with them, particularly if they see that it works in your life.

  212. @ Eric Rasmusen:
    You have absolutely know idea how I talk to people about the faith. One thing you can be sure of is that I do. And believe it or not, some people actually listen to me because I discuss the gospel of love.

    As for conversion, you obviously do not know my story and my conversion. I became a follower of Jesus without being told I was going to hell. In fact, God reached into my life and brought me to Him in a most gentle and kind way. So, turn or burn is not necessarily “The Gospel™ Way” to do it.

    Also, I do have a warning for you. I want the comparison of consensual, adult behavior to stop being compared to the Nazi Holocaust or child sex abuse. Any comment that includes this nonsense will not be approved.

    You are now in permanent moderation.

  213. @ Eric Rasmusen:
    Eric…..
    First, let me reiterate the reason we condemn child sex abuse and genocide regardless of who does it: because there are victims and these are crimes. Crime and sin are not interchangeable. We report criminal activity to the civil authorities. Period. Beyond that, when we see someone ho is defenseless being victimized (children, the Jews), it matters not who is doing it, we defend the defenseless. Homosexuality is not a crime to report to he authorities nor a crime against humanity that must be stopped. I really don’t know how much more blunt to be. It I not about picking one sin over another….it is about reporting crimes and abuse. Homosexuality is neither.

    Now, as to the claim of most child sex abuse being homosexual, you have exposed your ignarance of the subject. A vast majority of child sex a bus is not homosexual. I am a survivor of child sex abuse and I have studied it a good deal. To ballpark it without looking up or referencing (sorry, if you really care, research it yourself), I’d say roughly 70% of child sex abuse is male on female.

  214. @ An Attorney:

    Well, I was not talking about homosexuality but rather about the principle behind what you were saying. I have sworn off talking about sex/sexuality/gender almost entirely. That said, I am going to assume that what you said here applies in general and is not limited to sex. Thank you for explaining your position. I seem to have misunderstood some of what you had said.

  215. @ An Attorney:

    I think this is so important, An Attorney. How in the world can sinners feel justified pointing out the sins of others? I could be wrong, but if memory serves me, Jesus never exposed anyone’s sin (other than those of the Pharisees). He shared the Good News with them and they responded positively to His message of love, hope, living water, eternal life, freedom, etc.

    That’s what our message should be as well.

  216. This article is frustrating to me. Dr. Piper is correct to oppose a corporate initiative that celebrates and promotes sexuality contrary to what God’s word establishes.

    I don’t understand why you would expect Piper to criticize every single company with a policy supporting GLBT people first in order to legitimately criticize Burger King. Perhaps he chose Burger King because this measure was more prominent and publicly visible and made an easy target to identify.

    Constructing arguments from other people’s silence is not helpful. Jesus never explicitly condemns child molesters either.

  217. RCT wrote:

    I don’t understand why you would expect Piper to criticize every single company with a policy supporting GLBT people first in order to legitimately criticize Burger King. Perhaps he chose Burger King because this measure was more prominent and publicly visible and made an easy target to identify.

    If we critique, I think we should do so across the board instead of picking and choosing. That would be tough, especially if we had to give up our frequent flyer miles.

    But, perhaps you are correct. The big, brave stand of Dr Piper has added volumes of thoughtful dialog to the homosexual debate The world pauses, stunned by the thoughtful, winsome™ approach of the ever, loving gospel™ community. Repentance is occurring in droves.

    RCT wrote:

    Constructing arguments from other people’s silence is not helpful. Jesus never explicitly condemns child molesters either.

    Really? Jesus cut a far grader swath than Piper.
    “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea>

  218. Wasn’t Piper a prominent clergyman who was blaming natural disasters as signs of God’s wrath on an ungodly people? In particular the topic at the time was same sex marriage? If this was so? I live in the Bible Belt, and we have had terrible ravages of natural disasters. In John Pipers doctrine: where evangelical religion has such a stronghold, why are we experiencing devastating natural disasters. One city in Oklahoma was devastated two times in twenty years by F 5 tornados. I think God is neutral about natural disasters, and the test is how we respond to awful events. And I hope I don’t shake my hands at God for the unexplained. I love God. I am just uncertain if I would be a righteous person in the eyes of divines such as John Piper.

  219. And a problem I have is in the hypocrisy that is generated by the self righteousness espoused by so many evangelical clergyman. Isn’t it written that we are all sinners? I am uncertain about homosexuality, but when we single this behavior out to the exclusion of other “sins?” And when we are blind to our own indiscretions, such as what Reverend Piper has been accused of ? And when we come up with a pantheon of sins and say “yes we sin, but our sins are not as egregious. A man lying with a man or a woman with a woman is an abomination, but bearing false witness and cheating are not. After all God has washed my daily sins away, but not theirs. I am so superior to those people.” That is how they are perceived, and I think the haughtiness of an elite is abominable. We are all sinners, including a celebrity preacher such as John Piper. I have yet to see him and his cronies at a mourners bench. They are too good for this.

  220. __

    “Providential Pathways: Christian Faith Trending And Analysis?” 
    *
    *
    hmmm…

      Is the behavior promotion of social disease to include HIV/AIDS, acceptable within a biblical pattern for a healthy Christ honoring, Christ following society?

    (sadface)

    *

    …From Your precepts Lord, I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way,
    Your word Lord, is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path,
    I have sworn and I will confirm it, that I will keep Your righteous ordinances, Lord,
    For your words Lord, are a lamp, the teaching of them is a light, and the correction and the instruction found within your word are the way to life,
     Oh send out Your light and Your truth Lord, let them lead me, let them bring me to Your holy hill and to Your sweet dwelling places,
    Your presence is my delight, Lord!

    *
    We  have this wonderful prophetic message from within the pages of holy scripture – something that is completely reliable, and we certainly will do well to pay attention to it, and give heed, as to a light shining in the darkest of places, let the dawn arise, and the words of Christ Jesus rise and fill  our hearts, let His presence be near!

    *

    Please pray for those who have socal diseases’ and are struggling…

    Merci beaucoup!

    Sopy
    __
    Inspirational relief: “I’ll never know how much it cost you, Lord…”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBKzCpkXJR4

  221. Mark wrote:

    I am just uncertain if I would be a righteous person in the eyes of divines such as John Piper.

    Well according to Luther (and not just Piper), you’ve earned the Almighty’s divine and eternal wrath even on your best days. I no longer believe this sort of thing which makes me even more of an oddity, a contradiction as it were when I argue for the rights of those who believe these sorts of things to express their beliefs in the public square.

  222. @ Conservatus:
    ‘let the dead bury the dead’ is not referring to a guy at his Dad’s funeral, had he been at his Dad’s funeral, he would not have been out with Jesus. The guy is saying “I can’t follow you now, I have obligations/duties (“bury my father” would mean caring for his father until he dies, usually by living under his father’s roof, following his father’s wishes for his life and working to provide for his father – Family Patriarchs had control over grown sons in Jesus’ day). Jesus is saying the high cost of following him is to walk away from whom the world says you have obligations too, even those in worldly authority over you. Therefore, the largest group martyred in the early church were young, unmarried women refusing to marry whom their fathers wanted them to, or women refusing to marry high Roman officials. The results were fathers putting Christian daughters to death, men putting the women they loved to death. So different from todays reading of that! I bet you assume woman should submit to their husbands, but certainly not according to Jesus, to follow Jesus trumps any triumphalism by people’s husbands with a Bible and terrible hermeneutics.

  223. Sam H.:

    You said:

    “If you are in business that is in America you do “loose” (sic) the right to discriminate in my opinion.”

    I realize it is your opinion, but it is not a correct statement of the law nor should it be for the reasons I stated above.

    The hypotheticals you raise don’t occur because of market freedom. There is NEVER going to be some business category where all of the businesses don’t cater to homosexuals. Never has been. Never will be.

    The market would allow some enterprising person to come along and start a business to grab that market.

    We should not get in the business of requiring business owners to 1) discover the sexuality of all of its patrons, and 2) making sure they don’t turn any alleged homosexuals away. I don’t know of any business that does that to begin with. Have never even heard of it.

    And the level of government intrusion that would be required to monitor and police that is so contrary to our laws and moral ethic, it would create more oppression that letting people be free.

    What is wrong with freedom?

    Sorry for being rude to you.

    Sorry for being so snarky to you.

  224. An Attorney:

    The First Amendment treats churches differently from other “non-profits.” The Constition states that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

    There is no amendment relating to the host of other causes that are the organizing points for other types of non-profit corporations.

    That makes sense. Our founders fled from England and other places in Europe where the state constantaly tried to exert control over the church and the church over the state.

    The Internal Revenue Code, the basic structure that we have today, was adopted in 1954. I am not certain when 501(c)(3) was passed, if it was with the orginal bill or thereafter. But there was an income tax before that and before there was any statutory exemption for churches.

    Taxes have been around since the Republic. I am happy to be corrected, but feel that I am correct on this.

    I know of no taxes on the church by the State since the adoption of our Consitution or the various State consitutions thereafter. All of the founders, to my knowledge, did not want the state taxing churches for obvious reasons.

    Prohibiting the taxation of churches (and other non-profits since the adoption of the IRC) keeps politicians from promising the electorate that if elected, they will raid the treasuries of those churches.

    All of your discusson, as far as I can see, begins and ends with the IRC. But there is 170 years of history before that.

    If you can find any example of income tax, tarrif, property tax being levied on a church before then (after the passage of the Consitution), please let me know.

    What that means is that earlier generations knew the church could not be taxed by the state and that it was fundamental to the freedom of the nation.

    We did not need for Congress to pass the IRC and then include an exemption to finally have churches not subject to tax.

    I do not disagree with the tax on unrelated business income. That seems very fair to me.

    I also do not disagree with the Churches being required to provide donors with verification of their donations. But that goes to the donor’s tax, not the churches.

    I do believe that the prohibition on politics (which LBJ had inserted because a Texas pastor was wearing him out) is probably unconstitutional, at least as it relates to issue advocacy, even if one candidate is on the position the church favors.

    I am sincere about my question about taxing of churches historically. I could be wrong, but do not believe that I am. This may have gone on with respect to non “state approved” churches in the day before the adoption of the Consitution. But since then, I have never heard of the local, state or federal governments taxing churches. Again, that is because everyone knew that when the First Amendment was adopted (and they knew it already.)

    I believe it would be 9-0 opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court if any local, state or federal government tried it.

    You can’t get a more blatant violation of the acutal words of the First Amendment than for a government to levy a tax on churches.

    Religion is treated differently in our country for very good, historical reasons.

  225. An Attorney:

    The most important thing in human communicaton when discussing issues is to represent your opponent’s views accurately.

    It is very easy to misquote your opponent, then rail on the misquote, which is what you constantly insist on doing in this thread.

    You need to be more careful – like “An Attorney.”

    Here is what I said:

    “The OT and the NT, including Jesus’s statements, affirm the union of a man and woman.”

    What is wrong with that?

    Why do you keep trying to stick polygamy into my statements? That statement says nothing about polygamy, and I wasn’t even talking about polygamy.

    The OT, the NT and Jesus affirmed those things.

    If you disagree, please state why.

    I also said this:

    “There is no affirmation of an attempted “union” of two people of the same sex. And sexual activity by those of the same sex is clearly condemned in both the OT and NT.

    That part is not complicated at all.”

    Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

    If you want to depart from the Bible on this, just say so. If you think there are portions of the Bible that do affirm sex with persons of the same sex, where are they.

    After claiming several times that I said something I didn’t say, you finally found your error when you said:

    Your last comment to Nancy states:

    “But Anonymous and others have suggested that the Bible explicitly limits marriage to one man and one woman. (I did not say that – as you can now see) I said that that is not what it says (yes, you put words in my mouth and then refuted something I did not say), but how they are interpreting what is said. Jesus did support marriage between a man and a woman, but did not explicitly limit marriage to that combination in any recorded statement in the Bible. (Again, I did not say that. I simply said that the OT, the NT and Jesus affirmed marriage between a man and woman, and not anything else.) In fact, there is no statement in the Bible that says that two people of the same gender cannot be married, or that multiple spouse marriages cannot occur.”

    Sex between 2 people of the same sex is condemned in the OT and NT. What is hard to understand about that?

    If you are saying that a marriage will make it o.k., where do you get that? I would be very interested reading any support you have for that in the Bible.

    Christians should be about following Christ. If Christ affirmed the Genesis account by saying again that when man and a woman marry they become one flesh, we should say the same thing.

    Christ followers of the 1st through the 20th centuries have affirmed this, including the writers of the NT, the early church fathers, and the church throughout the centuries.

    Christ followers in the NT also condemned sexual relations between persons of the same sex, as did the OT.

    The Greco Roman world was awash in homosexual conduct. The scriptures teach that the Jews, who followed the OT, and the Christians, who followed the OT and then the new covenant were also against that.

    Do you have any information that the church has approved of sexual relations between the same sex? I would be interested in reading that.

    Finally, sometimes peole disagree about issues, not because of what the scriptures say, but because of their overall view of scripture.

    People who do not consider scripture authoritative are arguing from a different place altogether.

    I would be interested in hearing your take on the OT and the NT scriptures. What view of inspiration do you hold to etc.?

    That might help us in our discussions.

    Thanks.

  226. I was also reflecting on the idea that the Southern States and local municipalities would have LOVED to be able to levy a property tax against churches in the 1950s and 1960s.

    The wealthy white churches could have afforded the taxes.

    The poor black churches, which were the hot bed of civil rights work, could have been bankrupted and confiscated by the state.

  227. It is very common for people to say that the Bible limits marriage to one man and one woman. But there is no statement in the Bible to that effect. And, as I said earlier, marriage and sex are not the same thing. That is, one can be married without sex and, clearly, people who are not married engage in sex. The point I was making is that to make the statement that the Bible, or Jesus, affirmed marriage between a man and a woman, is often misinterpreted as saying that the Bible bars marriage between two men or two women, or for that matter between multiples of either or both genders. The term “Biblical marriage” is tossed around a lot. But in the OT, there were many multiple marriages, generally a patriarch and multiple wives. So exactly what does “Biblical marriage” mean.

    I take a very high view of scripture. I do not read it literally, in particular much of the OT. I have argued that literal truth is not the highest form of truth, nor is it often available (even in courts of law). As an example, Jesus taught in parables, where the spiritual truth is very important, but whether the story is literally true is not. Teachers of every period in history and almost every preacher in the pulpit today use illustrative stories that may or may not be literally true, but teach a deeper truth to those who pay heed to the underlying principle being taught.

    I object to your approach to discussion and will no longer respond to you. You a troll and an insult to other trolls at that.

  228. WRT taxes. The income tax was not implemented until the early part of the last century. The Congress, in passing the law, chose to exempt churches, and has added other, religion related exemptions, along the charitable exemptions. And until relatively late in our history, sometime in the 1930s or so, I believe, states had in their constitutions an establishment of religion, as in a favored denomination that received benefits from the state.

    There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment, that bars treating churches like other non-profit entities, and subjecting them to property taxes in exchange for the services of government, for example. In particular, the First Amendment does not bar any regulation or tax of general applicability from applying to religious entities. There has never been a SCt ruling to that effect.

  229. An Attorney wrote:

    The point I was making is that to make the statement that the Bible, or Jesus, affirmed marriage between a man and a woman, is often misinterpreted as saying that the Bible bars marriage between two men or two women, or for that matter between multiples of either or both genders.

    Just for kicks and giggles– might a Jesus-affirmed marriage (singular), in your opinion, be between two men AND two women?
    An Attorney also wrote: “I object to your approach to discussion and will no longer respond to you. You a troll and an insult to other trolls at that.”
    Ad Hominem much? Please explain how your definition of “troll” matches any commonly-accepted one, and how it applies to Anonymous in this situation. 

  230. An Attorney wrote:

    one can be married without sex

    I want to see how the idea of life long celibate marriage sells to the public. Hey, don’t laugh, it might catch on. I don’t know with whom, exactly. I believe there have been a few canonized saints who pulled it off.

  231. Muff Potter wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    I am just uncertain if I would be a righteous person in the eyes of divines such as John Piper.
    Well according to Luther (and not just Piper), you’ve earned the Almighty’s divine and eternal wrath even on your best days. I no longer believe this sort of thing which makes me even more of an oddity, a contradiction as it were when I argue for the rights of those who believe these sorts of things to express their beliefs in the public square.

    I would agree with Luther and Calvin. But where does that put those who are the paragons of judgement, our celebrity preachers ? I really don’t care what Mr. Piper and ilk think. It doesn’t matter because I am unconvinced they speak for God. It would be heresy if that were their claim. I just wish they were not so quick to condemn when some of the greatest people in the Bible they revere they would shun. God is the ultimate judge. For example, I don’t believe Rahab in the Bible was a condemned women, though they might disagree with me. There is the judgement of God and that of men. If I can’t be nice, I will leave to God, as I should self righteous clergymen.

  232. Eric Rasmusen wrote:

    @ Jeannette Altes:

    Child sex abuse usually *is* a form of homosexuality.

    You’re simply wrong.
    This whole conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia is a straw man created to make gay people seem like monsters, whilst allowing the REAL paedophiles to walk amongst us, & prey upon our innocent children.
    The typical paedophile is, in fact, a heterosexual male–and he is almost always married, usually to some poor woman who has no idea what her husband is doing on the sly.

  233. Mark wrote:

    And a problem I have is in the hypocrisy that is generated by the self righteousness espoused by so many evangelical clergyman. Isn’t it written that we are all sinners? I am uncertain about homosexuality, but when we single this behavior out to the exclusion of other “sins?” And when we are blind to our own indiscretions, such as what Reverend Piper has been accused of ? And when we come up with a pantheon of sins and say “yes we sin, but our sins are not as egregious. A man lying with a man or a woman with a woman is an abomination, but bearing false witness and cheating are not. After all God has washed my daily sins away, but not theirs. I am so superior to those people.” That is how they are perceived, and I think the haughtiness of an elite is abominable. We are all sinners, including a celebrity preacher such as John Piper. I have yet to see him and his cronies at a mourners bench. They are too good for this.

    Thank you!! This is exactly how they sound! What is worse, is the fact that they pretty clearly are utterly blind to the motes in their own eyes. If not, they wouldn’t keep shrieking the same old, same old, day & night.

  234. An Attorney:

    Thank you for the response and for explaining what you believe.

    The only objection I had with you was your continuing to misrepresent what I had said to make your point.

    Your views are yours, and we can disagree, but I am not going to misrepresent your views.

    My point is that since the OT and NT roundly condemn homosexual activity, and that Jesus affirmed the Genesis statements regarding marriage between a man and a woman, it seems the faithful position for Christians is to believe similarly. Church history for 2000 is consistent with this, also.

    As for the taxes, we agree that Congress has exempted all non-profits from income taxes.

    Where we disagree apparently is your believe that the government can tax churches, and must grant an exemption.

    I believe the First Amendment would prohibit that by its very clear language.

    There is no Supreme Court case on this because no government that I know of has tried to tax a church.

    I will look around for some history on this and will let you know what I find.

    If you find some history where the founders, or local, state or federal governments taxed churches, let me know.

    I would be pleased to communicate with you in the future, and hope that you will reconsider your position.

    Thank you.

  235. Well, I have gone ahead and done it. I have listened to so much criticism of John Piper, and so many people saying that he is popular with the calvinistic crowd, that I have become convinced that he must be worth reading, whether or not one agrees with him. Actually I had read a couple of things by him before, like “Desiring God” and found it worthwhile to read. So, I have just ordered from Amazon several of his books, and we shall see. I am just saying that anybody who is worth all this attention, for good or ill, is probably worth my attention also. And if not, well I read really fast anyhow, so it is no big deal.

  236. Nancy wrote:

    So, I have just ordered from Amazon several of his books, and we shall see. I am just saying that anybody who is worth all this attention, for good or ill, is probably worth my attention also. And if not, well I read really fast anyhow, so it is no big deal.

    I salute your intellectual integrity. Reading people I don’t think I’ll agree with is a worthy exercise, and a lot more honest than just announcing how much I disagree with them without actually seeing what they say.

    Then again, most of my problems with Piper come from his off-the-cuff remarks, not his more deliberate and carefully edited books, so your mileage may vary.

  237. I ordered four NT Wright books from Amazon and my husband and I are reading them now. Piper has written a whole book in opposition to Wright’s work.

  238. @ Nancy:
    Pretty well all my exposure to Piper has been reading the occasional sermon of his. I don’t get much English-language fellowship here, and I have to say I find Piper thoughtful and worth reading. He reminds me somewhat of my favourite Anglican preacher I used to listen to – and still can via the Internet! I hope Piper is not being criticised solely because he wants to retain parts of the bible current evangellyfish would rather drop.

    I am also aware of some rather less than well thought out remarks Piper has made, and like Caitlin wonder if this is the source of much of the criticism he manages to garner. Of course he is also starting to get old, and some allowance must be made for that.

    Even if he does have a large fan club, the fans are still responsible for learning doctrine and thinking for themselves rather than making him do this for them. Following even the best of preachers (of whatever ilk) is unhealthy if it results in he-says-it-I-believe type thinking.

  239. @ Marsha:

    This ought to be interesting, because I have learned so much from Wright. I never was a “fan” of anything, but if I were it would be Wright.

  240. Nancy wrote:

    I never was a “fan” of anything, but if I were it would be Wright

    And you would be right to be a fan of Wright!!!

  241. @ Mark:

    Rahab was a human after my own heart. She had style. She had grace. And she could put silly men in their place without them ever knowing it. What astonishes me most about Piper, Driscoll, and many others, is that even apart from their sanctimonious ‘Biblical’ clap-trap concerning women, they fear & loathe them greatly.

  242. @ Muff Potter:
    You admonish Piper & Co for what you think is an attitude problem towards women, but admire someone who could put silly men in their place.

    Six of one and half a dozen of the other? …

  243. @ Ken:

    There’s a difference between admonishment and observation. Observation just sees what is, no attempt at value judgement.

  244. Maybe this is a little off topic but my thoughts on this:
    So Piper wants to rail against Burger King for the LGBT acceptance? He hates same-sex marriage and likewise hates divorce (for any reason, believes remarriage is akin to adultery and that there are NO Biblical grounds for divorce). Hey Piper if you are going to rail on against increasing acceptance of LGBT rights shouldn’t you change your position on divorce/remarriage? After all, why in the world should anyone be obligated to remain married to a gay or bisexual spouse given the risk of disease transmission from male-male encounters? Isn’t discovery of your husband or wife’s gay life reason enough to justify a divorce? Would there be anything wrong with remarrying and raising your children in a home where you can trust the person you are with rather than trying to “save the marriage” (Piper’s stance) and subject your children to their dad’s angry rages against himself because he is still in the closet and can’t accept his own sexuality?

    I left my bisexual/gay husband nearly a year ago after discovering his secret life yet proponents of Piper’s marriage stance believe I should just wait for my husband to become “un-gay”. As if it were so easy. He’s still in the closet.

    I have no problem with Piper being opposed to BK or any other company that openly celebrates LGBT rights and lifestyle. Yet if Piper or others are going to condemn that lifestyle they should also understand that the lifestyle they consider sinful is an acceptable ground for divorce. They should take the stand that sometimes maybe it’s better for the family NOT to reconcile. Sometimes it’s better that the children grow up in separate homes, rather than together.

  245. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    Now, homosexuality. Even if you live in a state where it is still a crime on the books, where is the victim? The is no victim. It is between to consenting adults – “consenting” being the very important word.

    The “victim” would be God, even if nobody else— though the other person involved is always a loser too. Consent doesn’t matter— God does not consent. Christians must realize that sin is principally a matter of sin against God, not sin against other people.

  246. An Attorney wrote:

    Eric, your comment is the absolute stupidest thing I have read on this blog. It suggests that either you have taken leave of your senses or you are trying to start a fight.
    Dee, please put this garbage generator into moderation, permanently.

    Thank you. A response like this shows that you cannot come up with an argument against what I said. The logic is simple: If you say that Christians should not criticize non-Christians for their sins, then you imply that Christians should not criticize Nazis for their sins, which means Christians should not criticize Nazis for genocide. Do you have any response except name calling?

  247. An Attorney wrote:

    The teacher led the prayer out loud. The Catholic kids could have prayed silently and I could have prayed silently, but the teacher was praying out LOUD. So I did not have a choice. She was denying me my freedom on conscience because I had to listen to her HERESY!!!!!

    Living in a semi-Christian society, we have to get used to listening to heresy. If you can’t take it, then you’ll have to abandon the public schools. Some people do, of course, so I’m not saying that’s a bad option.

  248. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    @ Eric Rasmusen:
    Eric…..
    First, let me reiterate the reason we condemn child sex abuse and genocide regardless of who does it: because there are victims and these are crimes. Crime and sin are not interchangeable. We report criminal activity to the civil authorities. Period. Beyond that, when we see someone ho is defenseless being victimized (children, the Jews), it matters not who is doing it, we defend the defenseless. Homosexuality is not a crime to report to he authorities nor a crime against humanity that must be stopped. I really don’t know how much more blunt to be. It I not about picking one sin over another….it is about reporting crimes and abuse. Homosexuality is neither.
    Now, as to the claim of most child sex abuse being homosexual, you have exposed your ignarance of the subject. A vast majority of child sex a bus is not homosexual. I am a survivor of child sex abuse and I have studied it a good deal. To ballpark it without looking up or referencing (sorry, if you really care, research it yourself), I’d say roughly 70% of child sex abuse is male on female.

    Homosexuality used to be a crime, and for almost all of our history, in fact, it was a crime. Whether something is officially criminalized or not is inconclusive about its morality. Adultery is not criminal, for example, nor is sacrilege. I don’t think it was ever a crime not to report homosexuality, but for most of our history it wasn’t a crime not to report child abuse—- but that doesn’t mean non-reporting was moral.

  249. @ Susy:

    You are making a really good point. I am sorry for what happened to you. We have known several families over the years who had to deal with the same sort of thing. Piper holds a minority opinion, thank goodness. He seems to hold right many dogmatic and extreme opinions about marriage, divorce, homosexuality, women in the home and in the church and for that matter women in general. At some point one has to stop and ask why somebody got so caught up in extreme ideas like his all in the area of sex and gender. Something just does not fit together here.

  250. dee wrote:

    Also, I do have a warning for you. I want the comparison of consensual, adult behavior to stop being compared to the Nazi Holocaust or child sex abuse. Any comment that includes this nonsense will not be approved.

    It’s your blog, of course. But if it’s nonsense, why do you feel it has to be censored? Don’t you think there is a place for comparing sins of drastically different apparent magnitudes? Jesus, for example, compared lustful thinking with the act of adultery.
    Look back to what I said. I wasn’t saying that genocide and sodomy are sins of the same magnitude. Rather, I said that if one makes the argument, “Don’t criticize non-Christians for sin X, because they are not Christian, after all,” then the argument applies whether X is sodomy or genocide— or vanity or lying, for that matter.

  251. Eric Rasmusen wrote:

    Jesus, for example, compared lustful thinking with the act of adultery.

    But then again Eric, was Jesus making a literal and face value statement or was he simply using hyperbole?

  252. Eric Rasmusen wrote:

    It’s your blog, of course. But if it’s nonsense, why do you feel it has to be censored?

    Dr Rasmusen

    i have been planning to write you an email. i rarely look at the IP/email info on our readers, preferring to allow people their say without me “checking them out.” However, as you can well imagine, there are times, probably about once every 2 months, that certain comments engender such controversy that I try to understand the person who is making those comments.

    I respect your research in business studies. Having received an MBA I know just how impressive your resume is. I have since read Al Mohler’s defense of your blog in 2003 and also read about the controversy at Indiana U.

    On your point of censorship, I would be happy to put this blog up against any other blog in terms of censorship and that includes your defender, Al Mohler and assorted friends, who does not allow comments whatsoever which is the epitome of censorship. We allow ourselves, your adorable blog hostesses, to be called all sorts of names without censorship. My favorite, currently is “of Satin (sic). We prefer wash and wear.

    We have been criticized by friends of Al Mohler for allowing certain comments on this blog, preferring truthful expression to censorship.

    This blog is particularly interested in the issues of child sex abuse which we believe to be a coercive sin. There are many who frequent this blog who have been so abused. I do not subscribe to the sin is sin is sin argument. Some sin is coercive, perpetrated by the stronger on the weaker.

    There comes a point, however, that some comments cause incredible pain, even if that is not the intent. Genocide is far different than two 20 olds who have consensual sex. Certainly you would agree with that. There are many who read this blog who have been molested as little children, made to forgive their molesters by pastors, and who today continue to struggle with many issues.

    I would ask that you nuance your comments (something that I think a person with your education can do) to reflect the reality of this difference. You could also express your concern for those who have been coerced as young children.

    I have considered writing a post on your background and beliefs since I think our readers might find it interesting. I will try to contact you by email when i have a moment.

  253. Eric Rasmusen wrote:

    The “victim” would be God, even if nobody else— though the other person involved is always a loser too. Consent doesn’t matter— God does not consent. Christians must realize that sin is principally a matter of sin against God, not sin against other people.

    Eric…hmm. Okay.
    Again, when the victim is helpless, we should step in. Children….people groups with no political power….are you seriously proposing that God is a helpless victim in need of our stepping in to protect him from people who commit a crime? As a survivor of child sexual abuse (among other abuses), I assure you consent does matter. It matters very much to the one who is being forced against their consent.

    I have to ask this, based on your responses. Are you reformed in your theology and of the belief that God ordains child abuse for a purpose? If so, I’m not sure there is much point in further attempts at dialogue as that would be so diametrically apposed to what I believe as to severely limit areas of productive communication.

  254. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    Are you reformed in your theology and of the belief that God ordains child abuse for a purpose?

    I don’t think reformed theology entails a belief that child abuse is pre-ordained. This strikes me as a caricature of reformed theology.

    I am sure God does not actively will child abuse to happen. He does not, however, intervene to stop it. This may be an example of him handing over sinful man to the consequences of sin and unbelief, of allowing a society and even a church that suppresses the truth about God to reap what it has sown. The vast majority of mankind, sometimes even including those in the church, don’t want an interventionist God, so he to some extent is only giving us what we collectively want.

    It is not as though we have a right to demand God to intervene on our behalf. In this sense God is always sovereign. Yet he does allow us to request his will be done on earth, implying that it is currently not always being done.

    I’m sure the ultimate purpose behind abuse as far as Christians are concerned is to bring good out of something evil, and yes that can sound a bit glib in the face of suffering. It’s a huge topic and one where I am suspicious of quick definitive answers.

  255. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    As a survivor of child sexual abuse (among other abuses), I assure you consent does matter.

    I think he was saying that even if there is “consent” (speaking of adults) it is still a sin against God. He seems to have been saying that “consent” is no excuse for some things. Regardless of one’s stance on the topic he was discussing, (adult sexual behavior) that still seems to be what his argument is. And abuse of a minor or any person in a vulnerable position is, of course, wrong consent or not. I think what he said about “consent” is consistent with that but he went a step further. And indeed there are some things that are wrong even with consent, mercy killing for one example and adultery for another.

    I am not defending his opinions, but I am trying to explain his reasoning to ameliorate the pain he may have caused to those of you who have suffered. It seems to me that coerced illicit sex, including for adults, is doubly wrong in that there are two sins: the forbidden sex act itself, and the act of coercion. When the victim is “one of these little ones” it has drawn special condemnation by Jesus himself. God bless and comfort all of you to whom this has happened.

  256. Ken wrote:
    I don’t think reformed theology entails a belief that child abuse is pre-ordained. This strikes me as a caricature of reformed theology.
    I am sure God does not actively will child abuse to happen. He does not, however, intervene to stop it.

    Hi Ken, mind if I ask you a question? I’m assuming you’re a follower of reformed theology. What I quoted you saying above, are you okay with that, the non intervention from a omnipotent deity? I rarely come across Calvinists in my neck of the internet woods and what you wrote struck me and I wanted to ask you.

  257. Ken wrote:

    I’m sure the ultimate purpose behind abuse as far as Christians are concerned is to bring good out of something evil,

    I shouldn’t be staggered by the theological bending, twisting and hoop jumping, but I am. All I can say in response is – just.whoa.

  258. @ Haitch:

    Ken’s remark that Haitch quoted is exactly the thing that takes a lot of people out of believing in God, because it makes God the author of EVIL. That is a terrible and terribly broadly held misconception of Sovereignty. Sovereignty does not mean that everything that happens occurs as a result of the will of God or for some purpose that God has. It does mean that if He overtly choses to do something, it is done. But Jesus taught us to pray for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, for the very reason that somethings that happen on the earth are not God’s will.

  259. Rather, God has granted freedom to his creation, having set in place the laws of physics (chemistry and biology are derivative of the laws of physics), and intervenes only in limited ways of his choosing. To say otherwise is to make God into Evil.

  260. @An Attorney, thank you for your explanation, appreciated. I don’t consider myself a Christian anymore, but I can still differentiate between really bad theological/philosophical outcomes. I utterly reject Ken’s interpretation – I kept thinking of our current Royal Commission here – lots of media about priests raping boys (in addition to everything else). It takes an extra edge when it’s ‘God’s annointed’ as the perpetrator. Or a parent who is a priest/deacon sexually abusing their own child. This stuff is more common than realised – if you have a wide group of friends you’ll find at least one affected. I see Ken’s conclusion as actually trying to apply secular positive thinking to the situation. It’s an inability to call evil – evil.

  261. @ Ken:
    Of course we are “allowed” to complain to God. It happens frequently and people aren’t struck down. And why not? God made this world. S/He knew that it would go upside down and He did it anyway. Moreover, a god who can’t handle one of His created bits being angry at him is not worth caring about.

    Also I want nothing to do with a god who is so cynical as to let children be raped by their parents because he’s handed “over sinful man to the consequences of sin and unbelief”. That’s a bad joke.

    Plus, why would do you want to relieve God of responsibility and compassion by putting the blame on us, as you say, we “don’t want an interventionist God, so he to some extent is only giving us what we collectively want”?

    I was not abused as a child because God wanted to bring good out of evil. Yes, in the end nothing will be lost and everything will be given meaning, but evil doesn’t occur so that good may be done. Good never needs evil. But God will make right and create usefulness out of the consequences of evil, and this is solace for all who find little justice and partial healing on this side of death.

    You sound more cavalier than glib, Ken. And yes, these are questions that emerge most readily from Calvinism because that system can imagine nothing greater than absolute control, which it gives to God. In its headlong insistence on rationality, it lost imagination.

  262. An Attorney wrote:

    Rather, God has granted freedom to his creation, having set in place the laws of physics (chemistry and biology are derivative of the laws of physics), and intervenes only in limited ways of his choosing. To say otherwise is to make God into Evil.

    I think you’ve nailed it! Unfortunately for the theologically domineering types this offers no support what so ever.

  263. Ken wrote:

    I don’t think reformed theology entails a belief that child abuse is pre-ordained. This strikes me as a caricature of reformed theology.

    Ken, I wish this were a caricature. But this is something that I have personal experience with. I have been told, straight to my face, by those professing reformed theology, that if I was raped as a child – even at 2 years old – it was because God ordained it for a reason. I have had my salvation questioned when I said that a God who premeditates child abuse is not worthy of worship. I was told that I needed to accept that God had some greater purpose in ordaining the things that were done to me. And I have not been told this by only one person. It has been a recurring theme among the Calvinist/reformed people I encounter. And yes, I always challenge them on this because I think it is vitally important.

    When I was first told this, I was at the very beginning of my breaking free of the abusive systems I had grown up in and this man’s statements nearly pushed me over the edge away from God – I spent almost two years wrestling with God on this and telling him flat out that if what happened to me as a child was his idea, he was no better than the ones who physically carried out the acts and that even if it meant going to hell, I would never be able to trust him. And believe me, trusting anyone in authority is a special issue for those abused as children. And he did not get angry – there were no lightning bolts….just persistent love….that is finally, six bleeping years later, starting to seep in and convince me that he is not just another abusive monster in my life.

    So no, it is not, in my experience, a caricature. I do understand that not all who follow reformed theology take it that far. But I also have found that not all, but most who do espouse these believe are of the reformed persuasion.

    Ken wrote:

    This may be an example of him handing over sinful man to the consequences of sin and unbelief, of allowing a society and even a church that suppresses the truth about God to reap what it has sown.

    I have to ask if you do not see how this sounds from the perspective of the small child bearing the brunt of the damage? It is just a round-about way of saying that God os mad at your abuser, so he turned his back on you.

    Ken wrote:

    I’m sure the ultimate purpose behind abuse as far as Christians are concerned is to bring good out of evil.

    Hmm…so. There is a purpose, as far as Christians are concerned, for abuse? This is really the same as saying God ordained evil to bring good out of it which is saying that God ordained it….which is what I just asked Eric if he believed. I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that I am stating the belief in more uncomfortably blunt terms that it is usually stated, but nevertheless….there it is.

  264. @ Nancy:
    Nancy, I appreciate your concern.

    The issue I was trying (unsuccessfully, it seems) to communicate is simply this: Eric is saying that if we do not call sinners on this sin, then we shouldn’t call them on any sin. My point is that when we call people (Christian or not) on the sins of child molestation or genocide (Eric’s examples), we are not doing it because they are ‘sins’ but rather because they are crimes with victims that are unable to defend themselves. Whether you believe that homosexuality is a sin or not (and the term is never clearly defined), it is not a crime like the other things Eric compared it to. And I do take exception to having what happened to me as a child conflated to being the same as something that happens between two consenting adults.

  265. @ Jeannette Altes:

    What Ken has expressed is somewhere within the accepted belief system of calvinism, be it right or wrong. I am saying that, either way right or wrong, he is not alone in his beliefs on this issue. Since it is always good to have as much information as possible about various significant beliefs, including in this area, I have found a really good website that delves into this in depth. As much as I like wallowing around in philosophical/theological ideas, I find the mass on information on this site rather daunting. However, some might find this useful.

    http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/ac_sin.html

  266. @ Nancy:

    I am acutely aware that Ken is not alone in his beliefs. I have encountered them often enough. As to digging in depth into Calvinism, frankly, I have dug as much as I really care to. I have found precious little compassion from those who profess this doctrine – or within the doctrine itself. And among those who do show compassion, it it always couched in terms that qualify and hedge. I have found it very rare for a professing Calvinist to flat state that what was done to me was wrong. And I have never found one that does not, in some way, state that it happened for a purpose – whether flat saying that God preordained it or, like Ken, that it happened so good could come of it. Both are saying the same thing.

    For the victim of abuse to be told either of those things minimizes the abuse and causes there to be guilt for being hurt by it because if God had a greater purpose for it then the victim should somehow be grateful for the abuse because of the ‘big picture.’ I used to try and walk this out and it nearly destroyed me, mentally.

    One of the more important parts of healing, for me, has been being able to look at what was done and call it what it was – evil – with no qualifications or compromises – flat wrong and should not have happened. It seems to me that Calvinism cannot/will not allow that statement/belief without qualifying it in some way to lessen the wrongness of it – and in doing so, compromise the ability of the abused to face it and deal honestly with it….in my experience.

  267. @ Jeannette Altes:

    I had a similar argument with God: I told Him that I wasn’t interested in following anyone who thought that way, even if it was god. And He responded “I don’t want you to.”

  268. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    One of the more important parts of healing, for me, has been being able to look at what was done and call it what it was – evil – with no qualifications or compromises – flat wrong and should not have happened. It seems to me that Calvinism cannot/will not allow that statement/belief without qualifying it in some way to lessen the wrongness of it – and in doing so, compromise the ability of the abused to face it and deal honestly with it….in my experience.

    I have not dealt with specifically this on a personal level as you have as far as child abuse, but what you are saying does seem to fit in with what I am reading about calvinism. My issue had been that back when lots and lots of children died of various childhood and contagious diseases which now are largely under control. So I said, whoa now, did God used to do that to children and now he does not? How does one explain that? My personal resolutions to that problem would not satisfy any calvinist or arminian, and no need to put them out there in public. But such questions do have to be asked and answers of some sort have to be pursued.

  269. Nancy wrote:

    My issue had been that back when lots and lots of children died of various childhood and contagious diseases which now are largely under control. So I said, whoa now, did God used to do that to children and now he does not? How does one explain that?

    Sorry it took so long to respond – been out with friends all afternoon/evening. 🙂

    This concept you bring up is part of the bigger picture of wrestling this question out. For me, it just was micro as well as macro. I the discussion (which is too nice a word, but argument seems a little too harsh) that I had with that Calvinist 6 years ago, one of the things we got into in addition to God ordaining abuse was the concept of double-predestination – and it was the first time I had heard such a thing. And I asked him flatly if he believed, as an example, the many little girls in the near and far east who are sold into sex slavery and die before puberty were made by God for that for some unfathomable purpose and they will then, having never heard the Gospel™, go to hell – that this was God’s plan for them from the beginning. And he hemmed and hawed a little, but in the end, he said yes, that is what he believed because that is what the bible teaches. I was floored that a follower of Christ could believe that. And that was a part of that wrestling – if God creates people solely for hell with no hope of ever having a choice….that is a God to cringe before, not worship. A God of terror, not love. Okay…probably should quit, now.

  270. Jeannette, Nancy, Caitlin:

    I think the Bible teaches that God is a God of love and is not the author of evil. Which is why I believe that the neo-Calvinists do not worship the God of the Bible, and especially do not worship Jesus Christ, because the god they worship is an evil creation of the mind of John Calvin.

  271. @ An Attorney:

    Exactly.

    when people ask me what I think about God not-intervening (which is not the same thing as God willing things to happen) I simply ask them to imagine the alternative. Either: God intervenes every time someone could get hurt and sin has no consequences, therefore we have no *reason* to not sin- imagine living in a world where you could get away with anything! Where not only could you get away with it, but no one else would be hurt! Would anything be “evil” in that world?

    Or, God could have ordained a world where we were guaranteed to never be hurt because all of us follow His will exactly. Well, then we’re automatons. Why God wanted us to have free will is beyond me (though I imagine it has something to do with the fact that love given is more glorious than love required.)

    God wanted neither, so yeah, awful things happen, and bystanders get sprayed (Or, in my case, not so much a bystander as the target). But first of all, God takes on vengeance- and He intends to do it. And second, we are more than the consequences of other people’s sin, and God values us for that. If the trade-off is between me experiencing pain because of what someone did to me OR me losing my chance to learn to love God of my own choosing, well…. I choose the free will with the consequences.

  272. An Attorney wrote:

    I think the Bible teaches that God is a God of love and is not the author of evil. Which is why I believe that the neo-Calvinists do not worship the God of the Bible, and especially do not worship Jesus Christ, because the god they worship is an evil creation of the mind of John Calvin.

    I am not a calvinist, but I find some of the anti-calvinist arguments weak in use of the “evidence.” I was going to stay silent on this, but you have called me out here, and I will bring up a few issues for consideration.

    Part 1 of 3

    Everybody believes “God is love.” The issue is, what does “love” look like? Does it sometimes look like “evil?” And if so, does that make God the author of evil. And if it does, how do you know which is when is what. Scads of books have been written about this. The problem of evil. A theology of suffering. On and on. But in saying that you think that the bible does not give any room for any opinion but your own on this issue, and that those who disagree or see it as more complex than what you are saying are “do not worship the God of the Bible” is not helpful to the conversation.

    I am not going to cite sources, because I have checked on google and in just a few minutes I have run into a whole lot of sources that anybody who is interested in the least can access with ease. Everybody can do their own research and follow their own thinking, nor am I going to ask you to cite sources. Why should any of us limit ourselves to the other person’s sources?

    There is that in scripture (and in science/philosophy) which can lead one to come to disturbing conclusions. There are those who think that contributing “good” (as we see it) to God and “evil” as we see it to Satan is a watered down form of the old heresy of dualism. Investigating that thought is interesting in itself. At the same time, attributing evil to man presupposes actual free will, and there is gathering evidence that we may not have fee will, not in the sense that we have previously understood that term.

    Those are two different ideas, related for this discussion of how does one explain “evil.”
    (continued)

  273. @ Nancy:

    Part 2 of 3

    There is that in scripture that seems to link God and (apparent) evil.

    Example: Did God the Father will the death of Jesus by torture, and was this the love which Jesus talked about in John 3? We have a whole religion which accepts that Jesus died in obedience to the will of the Father (gethsemane) and yet we have no idea how to reconcile the “reality” with the “apparent reality.” Theories of “atonement” try to address the why it happened, but not the why is happened that way, especially in the face of the fact that the Jews deny that such an idea of atonement like that arose out of Judaism. (Spending some time on websites which explain and defend Judaism can be very instructive and I highly recommend it.)

    Example: “20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.” Joseph to his brothers about being sold into slavery into Egypt. Genesis 50:20 (ESV)

    Example: ” So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited.” Genesis 50:20 (ESV)

    Example: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” Isaiah 45: 7 (NIV) There are several OT statements similar to this, cited by the people who attribute the origin of evil to God.

    Example: “2 And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. ” John 9: 2-3 Jesus explaining that some man had been born blind in order to be healed by Jesus as a display of the works of God.

    Once you start “looking” for this it is there to be seen. Right along side enormous discussion of mercy and long-suffering and love etc. There is a saying used as kind of a motto in CME in diagnostic radiology (at at least there used to be.) It is a modification of something from Goethe. “You see what you look for. You look for what you know to look for.”

    The people who “see” more of this than other people “see” may carry it too far, they may interject their own explanations which are conjecture at best and sometimes drivel at worst, and they may damage suffering humans using this against them, but saying there is nothing in scripture on which they can base their thinking is not accurate.

    (continued)

  274. @ Nancy:

    Part 3 of 3

    Topic for another time: nature (creation) is not “free.” There is a cause for everything. The philosophical term for that is “adequate determinism” which subsumes in it’s concept “indeterminism”as seen at the subatomic level. Here again, very interesting reading. I am referencing a prior comment from you about freedom in creation.

    And oh yes, the dominant thinking at this time, even an article in “Psychology Today” (not even an academic journal) is that we do not have free will and that this idea is consistent with the current research in neuroscience. The neuroscience people think they have functional images of the brain in action which demonstrate this.

    And in talking about the “sovereignty of God” you have stated your opinion of what that is, but that is not what the calvinists are actually talking about. You are entitled to your opinion, I may even share your opinion about how God seems to do (as if we actually knew?) but I want to clear up that when the calvinists talk about the sovereignty of God that is not what they are talking about. “God is not merely sovereign de jure (in principle), but sovereign de facto (in practice).” Theopedia under the heading of ” sovereignty of god.” They enlarge on the definition/understanding, I have just quoted one sentence. The entire explanation is worth reading. I don’t know when I would be violating some copyright laws by copying too much of it here.

  275. Caitlin wrote:

    If the trade-off is between me experiencing pain because of what someone did to me OR me losing my chance to learn to love God of my own choosing, well…. I choose the free will with the consequences.

    I agree. I have an idea that God all along intended us to go through a lifetime of making choices for or against good.

    Perhaps, in a way, we are still “being made”, taking part in our own creation with the Holy Spirit, towards becoming true companions of God on the new earth. It makes sense to me that God would more deeply enjoy creatures who know, to the very bottom of their hearts, what it means to have chosen, again and again, the good that is also Him.

    Some of us have awful lives, which is not acceptable and never ok, but the suffering is not “in vain”—nothing will be lost, and that includes those small grinding decisions required of us throughout our days.

  276. @ Nancy:
    Some Calvinists have a broader understanding of sovereignty than others but essentially they all hold to the idea that God has absolute control, which is why they value doctrines of election, predestination and limited atonement as part of the “doctrines of grace”. I was raised in a Calvinist parsonage (Christian Reformed denom) and learned the belief system thoroughly, the good/bad/ugly. The bad/ugly was used as a tool against me in must the same way that Jeannette writes.

    The hyper-Calvinists have a poor understanding of Calvinism because it is intended as a complete coherent system works , and by taking pieces out of it, as they do, they change the meaning of the pieces.

    The best part of Calvinism is its understanding that all the world is God’s for us to work in with delight, and that the Kingdom is now. They provide an excellent corrective to Evangelical culture wars.

  277. Nancy wrote:

    the dominant thinking at this time, even an article in “Psychology Today” (not even an academic journal) is that we do not have free will and that this idea is consistent with the current research in neuroscience.

    As you say, it’s a fascinating issue. Marsha can say better than I, being in the psych field, but behaviorism, which has held sway over much of the field for the last few decades, is def deterministic and a pendulum swing away from Freudian thought. Insofar as nouthetic or “Biblical” counseling takes anything from psychology, it emphasizes this theoretical approach. I suspect psych med research has further enhanced it.

    Behaviorism is an adequate theory for certain disorders, but generally only for mild/moderate levels of disorder. It has proven inadequate for the treatment of PTSD. It is one tool in a larger box, as it is also one element in the larger theological picture,IMO. Theological determinism’s inadequacy can be seen in how Calvinists tend to also lay heavy guilt onto individuals, for a kind of balance.

  278. @ Patrice:

    That sounds like you being a resource person, based on both intellectual knowledge of the subject and also personal experience, both good and bad. I for one will be interested in what you have to say as time goes on. You sound quite balanced on the subject.

  279. @ Nancy:

    I have read all of the above, and all of the things you reference. And I am still of the opinion that God has created us to have free will to choose Him or not. And that God is not the author of evil. And that the Neo-Calvinists believe that their god is. And that the best interpretation of the scripture is that their god is not the God of the Bible.

    I appreciate your extensive response. It has not changed my mind on this, as my belief comes from a lifetime of reading, studying, weighing, and experience, including daily time with God.

  280. An Attorney wrote:

    Jeannette, Nancy, Caitlin:
    I think the Bible teaches that God is a God of love and is not the author of evil. Which is why I believe that the neo-Calvinists do not worship the God of the Bible, and especially do not worship Jesus Christ, because the god they worship is an evil creation of the mind of John Calvin.

    The nature of God is a mystery. I don’t know how Calvinists of Gordon Clark ilk can reconcile the nature of God which is all good with God being the author of evil. It was be a logical extension of predestination. What of free will? We can go a step beyond on Arminian side to open theism of Gregory Boyd, a good man. But what of free will: If we are just automatons who can’t decide our fate, whether spiritual or material?

  281. I have a Ph.D. in psychology, read extensively in the medical research literature, have taught chemistry and mathematics, and have more than 500 volumes in my personal theological library. My remarks stand in light of all of that, including reading in the most recent publications in the neuropsychology literature. I believe in free will, because there is too much that contradicts a strict or even moderately strict deterministic model.

  282. Nancy, I find it very odd that people who are most deterministic are also most often the biggest on guilt. Do you have any idea about why that might be? I cannot trace their thought through that.

  283. Patrice wrote:

    Nancy, I find it very odd that people who are most deterministic are also most often the biggest on guilt. Do you have any idea about why that might be? I cannot trace their thought through that.

    @ Patrice:

    I have not paid that much attention one way or the other, nor have I followed psych theories. In my statement to an attorney when I was talking about “adequate determinism” it was in response to his comment about creation, not people’s behavior. He attributed “creation” with “freedom” and I said, well not exactly.

    As to the psych theories, I did not/do not start there in thinking about this. That is not remotely my area of expertise. In fact, when I did that year of psych residency I saw clearly that it was not my cup of tea. I am not talking about psych theories, therefore. My interest, for this matter at this time, begins and ends in whether of not there is free will since we are talking about how to understand evil. However, when the neuroscience folks show us functional MRI pictures and describe how they got them and what they mean, and when their observations tend to fit into a bigger picture and possibly explain some things–that is when I listen up. The issue of free will is a doctrinal issue essential to determining to what extent man is or is not an author of evil. That is the issue right now. Who done it. For me (OK now you will know) if it turns out that traditional doctrinal thinking about free will turns out to be different from what research finds, I will re-evaluate my understanding of scripture, not the other way around. Just like the YEC issue. But when there is a way to correlate the scriptures with current research thinking, that intrigues me.

    I am most concerned, however, that we not label people and denounce people and call them heathen and idolators (worshippers of another god) regardless of how strongly one may hold to one’s opinion, that is what disturbs me greatly. There is a Buddhist saying: If we understand, things are as they are. If we do not understand, things are as they are.

    And I do feel more comfortable with approaching things with as much objectivity as possible. Trying to pursue truth, whatever it is, rather than being committed to a certain outcome above all else. If we lose that perspective, in talking about med or psych or social issues or especially doctrinal issues, then we value ourselves more than we value the evidence, and in the end what we will have is only what we started out with–ourselves.

  284. @ Nancy: Nancy, I think this is true of any fatal disease, and not just of children who die because of those diseases (in the apst and now).

    Smallpox, the Black Plagues, diptheria, pertussis, polio, cholera, typhoid, typhus, tetanus, rabies… cancer.

    You know the list better than I do, I’m thinking.

    As for trying to explain where Ken is coming from, I think he’s been around here long enough that regular readers *all* know his stance on multiple issues. I do appreciate your attempts at being fair, but like Patrice, I find his attitude cavalier at best.

  285. @ Nancy: in other words, is disease something natural (and therefore, possibly, preventable/treatable, though of course, not always), or is it God’s judgement on everyone on this earth who ever gets sick?

    The second approach is foolishness, and is used to hurt far too many people. (There’s a recent thread on Internet Monk where several people who had divine healing and “claiming a healing” drummed into their heads – they all died, and now their families, who also were indoctrinated into those beliefs, are dealing with incredible fallout of this theological mess in addition to all the rest of the normal effects of grief and the grieving process. It’s heartbreaking to read about the consequences of it all, and the pain expressed is so raw.)

  286. @ Nancy: In your example #2 (passage from John), the disciples are subscribing to a wrong understanding of both the nature of God and of reality – just like Job’s friends.

    It seems to me that there is plenty in Scripture that tries to help us take a more nuanced view of life (including suffering), but we very often choose to ignore those parts of the Bible and focus instead on those that allow us to feel righteous but stand in for God in “judging” those whom we perceive to be not worthy of consideration as human beings. (Unless they give in to our “judgement” and stop doing whatever it is they’re doing – in all too many cases, that would mean that someone needs to literally stop existing, since they are who they are – black, brown, gay, etc. – and cannot change that.

  287. @ numo: As a quick add on Job, the capitalization of “satan” in xtian bibles isn’t present in Jewish translations. The “satan” in Job is viewed as a member of God’s heavenly court who is taking an adversarial stance against the upright, blameless man Job.

    I personally do not believe that Job or any of his friends or family existed, except in the minds of God and the author(s) of the book. It is wisdom literature (like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs) and not intended to be read as literal, journalistic “reporting.” I think it was understood as a story that contains many great truths, the kind of “true myth” that C.S. Lewis wrote about in Surprised by Joy. To me, that makes it *more* real, not less.

  288. @ numo:

    Look at Patrice’s question above. She is saying that the people who are most apt to say “they can’t help it” (deterministic) are also the quickest to place blame (guilt). I had not noticed that at all, but I have not been paying attention. Have you noticed that, and if so do you have any ideas of the subject?

  289. @ Nancy:
    It is hard to communicate what one intends in comments 🙂 I meant to say I’ve noticed that Calvinists and some groups of conservative Catholics/Evangs, those who are most absolute about God controlling everything (to the point of determinism) are also most inclined to be heaviest layers-on-of-guilt.

    According to them, we are filthy with sin and God has determined that we will be that way down to the nth degree (as He has with everything in the universe), and yet we must work not to sin anymore, a job at which we constantly fail.

    At least in raw determinism, one can just relax and have a good time. Or in free-willism, one can find adventure in choosing. But this type of thinking gets one coming/going and no joy anywhere.

  290. Patrice wrote:

    According to them, we are filthy with sin and God has determined that we will be that way down to the nth degree (as He has with everything in the universe), and yet we must work not to sin anymore, a job at which we constantly fail.

    At least in raw determinism, one can just relax and have a good time. Or in free-willism, one can find adventure in choosing. But this type of thinking gets one coming/going and no joy anywhere.

    The paradigm that says the God made us the way we are, but the way we are is not good and we need to change it but we can’t change it…..that is a classic double-bind in which no matter what way we turn and no matter how hard we try to be what they tell us, we cannot. And the more we cannot, the more they tell us we are not rusting God enough to let him do it. Adding another layer, making it a ‘triple-bind,’ if you will.

    I can find no love in this paradigm – only fear, hopelessness and defeat. And this does not square with the light burden and easy yoke Jesus spoke of, nor does it square with the statement by by Peter (2 Peter 3:9) that it is not God’s will that any should parish. But mostly, it does not square with the God revealed through Jesus in the Gospels. At least, in my opinion.

  291. Nancy wrote:

    Example: “2 And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. ” John 9: 2-3 Jesus explaining that some man had been born blind in order to be healed by Jesus as a display of the works of God.

    I would like to address this one, at least, as it was a difficult passage for me to reconcile for many years. What helped me was to look at it in as many translations as I could and what emerged, to me, was that various translations punctuate differently, causing the meaning to shift. What I see in the passage now is not that the man was born blind by God’s divine purpose in order that at this point in time, Jesus might glorify God in healing him. Rather, what I see is Jesus telling his disciples that the issue of birth defects is not a matter of punishment for sin. But since this man is before us with a need, it is my purpose to glorify God by healing him.

    This may sound nit-picky – a matter of semantics – but it seems to me to make a world of difference whether Jesus is saying: a) God made the man be born blind in order that God may be glorified, or B) The man was born blind because the world is broken and it is my purpose to take these opportunities to bring Glory to the father by healing.

  292. mirele wrote:

    I’m calling you out on this, Daisy. THAT IS A LIE. A flat-out, rotten, stinking LIE.

    This issue has become so politically correct that people are afraid to say anything. The left uses the same censorous groupthink nasty treatment the right uses and it gets no one anywhere.

    There are always two sides to every situation. And it is wise to dig into both deeply as both are usually wrong at some juncture. Gay rights for one, are not the same as civil rights for African Americans. AA’s were low caste system citizens who had very few resources to work with that sympathetic white people had to provide.

    In contrast, the Gay lobby are some of the most highly paid professionals in our society. Many of whom are in the 1% income earners. They have clout and connections politically, business and in Hollywood. And they can ruin a business in no time. I have seen them hold some hostage to demands for sponsorships for events or they will be targed for anti gay revenge. The goal is to stack the deck. I have seen them demand special rights for certain events that straight groups could not get. People are literally afraid to look as though they are anti gay even when they aren’t.

    So please. There is no comparison. And yes, I have seen with my own eyes cities give them “special rights” just so they would not get the onslaught they were threatened with.

    I am libertarian and do not see how any American can be against gay civil marriages. But when government starts to tell a private business who they can or cannot do business with, that is tyranny. And remember, it works both ways. It seems many here just want to shut down what they don’t like about the Christian right forgetting that the left (Christian or not) are doing the same thing on their pet issues. Both sides are more alike than they will admit.

  293. Nancy wrote:

    Topic for another time: nature (creation) is not “free.” There is a cause for everything. The philosophical term for that is “adequate determinism” which subsumes in it’s concept “indeterminism”as seen at the subatomic level. Here again, very interesting reading. I am referencing a prior comment from you about freedom in creation.
    And oh yes, the dominant thinking at this time, even an article in “Psychology Today” (not even an academic journal) is that we do not have free will and that this idea is consistent with the current research in neuroscience. The neuroscience people think they have functional images of the brain in action which demonstrate this.

    All interactions at the atomic and molecular scale, not just subatomic, are governed by quantum mechanics (QM). QM is non deterministic yielding results stated as probabilities. Without knowing anything about the psychology or neural science domains I feel this says at the lowest levels of cognition we are intrinsically non deterministic. I’ll also concede that non determinism is not the same as free will and leave that part of the debate to to the philosophers. Whether God can circumvent QM or not is of course an open question. It’s quite clear that He has chosen not to distort QM predicted results when the theory has been subjected to careful tests.

    If you can point me to an article not behinds a paywall about the indeterminism you mentioned I’d be very appreciative.

  294. @ Jeannette Altes:

    Your assessment of this verse is what I have always held. No where does the verse say that God caused or allowed the blindness so that Jesus could heal him later.

  295. Muff Potter wrote:

    I too wax Jeffersonian whenever I hear of some frivolous lawsuit in which the plaintiffs want to prevent high-schoolers from invoking the name of Jesus at their football games or nixing their use of an unused room for their lunch time Bible studies. Believe me, when the the state tries to establish a state religion or institute coercion on the behalf of any religion, I’ll be one of the first to man the barricades in armed insurrection. Until that day however here’s my ruling from the bench to the plaintiffs: Get over yourselves, relax your sphincters, and learn to live and let live

    You are talking my language Muff. You know how this stuff chips away over time and we need to blow much of it off.

    Cheryl Schatz started a ministry to the cults here and then moved to Canada. Because of their “hate speech” laws, her explaining how Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses are cults caused her to lose her non profit tax exemption. That is a big no no.

    That is where this stuff takes us over time. And we become paralyzed in speech trying to fit into the politically correct culture and issues can never really be discussed deeply. That is why we must protect free jerky speech. We don’t have to listen, is the good news. :o)

  296. An Attorney wrote:

    I think the Bible teaches that God is a God of love and is not the author of evil. Which is why I believe that the neo-Calvinists do not worship the God of the Bible, and especially do not worship Jesus Christ, because the god they worship is an evil creation of the mind of John Calvin.

    I agree with this but take it back further to Augustines Greek Pagan dualism being the foundational root of it.

    One thing that really got me was realizing how much historical context is left out of so much teaching. The OT is written against an extremely pagan backdrop in genres not familiar to us which changes how we view it. I agree with Numo that Job is not “literal” in the sense she meant it but like her, it makes me appreciate it even more with better understanding.

    Steve Chalke in England is really trying to work on restoring confidence in the Bible with people who have come out of certain movements. This is not an endorsement but I sure do appreciate his work.

    http://www.oasisuk.org/theologyresources/restoringconfidence

  297. Nancy wrote:

    My interest, for this matter at this time, begins and ends in whether of not there is free will since we are talking about how to understand evil. However, when the neuroscience folks show us functional MRI pictures and describe how they got them and what they mean, and when their observations tend to fit into a bigger picture and possibly explain some things–that is when I listen up.

    It was proposed in the Kuyperian strain of Calvinism that since the universe is made by one God (and we in His image), we will find a loose harmony across all parts. Thus, what’s debated in theology will also be found in philosophy, which also social sciences will echo, and the hard sciences will shed a continuing light through research/discovery. I have found it so, in that general way (given the need to become wise about what is what/where/when/how). The functionalMRI is an amazing hard-science tool! The brain is our new frontier in some ways. Research/discovery will broaden knowledge of ourselves and being image-bearers, also of God. W00t

  298. Nancy wrote:

    Not to worry, I don’t pay for anything on the net. Here is the site I used. Notice the plethora of links. I read several but I can’t remember exactly which. “Adequate determinism” would have been one of them for sure.

    Thanks for the link. I think http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/cogito/ perhaps comes close to what I was suggesting in my original post. Why there is not strict determinism.

  299. @ An Attorney: I tend to think of it more as an exceptional literary work that deals with many difficult questions, that illumines many truths and exposes many falsehoods. I am very grateful that it came down to us as part of the canon.

  300. @ numo: I am also not convinced that we do ourselves any favors by thinking of the Bible and its many books as if it is meant to be a compendium of newspaper articles, an instruction manual, a guide to an apocalyptic future, and similar.

    My hunch is that such interpretations wouldn’t mean much to its original readers/hearers.

  301. @ Jeannette Altes:
    Makes sense to me! I have always understood what Jesus said as primarily being a way of explaining that the disciples’ thinking about good, evil, apparent punishment via physical disability (and more) as being off the rails. But I really like what you’ve articulated here; it opens up some new dimensions for me.

  302. @ Jeannette Altes:
    This is a general answer to various comments on my post above ( Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:32 AM) I said “I am sure God does not actively will child abuse to happen”, which means he is NOT the author of evil. I don’t know any way of saying that more clearly. An Attorney then accuses me of this and goes on to restate exactly what I said in the above post to show that I don’t!

    I think the reason for this is if you are sympathetic to reformed theology, you are placed under the label ‘Calvinist’, as though this is a monolithic group, and a big red alarm light goes on. I’m not sure how really calvinist I am, and in any event don’t like being labelled – had enough of that in charismatic disputes, where I was put in a box in which I did not belong! To me the most important contribution of calvinism is total depravity (rightly understood), an incorrect understanding of sin and its consequences can lose the gospel, which is less true of trying to understand foreknowledge and predestination. I’m certainly not particularly doctrinaire about the ‘doctrines of grace’. And I don’t like ‘all’ being watered down to ‘some’, nor do I believe in double-predestination!

    My background is not reformed, rather default arminianism of the kind where man almost ends up being in charge of the salvation processes, it’s down to us. This almost turns God into our servant, where we deign to accept or reject what he offers us. A healthy dose of reformed theology ought to put God back on the throne. Not that he isn’t of course, but we need putting in our place as creatures. “No Lord!” is a contradiction in terms. It is frequently heard, but with different wording.

    I’m not bothered by disputes about freewill, but do think we have to do a lot of thinking about divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and keeping them balanced. I do think that God treats us as adults and does hold us accountable for our actions. And when we sin, WE sin, this is not foreordained.

    As for God’s seeming failure to intervene to stop evil, is this not showing he will not have us be automatons? This concept of handing men over to the consequences of their unbelief and resultant sin is clearly spelled out in Romans 1, and other places as well. It does mean the innocent can get caught up in suffering as a result of general, collective sin in the population. I’m suggesting it as a possible reason why we don’t usually see immediate judgement on child abusers in the here and now. The evil going on in an unbelieving society is the judgement itself.

    The idea I tried to get across about “the ultimate purpose behind abuse as far as Christians are concerned is to bring good out of evil” which may or may not have been very well put was Rom 8 : 28 “And we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose”. I don’t for one second think God incites men to commit child abuse, it is not his ‘purpose’ in that sense, but in a fallen world this happens, and I was always taught to see any involvement of God in this kind of thing is to bring good out of it, not do do more harm.

    I’m not saying all this as self-justification, but I was rather taken aback at the response to the post above criticising me for what I thought I had made clear I didn’t believe. Being unclear is I suppose the result sometimes of trying to be brief, especially on a topic as big as this one, but I try not to add to the quota of ‘careless words I utter’ for which one day I shall give account.

  303. @ Ken:

    Ken,

    With your comment here, you actually take a different position than many who would have said the same thing you said earlier, but mean that God enables (therefore brings about) evil because he has a purpose for it. If, instead, you mean that abuse is a result of the free will of the abuser, and not God’s design, then you are not a true Neo-Calvinist, and I commend you for that. My belief is that God can, and often does, take a bad situation and make good from it, but not always, and He is not the causative agent for any evil. Humans may accept the free gift of grace that God, through Jesus, offers to us; I believe that door is open to all who hear the good news. And possibly to some who never hear but come to believe in a beneficent and gracious God and worship Him, while not committing willful evil; there is some evidence in Romans, for example, for this idea.

  304. @ Ken:
    Thank you for this response. We probably agree more than it seemed. I will stand by my statement, however, that what I have described is not a caricature…at least, not in my experience.