"The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud." Coco Chanel link
Over the last two years, there have been a few more people who are willing to discuss the issues surrounding John Piper. These include his theology of gender, his penchant for speaking in behalf of God during disasters, and his communication style in general. Many people sat up and took notice of his infamous advice to abused women in which he declared that they should endure abuse for a season. He tried to walk that back but some are not convinced. Others have expressed concern when Piper seems to be able to tell us God's reasons for sending a tornado or allowing a bridge to collapse. Others have discussed his occasional cryptic and depressing Tweets. He also believes that God gave Christianity a masculine feel. There are many more examples where those came from.
John Piper exposed in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
TWW believes that Piper's growing strident rhetoric about the role of women can be traced back to the ever infamous Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which was written in 1991 and edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Many consider this the landmark book regarding gender roles. Since it is regarded the most important book of the complementarian movement, they have made the PDF of the book available for free at this link. So, I read it and was disturbed. I had a hard time believing that even complementarians were not concerned about a number of issues in this book.
John Piper does not believe women should be muscular.
I am not joking about this. We wrote a post John Piper: On Election, Sin and the Painful Lives of Muscular Women and asked the question, "Are muscular women are outside of God’s will?" Why? because John Piper in 1991 believed that women who were muscular might be outside the will of God for very odd reasons. Here is a Piper quote from that post.
“Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive. It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.
But no woman should be encouraged by this fact. For it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.
The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man, but it does not beget several hours of moonlight walking with significant, caring conversation. The more women can arouse men by doing typically masculine things, the less they can count on receiving from men a sensitivity to typically feminine ”
Since exercise is considered an essential part of a program for health, his comment struck me as bad advice. His reason for doing so was rather strange. He was imagining a sexual encounter with a muscular woman and his imagination seemed to run wild. I knew then that Piper's view on women was strange from as far back as 1991 and probably earlier. If I was correct, then we should be prepared to see even more concerning statements. In my opinion, we have.
John Piper view on the role of women extends into the secular arena: Women should not be police officers.
A recent Q+A at Desiring God caused many people to question his views on gender. He extended those views far outside the church and into secular jobs. The question was "Should Women Be Police Officers?"
Piper believes that men and women not only have role differentiation within the church and home but also in society. Here is how he distinguishes between "jobs for men" and "jobs for women." If a woman is in a job which is personal and directive, then it will cause men to be uncomfortable. Yes, he means all men, even those who are not involved in his sort of church.
There is a continuum from very personal influence, very eye-to-eye, close personal influence, to non-personal influence. And the other continuum is very directive — commands and forcefulness — directive influence to very non-directive influence. And here is my conviction. To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man, guidance of a man, leadership of a man, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order.
Here are two examples that he uses to demonstrate his rather unusual guidelines.
1. A woman civil engineer is OK.
A woman who is a civil engineer may design a traffic pattern in a city so that she is deciding which streets are one-way and, therefore, she is influencing, indeed controlling, in one sense, all the male drivers all day long. But this influence is so non-personal that it seems to me the feminine masculine dynamic is utterly negligible in this kind of relationship.
2. A woman as a drill sergeant is not OK
A drill sergeant might epitomize directive influence over the privates in the platoon. And it would be hard for me to see how a woman could be a drill sergeant — hut two, right face, left face, keep your mouth shut, private — over men without violating their sense of manhood and her sense of womanhood.
He then repeats his advice, saying that there will be a breaking point for godly men and women if they do not adhere to these roles.
If a woman’s job involves a good deal of directives toward men, they will need to be non-personal in general, or men and women won’t flourish in the long run in that relationship without compromising profound biblical and psychological issues. And conversely, if a woman’s relationship to a man is very personal, then the way she offers guidance and influence will need to be more non-directive. And my own view is that there are some roles in society that will strain godly manhood and womanhood to the breaking point.
Just in case you are prone like me to think his advice is strange and possibly damaging, he reminds is all that we must be "submissive to Scripture" and he is pretty darn sure that he is one of those who is submissive.
John Piper's dreamed up guidance is impossible to attain in most jobs in the world.
Let's take the female civil engineer that he said had negligible directive and personal interactions with the guys who are driving the car on the roads she designed. (I am not kidding.) He apparently thinks that this woman is working in a vacuum, deciding how to build the roads. Did it occur to him that she is working for a company or government agency in which she will most likely be required to give directives to men who will implement her plans? Did he even think that she would be working in an office in which she will be in charge of others, both men and women, whose work she will supervise.
Except for the church in which men are in control and women are not allowed to be in a position of leadership with men, I can think of virtually no profession in which a woman would be able to avoid personal and directive relationships with men.
Think about it: which job would prevent a woman from never interacting personally with and giving directions to a man?
Benjamin Corey believes this is a dangerous message for women.
He discussed his concerns in John Piper: Women Not Suited For Most Jobs In The World
Where could one work, what vocation could one hold, where one wouldn’t be in the position of giving instructions to men? I can’t think of many, and certainly this position would mean that women are not suited for anything other than entry-level positions, as increased supervisory responsibility would undoubtedly include giving directives to male subordinates.
Thusly, it appears that Piper actually thinks biblical womanhood disqualifies women from the vast majority jobs in the world, unless those jobs took place inside a giant lady bubble.
And this is precisely why I will fight to protect the beautiful girls I am raising from this brand of Christianity– it is an absolutely dangerous message for women.
Scot McKnight believes that Piper's theology is all about rigid roles and hierarchy.
He wrote a post called That Complementarian Non-Negotiable. I smiled when I read this because I had tweeted out that I believe Piper is backing himself into a corner of his own making. I was pleased to see that someone else thought the same thing. It helps me to see that I am not too far off base.
Notice the terms he uses for a husband’s role: “benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for, and protect women.” And a woman’s role: “a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men.” This is the complementarian non-negotiable: it’s about roles and it’s about hierarchy and it’s about males being leaders and women being submissive.
Unfortunately, John Piper far too often turns the man-woman relationship into the role of leader-follower and scales it on a map of hierarchy rather than mapping it all on the scales of love and mutual sacrifice for the good of the other. Beginning with the second leads to radically different perspectives on issues like what women “can” do in society. So, when Piper ends up talking about non-personal and personal influence and directions I think he’s gotten himself into a corner of his own making (the leader-follower perspective) and is turning in circles.
McKnight ends with the best statement I have read in answer to Piper's increasingly confusing gender rhetoric. It should be all about caring for the good of others.
Once one begins where the NT household regulations begin, with the radical revolution of Roman hierarchies, one sees that it is not about who has authority or hierarchy but about giftedness, about how that woman can best serve her community with the gifts God has given her. It’s not about whether your status and honor will be preserved but about whether your status and honor will be surrendered for the good of the other.
Even some of the Reformed, complementarian folks are raising questions about Piper's increasingly confusing gender rules.
I follow Scot McKnight's blog regularly. He mentioned two Reformed individuals who point out the problem with Piper's viewpoints.
1. Aimee Byrd at the Mortification of Spin, a blog for The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, wrote John Piper's Advice For Women in the Workforce.
She took issue with this statement from Piper's post.
At the heart of mature manhood is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for, and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships. The postman won’t relate to the lady at the door the way a husband will, but he will be a man. At the heart of mature womanhood is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.
She believes that men are the head of their households and affirms herself as a complementarian. But, even she seemed to think that Piper is off base as well as confusing in his views on jobs and gender.
As far as the postman goes, I am at a total loss. Are we referring to the obvious, ontological fact that he is a man, or to something in his behavior that makes him a manly postman at the door? And if I am a woman opening the door, am I to be affirming this manliness in some sort of way?
And I suppose this definition of mature womanhood exposes me as terribly childish. I do not think it is my purpose as a woman to be constantly seeking affirming, receiving, and nurturing strength and leadership from worthy men. I am married to one man. I affirm that Scripture teaches that my husband has the responsibility of headship in our home. Even then, I take the ezer with the kenegdo. I should be a suitable strength matched for him, discerning if his leadership is of the Lord. I also affirm that only certain men are called to ordination in the church as pastors and elders. Those are special leadership positions that I affirm as a result of the goodness and authority of God, who is the authority of us all. Isn’t this what a complementarian believes?
She found that his statements made her feel uncomfortable with her female body.
I find it very confusing. When are we pushing the personal versus directive limits? This kind of teaching has always made me uncomfortable with my own female body. My very presence is imposing. It has the same neo-gnostic ring that we hear in our culture today, separating the physical from the spiritual. Is the job okay for women if the men can’t see us? His illustration seems to say that:
2. Carl Truman thinks Piper makes women appear as defective beings.
Carl Truman wrote An Accidental Feminist? at Mortification of Spin. He is also a Reformed complementarian. He responded to this portion of John Piper's post.
At the heart of mature manhood is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for, and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships. The postman won’t relate to the lady at the door the way a husband will, but he will be a man. At the heart of mature womanhood is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.
He took issue with Piper's statement which he believes is promoting radical subordination.
It seems to me to make women in themselves into nothing more than defective beings and to rest upon a definition of complementarity which is really one of radical, across-the-board subordination. It also leaves me wondering what I can say to single women in my church. Find a man, any man, to submit to in some context or other?
Truman believes all sorts of unanswerable questions get raised when one takes gender roles outside the church.
Third, the consequent complication of even the most routine male-female encounters creates a world where people are practically infantilized. They are ever fearful of doing the wrong thing even in situations of no real consequence, and always dependent on the advice of the gurus who own the criteria mentioned under the second point – and who now have power and influence way beyond the bounds of that ministerial authority given to the church and her officers.
Truman remarks that he rarely reads complementarian literature these days. He believes that once it leaves the church and the household, it gets off track.
And too often it slides into sheer silliness.
Women in formerly traditional male roles have positively added to those roles.
My daughter served as a firefighter for a short time in Raleigh. She is small but strong. Her size was convenient when they had to get people into tiny spaces during a fire. She was also commended when she found an elderly lady who was confused and lying in her own waste. While waiting for the ambulance, she cleaned the lady and put fresh coverings on her. Her compassion added value to her fire fighting team by treating an elderly woman with dignity.
I have developed a keen interest in Norway because I have a dear Norwegian friend and have spent time with her family in Norway. Norway has one of the most humane prison systems in the world. They believe women guards are essential in their prison. You can read about it here.
Norway’s prison guards undergo two years of training at an officers’ academy and enjoy an elevated status compared with their peers in the U.S. and Britain. Their official job description says they must motivate the inmate "so that his sentence is as meaningful, enlightening and rehabilitating as possible," so they frequently eat meals and play sports with prisoners. At Halden, half of all guards are female, which its governor believes reduces tension and encourages good behavior.
If you go to the link, you will see women prison guards interacting with the prisoners. Men do well in working with women who are directive and personal in their actions. My guess is that there are some men like Piper who don't do well and I wonder why.
John Piper and women: there is a peculiar undercurrent that runs through his writings.
I am pleased to see people in John Piper's camp responding to his odd treatise on women as police officers. However, I believe he has had strange views on women for the last 25 years. Go back and read his weird take on women who exercise. It seems like there is something off kilter here and it causes me to wonder if Piper had some bad experiences with women in his life. He appears to be fearful that a woman might actually get too close to him and he wants to avoid any woman who might tell him what to do. The question is Why?
Women have been both directive and personal in interacting with men throughout history. From Aimee Byrd's post:
I respectfully disagree with John Piper's principles for women. This just isn’t biblical. After we clean up our own vocations that involve women in personal, directive positions, we will need to get rid of the Deborahs and Abigails of the Bible. Women are warriors too. And it does not violate a mature man’s sense of manhood when they do their job well.
Piper is a Fundamentalist in Reformed clothing.
Amen to that last quote.
Good grief. Reading about Piper’s reaction to muscular women is really bizarre. I don’t want that much of a glimpse into his personal fantasies. There is a similar theme to the video on which he is asked if he could read a Bible commentary written by a woman. He said yes because she wouldn’t be there in person “pressing her authority into him.” Yikes.
I agree, Dee. It does seem that he is actually frightened of women (yet strangely fascinated by physically strong ones) and it’s caused me to ponder his background.
The Beaumont ( Texas) Fire Chief is female. I wonder how he stands on that? ( you know his head would explode) and she is pretty darn good at her job. Doesn’t micromanage, steps in and takes charge when it is needed, and unlike Chiefs in the past, always asks her asst. chiefs and captains their opinions on situations….
Godith wrote:
What is the difference between the Reformed today and yesterdays Fundamentalists?
Todd Pruitt also agreed with his cohorts, Aimee Byrd and CarlTrueman: http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/1517/pistol-packin-mama#.VduCtbxVikr
Sixth!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
How is it possible that that keeps happening?
I had to smile at Rev. Piper’s concern that military recruits at boot camp might feel degraded by their drill instructors.
But really, why are people like this famous? That is to say, why do evangelicals pay attention to Rev. Piper, as opposed to some more sensible, balanced figure? Is there an element of randomness to his fame, or has he done something that demands this sort of attention? (I realize he has written books.) Are there cabals of “complementarian” Protestants who have collectively decided to promote him? (If so, I have to wonder at their marketing strategy.)
Speaking of losing out on sixth place, the athletics world has been sparing a thought for Molly Huddle of the US team who had all but won the bronze in the 10,000m in Beijing… but slowed down to celebrate just 2 metres too early and was pipped on the line.
At the recent London Anniversary Games, Huddle front-ran her way into the nation’s hearts in the 5000m. This was partly due to a brave effort to win from a long way out (ultimately thwarted by Mercy Cherono of Kenya), but also because her name is so obviously a combination of “Hug” and “Cuddle”.
Zla’od wrote:
That’s one of those “If you have to ask, you’ll never know” questions…
😉
Will M wrote:
That’s one of those “If you have to ask, you’ll never know” questions…
😉
… you’ve probably spotted a pattern emerging by now.
😉
Though I, too, have a question. In the fotie at the top of the article, why is the horse nearest the camera wearing a hat?
I suppose I’ll never know.
Godith wrote:
Yep. I used to consider Piper the epitome of Reformed, but I’ve learned that “Neo-Calvinism” and truly “Reformed” are pretty different groups.
I’m working my way through Biblical Manhood and Womanhood now, and I’ve become convinced that he’s a legalist. He is adding to scripture and trying to make them binding on half the christian population, putting shackles on our sisters in Christ. It’s horrible. I will never recommend a book or a sermon by this man. He may hold some basic orthodox views, but so do many other non-sexist Christians.
Abi Miah wrote:
I think there is something wrong as well. Unfortunately, he is regarded as a celebrity who is not to be questioned. So they try to see everything he says as deep instead of weird. It reminds me of the movie Being There.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There
Snigger. That is my reaction to JP’s hilarious ‘sayings’, & to Nick’s comments. To answer your question Nick, that is a boy horse, sorry a man horse & it is wearing that hat as it is in authority over the girl horses behind it. That hat is a sign of its authoritah. It says so in the horsey scriptures which only man horses may read. Don’t ask me how I know this.
It would be much more precise to call guys like Piper “neo-puritan” or “new Calvinist” because Reformed is a different thing and some of that bunch are plain lovely.
Sort of like we would want them not to lump us all into the worst of our circles.
Female oppression in the name of the Lord. Don’t ever direct a man; it’ll hurt his feelings. Apparently biblical masculinity is very fragile.
I think there is something wrong as well. Unfortunately, he is regarded as a celebrity who is not to be questioned. So they try to see everything he says as deep instead of weird. It reminds me of the movie Being There.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There
I always thought it was weird how Piper is so idolized among his crowd. He’s more infallible than the Pope among his followers. No Catholic I know takes the pope as seriously as Piper Cubs see Piper. That’s another red flag for me.
This was my impression as well. He seems to be acting from some felt sense of insecurity–over women, relationships, his own authority, the outside world represented by normal workplaces, something like that. It reminds me of the “Red Pill” / “Men’s Rights Movement” on the internet–it’s hard not to view them through a clinical lens.
The REAL reason for complementarianism (i.e. male supremacy: Protect the male ego at all costs, who gives a dam* about the women.
@ Will M:
If you seriously want an answer–Piper is legalistic, holds to believer’s baptism, and has a dim view of women. The Reformed are in the camp of Carl Trueman (see post)–no lists of rules to be kept, infant baptism and equality of men and women. Also, Piper is a pontificater. He appears to think he’s the Pope of evangelicalism. The Reformed do not put forward a Pope figure.
So JP isn’t #readyforhillary?
Yep! Make sure when interviewing for a position that it’s within “a giant lady bubble” in the corporation.
Love that visual, dee!
Someone needs to check Piper’s computer and phone…something is way off when he drift’s to say “It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.”
Wonder what Mr.Piper has to say about the two women who just passed Army Ranger training? He must be having a nervous breakdown!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Actually, there are four horses and four riders (at least one looks to be a woman). You are looking at a temporary allusion.
I don’t understand why anybody gives Piper the time of day. He strikes me as clearly a deranged idiot.
John Piper is the new Pat Robertson…..
Just in case you want to roll your eyes even more, here’s good ol’ Doug Wilson defending Piper.
http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/carve-outs-and-ghettos.html
@ K.D.:
Really?! I interviewed for a job at a Beaumont refinery (I’m a mechanical engineer) 15 years ago and was just floored by the blatant sexism I experienced. One of my interviewers told me that he wouldn’t hire me because I looked like I don’t like to get dirty. The best part was at the end when the human resource representative wondered aloud why they had such a hard time retaining female engineers.
Kemi wrote:
B
I worked ar Walmart for awhile when I was between teaching contracts. I was told that I would be placed working in the “Health and Beauty” department. The first time my supervisor saw me, he looked me over and asked if I thought I could help unload the semis. I ended up working 3rd shift, unloading trucks and stocking freight.
At the time, I was a very healthy, physically fit 41 year old ~~~ 5’6″, 130 lbs.
roebuck wrote:
oebuck on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 06:53 PM said:
“I don’t understand why anybody gives Piper the time of day. He strikes me as clearly a deranged idiot.”
I’m sorry but that is beyond the pale. When my sister was in Minnesota traveling, she decided to visit Bethlehem Baptist. That “deranged idiot” was teaching a very tiny Sunday school class to which she and her husband wandered into. That “deranged idiot”, during the prayer time, listened to my sister’s prayer request for her very needful son, and held her hand, and cried with her saying he was in the same predicament as a parent. He did not know her, will probably never see her again, and she certainly was not there to make a contribution. But he stopped everything for a stranger in need.
I’m not a Piper apologist. I’m a baby baptising confessional Lutheran.
Dangerous, dangerous ground when motives are ascribed as they were in this post. IF one reads the entire article about women being Police officers, Piper is careful to say that he does not have a LIST of jobs suitable for each gender. That little tidbit was left out of this post.
Amy Smith wrote:
If she get’s elected, the amount of sheer angst we’ll hear will be unfathomable.
@ Patrice:
Agreed. I know Reformed folks who would never, ever want anything to do with neo-Calvinism, let alone Piper’s bizarre sexual fantasies.
@ Sad:
But back in 2008, he was adamant that a woman *could not* be president, ever, because a woman *cannot* be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
I bet that has been scrubbed from the Desiring God wrbsite, but it *was* there.
I honestly think he and his syvophants live on a different planet, in a parallel universe, as what he says bears pretty much zero relationdhip to The Real World.
@ Sad:
Interesting comment, especially the part about Piper teaching a ‘very tiny Sunday School class’.
Sad wrote:
I am not understanding what difference Piper saying he doesn’t have a list makes . The principles, which is what Piper said were important, were shared accurately. Many people, including Christians who honor the authority of the Bible, find them odd and convoluted.
I am glad that Piper was able to minister to your sister. A person can do good in some ways, but cause great harm in others, however.
Sad wrote:
That’s nice. Kindly don’t go calling me ‘beyond the pale’. All I can know about the man his what I read about him, and his own writings. He strikes me as having some profound issues. I will go so far as retract ‘deranged idiot’, and replace it with ‘has left the path of wisdom’.
Godith wrote:
Nah. I am thinking the guy is ISIS.
Julie Anne wrote:
The extremist point of views come when these gurus attach their brand of gender roles to salvation. People internalize these points of view without discernment because they hold these folks in such high esteem.
Dee,
I love this article!!! May I print a copy to place inside a book my husband is currently reading??? Oh, btw, my husband is reading John Piper’s Desiring God”.
I have always wondered whether John Piper’s upbringing factors into his attitude about women. From what I have read, he was raised primarily by his mother due to his father’s extensive travels as an evangelist.
I don’t know where to begin. I think A GOOD SCREAM!
*Women and muscles.
Does John Piper realize that our nation used to be mostly farms/agrarian life? Does Piper realize that women HAD MUSCLES from farm work? That women worked hard?
*Discrimination
What John Piper proposes – the women not be permitted to supervisor men – is illegal, discriminatory, and highly actionable. It is also outrageous.
Piper should enroll in a Constitutional Law class and learn THE LAW of the land.
One class-action litigation case I worked on, where an employer did just what John Piper proposes, was litigated in federal court and it cost said employer SEVERL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS and the federal court judge was so angry he hit them with a multiplier (our plaintiffs’ law firms fees multiplied by 3) just to send a message to them and businesses in this country.
*Conservatorship
I’m thinking one for John Piper.
Men and women are equal. In every way. End of story. There is NO justification (biblical or otherwise) in any statements to the contrary. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion and Piper might be a nice guy in general but the statements are just plain whacked. No matter what context you put them in.
Corbin wrote:
Now that…I could have guessed!
Corbin wrote:
Okay, I just read the Doug Wilson article. There are so many things a woman should not wear or use!!!!!
When I go hiking down in the cliffs, may I wear hiking boots or am I required to wear high heeled pumps? Can I still take my pistol with me if I get a pink pistol belt and holster Or, am I required to have a male escort to protect me from the snakes, coyotes, foxes, and bobcats? Can I go hiking at all, or my activities restricted to areas with parquet tile and concrete sidewalks – we don’t have those around here!
I am with Trueman on this one. The Ask Pastor John podcast is a forum where Piper is prone to go far beyond the Bible in his answers.
Sad wrote:
Yes, and he walked to church and lived in an old house. We know. Now he lives well in Nashville and found the funds to fly to Geneva to shoot his retirement video.
Some of us here have read and listened to Piper for years. I have family who went to work for him and study with him. They came back zombies convinced none of us know the “true Gospel”. He is mesmerizing and passionate. Some folks mistake that for truth over time.
Note how he goes into depth about what he sees as problems for women in certain jobs but then says he does not have a list of suitable jobs. Why do you think he would say that? There is a reason. If you are around these guys long enough and dare to question the teaching you can see exactly how it works. They don’t want you analyzing it, they want you to buy into their overarching message. I keep saying they need a Talmud. Piper loves to pontificate. Problem is, the older he gets the more creepy and bizarre his tweets become. Perhaps that is because he is limited to 140 characters and has to cut all the adjective and adverbs that keep people from seeing the real message he is teaching.
If that is so, then he’s no better than Moses when he was ignoring God and (presumably) Zipporah, and was almost killed by God for it in Exodus 4. But for Zipporah saving his butt, there possibly wouldn’t have a savior of the Hebrews to lead them out of slavery in Egypt, and the world would’ve been a very different place.
Men who don’t let women get close, who don’t listen, who objectify or diminish or ignore women tend to die for it, either literally or metaphorically. I have seen it before. One need look only at the destruction and exposure of the public ministries of so many who preach a secondary role for women.
roebuck wrote:
I stand by “beyond the pale” in regards to calling Piper a deranged idiot, having looked up the definition, a synonym would be “unreasonable”…which I think it was. I happen to agree with you on the phrase “has left the path of wisdom” in regards to many of the things that he says publicly. I don’t think it’s wise for a minister of the gospel to comment on some social issues the way that he does sometimes.
Sad wrote:
I’ve spent some time in Bethlehem Baptist, I’ve watched Piper preach, been to one of his big public events, was involved with a parachurch ministry that met every Friday at Beth Bap. I’ve been there also, and I think Piper’s deluded, pompous, destructive.
Sad wrote:
That’s nice that John Piper was nice to your sister in a moment of distress. That doesn’t mitigate the untold damage that he has reaped on families, marriages, churches, women, men, relationships, friendships. Piper was no where to be found when the man he was backing – Mark Driscoll – was on a bully tirade and abusing and excommunicating godly Christian elders and others right and left at Mars Hill in Seattle. Many Christians there contacted John Piper and asked him to intercede. He did NOTHING to help them and he was complicit in their abuse.
Most recently, John Piper in a pathetic interview said the implosion of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll’s fall was a loss for The Gospel. No, it was actually an answer to prayer!! Driscoll is Biblically un-qualified to serve as a pastor yet John Piper won’t say that.
InsideOut wrote:
Thank you. I have been thinking that I am the only one who finds this a bit odd. And this statement was made about 25 years ago. I wonder if he is any close people who can discuss this with him?
Nancy2 wrote:
Too funny!
InsideOut wrote:
Frankly, he reminds me of people who do a lot of drugs, including pot.
@ Velour:
And don’t forget his defense of Mahaney! Yes, Piper has helped to damage many people from stages and in videos. Some in my own family with what he teaches. Just one look at his twitter followers tells us all we need to know about his influence.
Jack wrote:
No, they’re not, in every wqay. They’re equally important and essential, but not ‘equal’ as in ‘just the same’.
And try not to end your utterances with ‘end of story’. It’s almost as bad as ‘period’ as a thought and conversation stopper.
numo wrote:
And he now controls all of the votes of free citizens – women and men – and the Electoral College?
@ InsideOut:
We went through this a while back on his teaching about women lifting weights and building muscle. Then, lo and behold, Noel had a blog post about her weight training at the gym!
The Pied Piper said,
“And here is my conviction. To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man, guidance of a man, leadership of a man, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order.”
But, what would have happened if he had said,
“And here is my conviction. To the degree that a negro’s influence over a caucasian, guidance of a caucasian, leadership of a caucasian, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a caucasian’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order.”
That might have been considered “gospel” 100 years ago. Now, a statement like that righfully called racism, and a few other things.
Has anyone checked to see if Piper had an Ashley Madison account?
Just saying, the dude spends an awful lot of time worrying about “sexual encounters” with women outside of traditional roles.
numo wrote:
It’s called “Gospel World: Where everyone is winsome and nobody thinks for themselves.”
@ Will M:
As a Reformed guy myself, sadly not much depending on where you look. The problem is a lot older than you might think, dating back to the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the 1920’s. Doctrinal Liberals were gaining a great deal of power in Reformed denoms, this pushed theological conservatives out. Eventually conservatives became uncomfortable bedfellows with fundamentalists in the struggle against liberalism. As time progressed the line between conservative and fundamentalist blurred, and in some cases disappeared. There still are non-fundy, theologically conservatives in Baptist, Presbyterian, and other denominations, but since they basically coexist with fundamentalists it can be hard to distinguish them when looking at a whole group.
For example, I’d simply call Trueman and Byrd conservatives, and Piper more of a fundamentalist, and all identify as Reformed in some way. Conservatives like myself need to do a far better job of distinguishing ourselves from fundamentalists, because while we might share some common beliefs, our approach to church life and the Christian life is far different than fundies.
@ Nancy2:
Wilson said a whole lot of nothing there. And if he bases his entire argument on this scripture:
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5).
then he better be ready to cut off his hand, pluck out his eye, and do many other things commanded in scripture.
dee wrote:
Nancy2,
I permit you to take the “Desiring God” book outdoors, take your pistol to it, and shoot it up, girl! Post pictures!! I will FedEx you cinnamon buns from California, right by the ocean. Homemade.
Love,
Velour
“roebuck wrote:
I don’t understand why anybody gives Piper the time of day. He strikes me as clearly a deranged idiot.”
I think its the hand waving and patented otherworldly stare, and the crackle of the voice and the wincing in the spirit or the bug-eyed revelatory wow. I think some may see him as an evangelical version of Gandalf or Dumbledor. But dont be fooled he is no idiot, this is his stage and he plays the role well.
dee wrote:
If you think that’s funny, a Voddie Baucham book is next on his reading list. I am trying to enlighten him, “in a submissive, ladylike way without looking him in the eye, of course”.
Okay I broke one of the 10 commandments ~~~~ that bit in quotation marks is a bald faced lie!
After a 24 year military career (15 years in Special Forces), my 6’2″ husband was victimized by neocals in seminary school. A couple of guys gave him a reading list and insisted that the authors are great Bible scholars that teach “God’s true way”!!!
I’ve got my work cut out for me!
@ Nancy2:
The boots- well, it depends. The male escort- of course, your husband. I think we can make an exception with the gun and boots, as long as you promise to wear a dress. Without the dress, then no, that’s too far.
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5O)
Velour wrote:
The .22 or the .357? Can my daughter help with her derringer and .44 magnum?
Hey Velour, why can’t I use my rifles or my double barreled shotgun?
Nancy2 wrote:
🙁 That’s not good. I’ll be praying for you.
Zla’od wrote:
While I was backpacking through Patagonia (the part at the tip of Southern Chile), I met countless groups of Israeli men and women who had just completed their mandatory service in the Israeli Army. The women were, mostly, petite and extremely tough! If anything serious happened, trust me…I would want one of those women around me!
I tended to one Israeli woman’s blistered feet by a lake, using my first aid kit and Second Skin. I asked all kinds of questions about her military service and Israel in the wilds of Patagonia.
Nancy2 wrote:
I’m a 30-30 guy myself. Good ol’ Winchester…
Lydia wrote:
That is exactly it. They want buy-in to their concept. By not defining the roles/rules, they get you to buy in to the Big Idea, and then from there they move you wherever they can convince you that the Big Idea directs. And they maintain control as the arbiters of what is kosher/not kosher. People have to keep coming back to them for assurance because people are kept in immaturity and unable to walk confidently by faith. The Gospel Glitterati, for all their infatuation with “learning,” want to keep everyone tied to their spiritual apron strings.
Lydia wrote:
Passive aggressive response from hubby, eh?
A fundamentalist fascinated with sex and with an artificial view of “gender” that he pretends is God’s own view? What is the world coming too…
roebuck wrote:
Cowgirl Nancy2,
Shooters choice. I will come out there to Kentucky (I’m by the Pacific Ocean) and help with the honors. Roebuck plans to be there. Perhaps others from TWW will join us.
Any last words you can think of before we dispatch the book? (Good riddance!)
I think I have heard similar absurdity before, likely in a locker room somewhere, one of the more depraved places in existence. Basically this is the type of silly thing non-adults say about the other sex and is not treated seriously, apparently excepting Piper et al. For a supposed adult to put theological trappings around such goofiness raises the absurdity to a very high level. Anyone who then treats Piper’s dispatches seriously raises absurdity to toxic levels.
If anyone dredges up something similar from my past I will just say it was a stupid thing to have said. I wouldn’t even ask “what was I thinking” because it would be evident that thinking was not part of the formation.
Law Prof wrote:
I tend to agree based on the magnitude of the claims that he makes. A humble person does not make such grand and absolute claims. However, Piper has the presence and demeanor of what people associate with humility. However, the contempt comes through with the odd smirks and giggles. When you are talking about spousal abuse, a normal person who is speaking God’s heart does not giggle and does not use goofy or misleading language to cover what he is talking about.
I don’t know if he is clinically deranged, but his theological musings certainly are deranged. I do not think he is an idiot, but he certainly uses idiotic ways of communication. I also think his doggerel is worse than mine.
@ Sean:
I wrote this post at my blog several months ago. It dealt with the personality cult of John Piper and his followers. I compare and contrast with the personality cult of Chairman Mao. Its called “The Little Red Book of John Piper?”
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/the-little-red-book-of-john-piper/
Nancy2 wrote:
Uhhhh, oh. Gram3 and Gramp3 have their work cut out for them. They are in to deprogramming people. They helped me! Gram3 is great at the word studies. You should ask her about it some time.
“He appears to be fearful that a woman might actually get too close to him and he wants to avoid any woman who might tell him what to do. The question is Why?”
I have been asking myself the same thing? What happened to John Piper that makes him so afraid of women?
AMAZING POST!!!
Velour wrote:
I just tried to visualize this get together, and almost fell off my chair with laughter. I mean, just imagine it…
Zla’od wrote:
And he’s short too compared to many women.
roebuck wrote:
Roebuck,
We aren’t to forsake the gathering of the saints. We can speak Scripture and shoot, right?
Nancy2 wrote:
Absolutely, Nancy2, your baby girl can use her Derringer or .44 magnum to help us dispatch that book. Remember, Nancy2, as a godly mother you are to bring up baby girl in the way that she should go (and that means shoot vermin, including the paper form).
Are the classically Reformed worried that the misogyny of the Complementarian Female Subordinationists is going to make their pewpeons start re-thinking male-only ministry and “headship” in the home? Mars Hill, The Village, Piper’s nonsense, CBMW’s targeting of toy aisle signage. At some point, rational people are going to ask what is driving this ideology. And when some people who are willing to investigate the texts actually start investigating the prooftexts for male-exclusivity and male priority, they might come to some unwelcome conclusions.
‘To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man, guidance of a man, leadership of a man, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order’.
Put John Piper in a situation where he is in desperate need of help then see if he is worried about ‘God’s created order’.
Imagine the 911 call (000 here) – ‘I need urgent help but don’t bother sending a women because that will ‘controvert God’s created order’ and I would rather sacrifice myself then allow that to happen’. 🙂
John Piper is nothing more than a ‘noisy gong’.
Gram3 wrote:
Honestly, Gram3, I would like you to write about this topic, and how to do this, for The Wartburg Watch. I would like you to write about what you found.
I hope Dee and Deb would be agreeable and that you, Gram3, would share your wisdom with us.
Velour wrote:
I’m thinking a scantily-clad young woman is sexually stimulating to any healthy man who can see. Thankfully, Gramp3 learned a long time ago that if his eye offends me, it is going to get gone.
The weird thing is how muscles and pumping iron play into his fantasy scenario. I can think of some possibilities, but none that would go over well in his audiences. The whole thing is weird and reminds me of people who lose their mental filters.
Sad wrote:
I think Piper is beyond the pale, so we’re even.
Lydia wrote:
Thanks for reminding me of that debacle, Lydia.
Nancy2 wrote:
More than a few people thought and preached that. However, you will get vehement denials from “complementarians” that this is anything like what they are saying. I know because I’ve tried to point out the obvious, and they just get huffy. Which is one way to stop thinking, I suppose.
Jed Paschall wrote:
I used to be into John Piper for years. How much? You can read what I gave my Mom after she dealt with pancreatic cancer. I was under the Kool-Aid.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/my-mothers-pancreatic-cancer-john-piper-and-me/
No one stood up and challenged Piper? He was accepted as the fourth person of the trinity, or the 67 book of the Bible. His books and materials were passed around in churches, and ministries. I had a couple of people in Crusade who recommended him, and I picked him up. I got singed and it contributed to a huge faith crisis. Not only did I reject Christianity but I ranted about it and called it a cancer. I struggled with what I did to my Mom and the pain I caused her. Pancreatic cancer was enough, she survived something she should not have survived. I was angry for what I did to her. Despite that whenever there was a bridge collapse, tornado, etc… I could see that Piper was going to shoot off his mouth. Chaplain Mike at Internet Monk wrote a post based off me predicting John Piper’s coming comments on tornados. Then sure enough, there is John doing what I predicted.
I had reacted so much to Christianity because I once thought the world of John Piper. When no one spoke up, no one challenged him, I assumed that meant they agreed. Concurrence or condoning someone shows support in the end. After all look at how quick John Piper was able to jump on Greg Boyd or the emergent. And people followed suit, but no one challenged John Piper on any of this stuff. Some of this stuff is driving atheists Jed. I emailed Dee a post from Hemant Mehta’s The Friendly Atheist the other day, and they were talking about John Piper.
When people are silent that implies that they agree with John Piper. That really needs to end, people need to confront him. Its overdue, I wondered years ago why people haven’t challenged him. Its time for conservatives to speak up, the longer they are silent the more people are going to assume that John Piper is speaking for conservatives like yourself.
Gram3 wrote:
Above and beyond Piper’s wacko ideas, I keep wondering how he ever became such an influence, as I’m told he is. I mean, I’ve read some of his stuff, seen him on youtube, and he comes across as a total fruit. Whenever we talk about some of these characters on TWW, I always have to ask myself ‘who is empowering them, and why?’.
@ Zla’od:
I have a friend, female, who was a drill instructor. After she left active duty in the military, she got social work and seminary degrees. Very beautiful young woman, beautiful soprano singing voice, in great shape (both athletic and to look at!!!), and a great personality. Personally, if Piper said those things to me, I would recommend a psychiatric examination, because he is plain crazy.
@ Jed Paschall:
Read what one of the leading atheist bloggers is saying about John Piper Jed. The bulk of the post deals with John Piper and tornados.
—
Preacher/Theologian John Piper is one of those guys who gets off on telling women that God has a special role for them: to be subservient to their husbands and never in a position of authority. He’s one of those guys atheists salivate over because every time he says something, the pendulum moves a bit closer to our side.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/05/21/john-pipers-insensitive-careless-tweet/
Here’s Hemant Mehta on more of John Piper…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/06/25/christian-preacher-explains-why-watching-game-of-thrones-is-like-recrucifying-christ/
Godith wrote:
I listened to an Orthodox Presbyterian preacher lamenting Queen Elizabeth II was ever a monarch. She was a great leader, as was Katherine the Great, and Maria Theresa of Austria. If ever there was a position where a woman was leader over men ! Not to mention Deborah, the female judge in the Old Testament?
Corbin wrote:
Thanks, Corbin!
roebuck wrote:
Yeah, I have one of those. Lever action. Gotta 12 ga. db shotgun, too ~~ it’d blow that book to smithereens.
Velour wrote:
We kin divide the chapters amongst us and have a regular shootin’ contest! No trick shootin’ with mirrors allowed, though!
Velour wrote:
My gg-grandmother had a brother who was a circuit riding preacher – he carried a pistol and praised the Lord.
I could mention one more great woman leader– Anne of Austria, Louis the 14th mother. Moshe wisely ruled France until the Sun King reached his age of majority. Go through history and we have always had great women leaders, and we are the better for it. So there, John Piper!
Profiles of (top) women in the U.S. Army:
http://www.army.mil/women/profiles/current.html
Amy Smith wrote:
I would love to see what would happen if someone like Margaret Thatcher became President. Can you imagine John Piper telling Margaret Thatcher that she had no authority to run for office? LOL!! I would loooooooooove to have seen Margaret Thatcher put John Piper in his place. Oh well….one can dream! 😉
Women in the U.S. Marines:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/77955-7-women-in-the-marine-corps-on-life-beyond-the-uniform
Eagle wrote:
Or Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, ranked as the second most powerful person in the world according to Forbes.
Top women in U.S. Navy: http://www.npc.navy.mil/bupers-npc/organization/bupers/WomensPolicy/Pages/TopFemaleLeadership.aspx
@ Mark:
I liked Margaret Thatcher!
Good Lord! At some point, the New Calvinist who’s-who are going to have to take JP aside and calm the man down. He is becoming more of a liability than an asset to the movement the weirder he gets. I think these guys stretch their brain cells to the limit to try to think up some new thing that will startle the church world. To maintain his celebrity status, he must produce a steady stream of “wow daddy wow” revelations. His one-liner Piper Points are usually tweeted around the world; this one may not get much cyberspace.
roebuck wrote:
Ok, I’ll bite. How are men and women not equal? How do you define equality? Strength? Agility? Ability? I met a female fighter pilot who scored better than men at dogfighting. This was 20 odd years ago and at that time equality meant she had to be better than the guys to be equal. Astronauts, firefighters (as mentioned in this post), doctors, lawyers, heavy equipment operators, power engineers, railway engineers, electrical, aeronautical and other engineers and I could go on. Ok men can’t have babies, but arguably that makes men less equal.
All joking aside, I genuinely mean no offense but how can the statement “equally important and essential” not mean “equal”. Same value, same rights and privileges, same weight of testimony in court. Maybe there’s something I’m not getting, anyone care to help me out here?
I got your point, Jack, about men and women.
Thanks from California!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
There are actually 4 horses in the photo. (If you click on the photo caption, you will see an enlarged version of the photo and easily see 4 horse chests. The hat which appears to be on the first horse is actually the hat of the 4th human officer. (After the trouble to explain this, I hope your question was serious.)
My employer has a pretty large footprint in Minneapolis, and it would not surprise me if there are members of Bethlehem Baptist Church who work for my employer. If any of these people tried that John Piper rhetoric on the job, they’d hear about it from HR.
From reading the Wikipedia article on Piper, it appears he’s never worked outside the church, and to be blunt, the Baptist church is a hotbed of sexism. He was born in 1946. He went to Wheaton (1964-68), then to Fuller (1968-71), then went to Germany (1971-74). He then taught at Bethel University from 1974-1980, when he became pastor of Bethlehem Baptist. I think that’s a real problem with Piper and his fellows and their followers. They’ve never had to work out in the real world with the rest of us.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I don’t think *we* would want a John Piper type (or one of the fanbois or followers) in our environment because we are too busy working to put up with his sexist nonsense. If any of the people I worked with tried that kind of crazy, I’d be calling HR so they could explain to the poor dear how that kind of religiously-based sexism is simply uncalled for in any secular environment. (And should be in the religious environment too, but I’ve given up on those guys.)
roebuck wrote:
He appears/appeared at Passion, and I think a lot of kids get caught up in the emotional high of those kinds of events when they are kids. High school and college kids are idealistic and lack experience or a framework in which to place their ideals and their emotions. They are looking for “authenticity” and “meaning” and the kids who grow up in church or who are converted in college are drawn to Piper’s form of “authenticity” and “meaning” and are unaware of the implications and lack the basic biblical literacy to think instead of emote about Jesus. IMO, the other side of that youthful mindset is an ungrounded confidence in what they know that previous generations did not get right. Piper is different from their parents’ Christianity (even conservative ones like me) and so it must be better.
FWIW, I know of one avid Passionate Piperite who has disposed of his/her Piper library along with his/her Mahaney library and Dever library and all the others. Possibly using firearms. This person reportedly has many friends who have gone and done likewise after they matured and put a little distance between themselves and the Bubble. Personally, I would prefer to use those books to kindle a fire for s’mores while preserving the ammo for something more daunting.
Jack wrote:
It’s not at all about skills and strengths in any particular area. There are many women who are equal and indeed vastly superior to me in any category you care to mention. And vice versa. You totally missed my point. Equal under the law? Absolutely! Equal before God? Of course.
I’ll try to help you out. In algebra, equal means the same thing. In human reality, men and women are different. In algebra, if two things aren’t equal, one is greater than the other. In human reality NO NO NO. ‘Not equal’ does not mean ‘one is greater, superior than the other’.
Men and women are different, that’s what I really meant to say. If you disagree with that, well, we just have to agree to disagree.
Max wrote:
That’s the problem. The NeoCals are all devoid of good sense.
Gram3 wrote:
I’d get food poisoning from my s’mores if Piper’s, Dever’s (& ILK) books were used in the bonfire. Honestly, I couldn’t stomach it…
Godith wrote:
Sorry, I was being sort of snarky. If you noticed, I referenced today’s Reformed. You are talking about a largely bygone breed of Reformed. I have known several of them, great people. It is one of the reasons that I am always glad to see the old guard reformed stand up for reformed theology on this site. I have serious questions about some of the assumptions of the reformed, but I have met several reformed who are very orthodox kind people. The new breed of reformed are the new fundamentalists. Us against the world, trying to convert other Christians to their views in a very aggressive way, making secondary matters primary, taking some verses very literally while ignoring verses that do not fit their narrative, etc.
I’m a little concerned because Piper has less than two years before the great American solar eclipse happens to come up with a tweet that is inappropriate.
Nancy2 wrote:
I can tell Nancy2 that it still runs in the family.
When we finish The Deed, we will sit down to a lovely spaghetti dinner, your rosemary bread (wasn’t that it?), a salad, and of course for dessert an invention by The Wartburg Watch’s own Gram3: The Sacred Cow Sundae.
@ Will M:
I would like to remind everyone that the Reformed, classical or otherwise, are not noted for their equality views. George Knight III who brought us Roles and ESS has been at various times PCA and OPC and the last I heard was teaching at Greenville. Susan Foh who discovered in the late 70’s that females desire to dominate/usurp/rule men did her work at Westminster Philly, an OPC seminary. Ligon Duncan, Chancellor of RTS and Tim Keller of Redeemer NYC are PCA Gospel Glitterati. Trueman is OPC. Rushdoony was OPC. Trueman is definitely *NOT IN ANY WAY* Rushdoony, but let’s not pretend that any kind of conservative Reformed are not, at the very least, in favor of male-only leadership in the church and male headship at home and are not mutualists, much less egalitarians.
Gram3 wrote:
I enjoy kicking around yard sales in my area, looking for vintage fishing tackle and good books. I’ve noted that when Christian celebrities fall out of favor, their books end up in such places. It’s a piece of Americana that signals the end of the run for these boys. Emergent church books are now showing up in good numbers – titles by Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Don Miller, etc. And I can always count on at least one “Purpose Driven Life” (Rick Warren), where the household is now desiring 50-cents for the book instead of the wisdom that fizzled. I stumbled across Piper’s “Desiring God” the other day … a great sign! They were peddling it for a quarter; I kept my money. With the emergent church movement now fading into the sunset, I’m hoping that resurgent will be right behind it and books by New Calvinists will soon find a prominent place on garage sale tables across America.
@ doubtful:
I was thinking of male worshippers of female bodybuilders as I was reading John Pipers comments on woman bodybuilders. Believe it or not some men like to feel muscular women’s musculature and hire them for so called worship sessions. I can’t believe I am describing this, but I also can’t believe Piper has openly described his being enamoured with muscular, defined women. Sorry and Ugh!
Jed Paschall wrote:
I am a conservative as well. I grew up Baptist. At that time I was probably fundamentalist. Some of the nicest people I have met are fundamentalist. But as someone above has indicated, the fact that they are nice people does not nullify the harm they do. The current crop of Calvinists exhibit the some of the same traits. Like, with Mr. Piper, he seems to be a guy who has done some nice and laudable things; however, his consigning of half of the population to a secondary status cannot be minimized. Also, his tendency to have bizarre views of male and female relationships, causes a lot of harm to people trying to grow up in a “conservative” Christian culture. I have to work to constantly think to encourage my daughter to ignore a lot of the voices in this culture.
Velour wrote:
Oregano bread, and if Gram3 comes, she can sit across the table from my husband!
@ Mark:
But on the other hand, if that is what gets Piper in a tizzy, who cares? I mean, his sexual proclivities are his own. And so are everyone else’s. His fascination with sex and determination to proscribe physical characteristics in the context of sex is beyond bizarre.
Nancy2 wrote:
Amen!
Gram3 wrote:
I agree. If you have read some of what I have pointed out about traditional Calvinism, I am no fan. Remember, Calvin thought women were created in the image of God but in a secondary matter. It is also not hard to find Knox’s thoughts on women. One of the needs for Knight’s innovative theology was that by the 60s and 70s, no one still held to the traditional reformed/protestant view that women were some sort of lower beings. Therefore, they had to do something to provide a basis for their struggle against treating everybody equally. Voolah, Knight came along with his view of women and the reworking of the trinity.
However, there still are some wonderful reformed people. I disagree with them, but still quite fine people.
Eagle wrote:
Very interesting blog post Eagle. I enjoyed reading it.
It’s weird. Despite all the Piper hype among my friends (I walked in Reformed circles for several years) I just couldn’t get into him. The flowery, melodramatic language annoyed me,(“Get to the point already!”) and most sermons left me with more questions than answers. He did not help me understand Christ better. He muddled it. So I stopped listening to him. But because all my friends liked him, I seriously wondered if there was something wrong with me, spiritually. I mean, when EVERYBODY around you is a big fan and you’re not…well…you can’t help but wonder…am I missing out?
I’m glad to see now, that I wasn’t. I was immune to the spell. 🙂
Will M wrote:
Calvinspeak.
Max wrote:
Maybe he’s trying out for a new Reality Show?
Jed Paschall wrote:
I’ve written in a couple of contexts, some public and some not, that over time the neo-Calvinists were going to reveal they weren’t on the same page as the more traditionally Reformed. Guys like Driscoll and Piper seem to be proving this hunch has been correct. A comment Trueman made a few years ago about the Gospel Coalition that sticks with me, he wondered why it was they cared nothing at all to define their approach to baptism and eucharist (two things Jesus is shown giving some direct instructions about) but if you’re not their kind of complementarian you can’t play? Trueman thought that seemed backwards. It would seem among the clergy there’d be more room to cooperate if you know you’re working from a shared understanding of the sacraments than only being on the same page about some American guy’s ideals about gender roles.
Will M, the actually Reformed types would remember to mention Zwingli and Bullinger.
I literally laughed out loud while reading this
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
But it seems Piper and his acolyte Driscoll like to make their sexual proclivities very public issues.
I was just reading up on the Shepherding Movements covering teaching and noticed a number of similarities with headship teachings, it gave me hope that its days are also numbered. Its just that the SM was mostly before my time so I’m not sure how to convince other millenials of the danger it poses. The authority/submission concept is the common thead that worries me.
In a 1967 television interview, when asked, “What would your reaction be to a conservative president?” Woody Allen said: “I would like to see you [William F. Buckley, Jr.] or another conservative be president for…a year and I think it would cure the United States of conservatism forever.”
Our family was active at Bethlehem Baptist while John Piper was the pastor. It cured our family forever of Piper’s teaching, Piper influence, Desiring God Ministries, etc. The theology and all the rest (the package) became a moot point. In the midst of the on-the-ground experience, my husband finally decided that he had had enough and we voted with our feet. There had been a lot of equivocation.
With some teachers and their theologies, the face-to-face experience is the cure and then enough is enough.
Gram3 wrote:
Do you know how close the perfect view of that solar eclipse will be to where I live??? Like a 45 minute drive on country roads close!
If Piper comes out here to prophesy ……… This ain’t Jericho and I don’t wan’t to hear him blast his ram’s horn!
Jamie Carter wrote:
Here are some good places to start, and to share links for discussion:
1. (Conservative Baptist) Pastor Wade Burleson’s very good article from his blog that authoritarianism is the greatest threat to the church
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/01/our-problem-is-authoritarianism-and-not.html
2. Why people should say no to signing a Membership Convenant
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/05/five-reasons-to-say-no-to-church.html
3. Plenty of other good stuff that is being written about this topic.
Dangers of church discipline.
Sorry, I agree Angelacfr. There are some pretty deep issues here, but Piper is becoming a laughingstock. The Piper and Grudem book, Recovering Biblical Manhood…., was and is a very influential book from the start of the culture wars until now. I bought a copy of it because I had a friend who was moving to Minneapolis to attend Piper’s church. He called Piper a Christian hedonist, whatever this meant at the time. I think some of these Piper views are equivalent to pronouncements or legal prescriptions, such as women can be civil engineers, but not drill sergeants. Heavens I felt I had a woman personal trainer who was a drill sergeant. She got results out of her clients because she could motivate us towards out goals. I left the second part of the title of the Grudem/Piper tome out because do they really matter in the Piper/Grudem universe?
Jamie Carter wrote:
It is the Shepherding Movement, back in a new disguise.
numo wrote:
I second the agreement. Not everyone who subscribes to reformed theology believes the same things. And frankly the guilt by association gets tiresome. I know a man who is a Calvinist. He can’t stand Anne Coulter, sides with Rachel Maddow (on most issues), and wishes Elizabeth Warren would run. As they say, go figure.
K.D. wrote:
If he were in a fire, she would not be able to rescue him, because it would involve stuff like direct contact, possibly her using her muscles to pick him up and carry him out.
Piper would probably rather perish in the fire than be saved by a woman, because being saved by a woman fire fighter would, in his view, compromise his masculinity.
(Plus, Piper would get “girl cooties” in the process, and he can’t have none of that.)
@ Joe:
Pat Robertson is a raging feminist compared to Piper.
For the record, Franklin Graham is the new Pat Robertson 🙂
Julie Anne wrote:
I appreciate that whoever wrote that is criticizing the Piper Weirdness, but I think that part is an unfair characterization of egalitarians.
I can’t speak to RHE in particular, but most egals are not asking to rule over men. They are asking to be treated fairly.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Shepherding never went away; it just adapted. I think that you can already see the adaptation going on in the thread about SBCVoices and church discipline and in these posts by Trueman, Byrd, and Pruitt. Obviously, male clergy and headship pre-dates what we call the Shepherding movement, but Shepherding built on the pre-existing acceptance of the concept of an elite class or classes.
At the root of shepherding/headship/clericalism/authoritarianism/elitism is the belief that some people are better suited or ordained by God to manage other people’s lives. As a practical matter, the shepherds/clerics/elites attempt to fashion a system that makes them indispensable to the peons by making the peons either fear them or fear life without their management/protection. This happens not just in religious realm but also in political or other social realms. The goal of the non-elites is to become part of the elites or to gain their favor.
As to the Millennials, I have no idea how to explain why they should run from these doctrines. I would love to hear suggestions from a Millennial about why these teachings are so attractive to conservative young people.
After reading this I feel the urge to lift some weights.:)
@ Nancy2:
Well, you are blessed, and maybe he will pay you a visit. Make sure you cover up those muscles, though.
dee wrote:
Oh goodness. I just read down this far on that page, got to this part, and see what you mean:
—-
Chance’s simple words, spoken often due to confusion or to a stating of the obvious, are repeatedly misunderstood as profound; in particular, his simplistic utterances about gardens and the weather are interpreted as allegorical statements about business and the state of the economy. Rand admires him, finding him direct and insightful.
Gram3 wrote:
I think you might be on to something. Flutterhands might be losing it (or already lost it) but nobody’s noticed.
Kind of like that John 3:16 guy years ago (inspiration for Steve Taylor’s “Bannerman”); nobody noticed he’d lost it until he set off those bombs and barricaded himself in the LAX Hyatt with a hostage. Nobody noticed until then because he sounded so Spiritual and “Souls were being Saved”.
The guy has got some very WEIRD behavior, talks (and Twitters) like Merlin just unloaded the Curse of Babel on him, and generally acts like a Class A Fool with an ego that sees himself as Perfect Without Blemish. (There’s an infamous fanboy in local fandom like that, a Legend in His Own Mind to himself, a laughingstock to everyone else.)
Gram3 wrote:
Oh, honey. The eclipse will be in August in southern Kentucky. It’ll be tank tops for both my daughter and me. My health is slowly improving, so I hope to firm up a bit before the eclipse!
Daisy wrote:
I would love to see Piper shake hands with Rhonda Rousey ~~~ maybe baptize her, even!
Except that he is not averse to making lists for wome. he has made a list of about 80 things that women can do in ministry–in his book What’s the Difference? He says so himself here: http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/the-world-needs-women-ministers: @ Sad:
@ Sad:
Gram3 wrote:
“The goal of the High is to remain the High.
The goal of the Middle is to become the High.”
— Emmanuel Goldstein (George Orwell), The Theory & Practice of Oligarchival Collectivism
Corbin wrote:
One snippet:
—
But Piper is right that we must function as biblically-minded men or women all day every day, and we must figure out what this looks like in all our daily interactions.
This means making judgment calls, and so his interlocutors are hooting at him and conjuring up weird instances where his standard creates weird situations.
But what about their standard?
If God’s standards for femininity apply only when church is in session….
—- (end Wilson quote)—-
Sorry, but I am not interested in thinking through my every action and thought through out the day to make sure I am supposedly being “biblically feminine,” whatever that even means.
Jesus said he came to give us rest, and that his yoke is light. Jesus was not into piling on even more rules and regulations for people to follow.
Asking people to be biblical men and women all day and night long (as this guy is explaining it) is so nit picky, impractical, and is ridiculous. These guys are far too obsessed with gender and gender roles.
Muff Potter wrote:
IMO the YRR borrowed the intellectual reputation which Calvinists have, including highly valuing an educated clergy and now laity as well. When you have a cohort that is highly educated (or at least has spent a while in educational institutions) they will be drawn to a more intellectual-sounding movement. Put that together with the explosive rise in new media, and the youthful early adopters of that technology were also the ones starting out from college.
The older guys like Mohler and Mahaney and Dever piggy-backed on the younger guys’ media savvy and youthful energy and coolness, and the younger guys borrowed the gravitas of the older guys and soaked up the flattery of being invited into the upper tiers of spiritual achievement without building anything themselves or serving for decades in a little church. An online presence is more cost-effective than a cassette tape or radio/TV presence, and the result is that YRR went viral as the kids say. I can almost guarantee you we would never have heard of Tim Challies or Kevin DeYoung or Justin Taylor or Joe Carter 30 years ago.
roebuck wrote:
Maybe it’s like the definition of “Celebrity”:
Someone who is famous entirely for Being Famous.
Jory Micah wrote:
I would very much like to see what an FBI profiler would make of ol’ Flutterhands.
Jay wrote:
I am proud to be an egalitarian Amazon Prime member!
Deb wrote:
Again, I’d like to see what a shrink or FBI profiler would make of him.
Gram3 wrote:
Symbiotic parasites?
Nancy2 wrote:
I don’t do tank tops. That little impulsive butterfly tattoo now looks like Mothra. And if his gesticulations are contagious…well, it would be scary.
roebuck wrote:
My old college roommate had an expression:
“You know what the Bible calls that guy? A FOOL.”
Here is the latest post I wrote. It deals with Arian Foster of the Houston Texas coming out on Openly Secular on why he doesn’t believe in God. Is Arian the Anti-Tim Tebow?
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/arian-foster-comes-out-on-openly-secular-is-he-the-secular-answer-to-tim-tebow/
Deb wrote:
His father wasn’t there to lead his mother and look how he turned out. Maybe he thinks that a pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure. (Grimace)
Jack wrote:
I’m not quite sure what the offense was either, only that maybe he thought your “they’re both equal” type statement was taken to mean, “men and women are totally identical in every way,” which I don’t think you were trying to convey.
Interestingly, it is a frequently used strawman argument for Christian gender complementarians to accuse Christian gender egalitarians of teaching that men and women are 100% identical in every way, which is not the egalitarian position.
roebuck wrote:
Not that I am in total disagreement, but I think men and women are more similar than not.
This is a long read, but has some interesting sections in it:
Social Science Studies Cannot Define Gender Differences
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/social-science-studies-cannot-define-gender-differences
Gram3 wrote:
Trueman flat out states in one of the pages linked to in the OP that he still believes in “male headship” in home and church, he only thinks Piper sounds like a nut by trying to apply it in non-church based careers.
@ Mark:
“The Piper and Grudem book, Recovering Biblical Manhood…., was and is a very influential book from the start of the culture wars until now. I bought a copy of it ”
++++++++++++++
and what did you think of it?
Men and women are not 100% identical.
Men and men are not 100% identical.
Women and women are not 100% identical.
None of us should be judged or limited because of physical appearance, or because of certain “appendages” or a lack there of.
One of the wisest people I know has Downs Syndrome.
One of the most beautiful people I know has severe scars on his face and neck.
Some people need to open the eyes of their hearts and look around.
@ Jamie Carter:
” Its just that the SM was mostly before my time so I’m not sure how to convince other millenials of the danger it poses. The authority/submission concept is the common thead that worries me.”
++++++++++++++++++
i’d say the examples of peoples’ experiences at Mars Hill, The Village Church, and various Acts 29 churches (& other authoritarian hell holes) are perfect examples of the Shepherding Movement.
The millenials you know, are they not moved, concerned, disgusted by what has happened in these churches? or do they spiritualize it away?
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, did your relatives wind up going to Indonedia?
@ Sean:
@ Sean:
“I mean, when EVERYBODY around you is a big fan and you’re not…well…you can’t help but wonder…am I missing out?
I’m glad to see now, that I wasn’t. I was immune to the spell.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
now THAT is something to celebrate. Breath deep of fresh air, run around the block and fill your lungs with it, then go get your favorite take out food, the best beverages of choice, turn on your favorite music, and celebrate freedom some more.
Sean wrote:
Even at peak contentment within Mars Hill I thought John Piper was an overhyped bore. Bonhoeffer, Richard Sibbes, N. T. Wright, John Stott, even William Gurnall, I could appreciate work they wrote. Even Driscoll had a lot of positive things to say about N. T. Wright until he was on camera with R. C. Sproul, who was talking about how Wright rejects double imputation and if you lose double imputation you lose the whole Gospel.
Sigh … no, not if you have a countervailing pneumatology … and even somebody like Alastair Roberts has pointed out in the last year or so that N. T. Wright hasn’t actually rejected any standard Reformed doctrines, what he HAS done is rejected the shortcut prooftexts as not being, on exegetical grounds, aimed at establishing the doctrines for which the texts were popularly invoked as prooftexts to prove. Think of it as restoring the fences between exegetical theology as a textual study on the one hand and systematics and dogmatics on the other. Part of the trouble is that some Reformed types have reacted to Wright as if he were rejecting a set of doctrines when he’s not doing that, he’s showing that a century or two of prooftexting needs to be legitimately examined. There’s still things you could find fault with in Wright’s work. You could, say, express some concern in Jesus & the Victory of God about some phrasing that could be construed as Nestorian if you want to get thoroughly pedantic.
@ roebuck:
” In algebra, equal means the same thing. In human reality, men and women are different.”
+++++++++++++
I hope you’re not going to generalize or stereotype. there’s variety all over the place.
@ Max:
” I think these guys stretch their brain cells to the limit to try to think up some new thing that will startle the church world.”
+++++++++++++++++++
i observe Peeper as someone who waits until things are quiet and then does something to cause everyone to look over at him, something to deliberately draw attention to himself, something that looks superspiritual. To highlight his ‘spiritual eliteness’, far & above all others in his midst. all very calculated.
he must be very needy
Angelacfr wrote:
I am glad someone did! I came out of an abusive, authoritarian NeoCal church, aka The Gulag, and comp doctrine too greater importance than a sacrament, like communion or baptism.
Gram3 wrote:
However, for systems analysis purposes, perhaps we’ll see a switch in domains from technology to epidemiology because of all the “incidents” caused in YRR circles.
Wonder who would be identified as “Patient Zero” …?
^”took”
elastigirl wrote:
I will celebrate too!
mirele wrote:
The pastor disaster at my former church was also someone with no work experience in the world outside the church. He was also a “pastors kid” similar to Piper, so no family experience in the working world either, nothing other than a church payroll. Have these people even had to bus dishes, swing a hammer, hold a paintbrush, mow lawns? Have they generated anything that would benefit someone, something that someone was willing to pay for? Any real work experience? Nothing of value?
Amen!!!
@ Jack:
elastigirl wrote:
“What’s the App for that?”
@ Eagle:
“John Piper is one of those guys who gets off on telling women that God has a special role for them: to be subservient to their husbands and never in a position of authority”
+++++++++++++
i get the feeling there’s some kind of pleasure in this for him. like he’s appointed himself in charge of gospel torture devices. to be administered to the enemy.
this is exactly how it seems to me.
Godith wrote:
He’s not all that rigid on that one. Do some internet searching and you’ll find out about his proposed option to allow for members who were infant baptized. Apparently his elder board turned him down on that one.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
The horse isn’t, the out-of-view fourth policeman/woman is, but the horse cuts our view of him/her off.
__
“To live is Christ, to spiritual abuse women is gain?” -Matt Chandler, Acts29
—
@ Zla’od: I think Elastigirl and Bill M are on to something. Pastors who were themselves Pastor’s kids. They have no real world experience when it comes to the rest of us slogs, however, US churches run more like small (or large) family run businesses than places where the truly gifted rise to the correct positions for their abilities.
So Piper’s fame is more to do with running a church and marketing himself well. It has about zero to do with his theological savvy or ability to draw the masses. These Neo-Refromed guys only sheep steal and preach to the converted. My old pastor took a page out of their book (well, more than one page, he lived off their materials), started a satellite church in an newly built middle class suburban neighbourhood. Never mind we are a suburb of one of the least Christian cities in North America, skip Vancouver all together, and just focus on the middle class suburb in an area with the most evangelicals in the area.
They market and sell to the middle class suburban family. They aren’t out reaching the lost or questioning. They don’t allow for doubt or questioning. They sell themselves as the “answer guys” and simplify every quandary into silly little points. My old leader of a church we used to attend (he even said he wasn’t a pastor) even said people who ask (insert random deep question) were ‘asking the wrong question’, and then said ‘what they should be asking is…’ These guys aren’t catering to a very deep thinking crowd. I used to cause waves of ‘concern’ when I pointed out how shallow these guys were at my old church (and the fact the pastor just dodged hard questions because he didn’t have any theological training and was scared of the questions…OK, see why we went to a new church).
You won’t find people who ask questions very satisfied with these guys. They avoid anything too deep.
Well at the very least, this post might nail the view that complementarianism, like egalitarianism, is a monolithic view that doesn’t haved a left, right and centre to it, replete with idolatrous fringe wackos, to use the correct technical theological language – that to my deep consternation I note was missing from the post itself.
Both of these ghastly words contain the expression arianism. Do you think that might be a sign or something? …
bonnie knox wrote:
Er… I hate to say this after your well-reasoned reply, but no, I was joking!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
And incidentally, thanks to all of you who wrote in regarding my horse-with-a-hat question. But no, I did realise that four horses implied four riders, and thence four hats, none of which adorned a horse.
Piper’s theology is driven by control and fear. That is not Kingdom theology and sounds more like it is influenced by the enemy.
@ theologian:
No. Different country
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
Wonder why Truman exonerated Mahaney? Wonder what his reasons were to be a part of that charade.
Sean wrote:
Thank you! Same here.
Mark wrote:
The monstrous regiment if women is what John Knox dubbed women monarchs of his time.v
elastigirl wrote:
Isn’t that what I just said?
elastigirl wrote:
Like Christian Hedonism? Scream of the Damned?
roebuck wrote:
Yes, I know men and women are different, physiologically and physically but I was talking equality. As in of equal value, as in not submissive to and beholden to a man…which you agree with me. However it appears to be the word “equal” that is the is issue. “Equal” is not the same as “different”. We can be “different” and “equal” at the same time. Get down to brass tacks and no two humans are the same (like the saying “You’re unique, just like everybody else”). So agree to disagree it will be. However this is the crux of many of the issues that have been dealt with on this blog – and I’m not now talking to or about Roebuck right now. There are those who interpret the bible without taking into account the lessons we have learned since the bible was put to paper. When the bible was written, many of the concepts we hold dear in the 21st century were completely unknown. The problem is that not all humans are having the same value placed on them in certain churches. They are not being seen as equal in any sense. In the pathological patriarchy that those like Piper espouse, women and children are less than men. The man is the pinnacle of God’s creation. So when crimes are committed against women and children, the man – our brother – is to be forgiven after repentance. The woman (and children) needs to submit to this. God gave us discernment and until He comes down to tell me otherwise, I discern this teaching to be incorrect. To be honest, if God were to show up and tell me otherwise I would (respectfully) disagree.
lydia wrote:
Glad I’m not the only one who felt that way. 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t get it either. It reminds me of Huckleberry Finn, where he gets his friends to pay him to paint the fence white for him. It seems to me like they haven’t figured out that they’re being tricked – particularly the ones that still go. Who knows, with so many whose parents had divorced they might believe the teachings will keep their own marriages intact because the power of God is involved and that power is distributed correctly.
elastigirl wrote:
I’m not sure what other millenials believe. There’s usually between one and five of them and they don’t really interact. I just don’t hear them talking about spiritual things at all. It just might not be on their radar yet.
Kemi wrote:
Ah, the refinery world is still run by rednecks and hillbillies in our part of the country.
Not shocked there. East Texas while changing somewhat is still run by a backward lot. Too many fundys both SBC and Pentecostals. And all work in the refinery world.
elastigirl wrote:
I have had this thought too. I have noticed that when moving from a secular context to a church context, Piper seems to come out of his shell; the tenor of his voice becomes strident, sure, and insistent. I used to think it a display of pious passion, but now wonder if, instead, preaching is the part of his life that he feels he has the most control over, and receives the most affirmation in.
elastigirl wrote:
It is idealistic. I mentioned culture wars because at the beginning of book Piper describes the book as a response to Christian feminism. I wouldn’t classify myself as a feminist, but I do disagree with Piper’s idealistic vision. Pipers ideals kind of box people into roles and people of both sexes are a little more complicated that any ideal. This is my impression.
Equal but different?
Right now, 10 U.S. Dollars are equal of equal value to about 9 EUROs, but dollars and euros are different. If I drive over to the Walmart in Hopkinsville, KY, get 10 dollars worth of gasoline and try to pay with 9 euros, the cashier is going to laugh. If I insist, the cashier will probably call the police.
In most churches, comparing men and women is like comparing dollars to euros in rural Kentucky. Men are like dollars; women are like euros. We are equal, but we are different.
Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. … Piper is from Uranus.
IS it possible that people who have a warped theology of gender also have trouble with their own gender identity, perhaps needing to shore it up by putting women down? ‘Submission’ is not the most wholesome way of life for women, we know; but has it occurred that ‘submission’ also skews the man’s perspective on his own gender identity in requiring of women to treat him in a way that demeans their own dignity in matters of choice-making? When one person’s gender identity needs building up by the disintegration of another person’s wholesome personality, something is ‘off’. Is there any evidence to this?
I think about the plight of Anna Duggar, taught to be ‘submissive’ and ‘adoring’; but in reality being rejected for those very traits by a spouse who sought out women of a much different type for sex, women who were certainly more assertive.
The whole ‘gender theology’ thing needs a much closer examination, particularly by those tempted to adopt patriarchy and extreme forms of ‘complementarianism’ that require the disintegration of the wife’s normal personality traits as she ‘conforms’ to a sub-culture’s idea of ‘the biblically perfect wife’. What a mess.
The men involved need to confront their own insecure issues with their manhood and not lay their problems on spouses destructively.
@ Ken:
Part of our exchange from “Complementairans or Eternal Female Subordinationalist: Why I Still Don’t Get It” on I Timothy 2:15:
So, you are in favor of the Quiverfull movement as a means to prevent women from sinning?
What is there to keep men from sinning?
@ Nancy2:
From our discussion:
Ken said: It can carry the sense of deliverance, rescue, ‘saved’ from activities she should not be involved with by substituting these with something else, namely running the household and bringing up a family.
Nancy said: Oh yes! The more diapers we have to change and the more children we have to tend to, the less time we have to even think about sin!
Barefoot and pregnant is the only way to go!
Ken said: Do you have any better explanation of the meaning of the word saved in 1 Tim 2? I’ve forgotten the technical term for this, but child-bearing here is intneded to cover the whole process of family life without spelling this out in detail.
Is it any coincidence that there are streams in the feminist movement that decry having children, or want to make this a life-style choice? Having children may not be compulsory, but it is the general intention of the Creator, and again, is it coincidence that in societies that have significantly rejected Christian truth, family has been replaced by materialism, career and power, or in some cases being an eternal adolescent?
Piper is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
How does it even work in church circumstances? For example, our church recently ran a Holiday Bible Club week for children. The person in charge of it all, who initiated it, planned it and directed, was a (very capable) woman. There was a team, but she was the clear and acknowledged leader. On the team she directed were both men and women. Both men and women were at times issued with direct instructions.
In Piper’s world this would have been unBiblical. I guess in his church, to avoid this, it would have to be a man who was the leader of the Holiday Bible Club. Which of course relegates women even further down the pile.
Val wrote:
Several New Calvinist pulpits (SBC church plants) in my area are populated with PKs. They have found the reformed movement a way to rebel against their parents’ way of doing church. Plurality of elders church governance allows them to carve out a ministry of their choosing, rather than be locked into “tradition” … it’s a way to control the congregation, rather than be controlled by it.
mirele wrote:
Where he went after Boyd.
In RBMW Piper and his co-authors place great store by “God’s created order” as a ground for Female Subordination. I don’t know if he extends that from the human race to the animal kingdom. If he does I would be interested to know how he deals with the fact that some animal societies are led by females. Two examples come to mind. Elephant herds are led by matriarchs. Males are sent packing as soon as they reach adultood. Elephants have one of the most complex societal structures of any animal. In hyaena society the alpha female rules and even the highest ranking male is subordinate to every female. Hyaena females are generally bigger and stronger than males.
Piper has an answer for everything. Perhaps he has a variation of his “two wills in God” (that are mutually exclusive but God is nevertheless not shizophrenic) for this.
Here’s a thought that this article spawned.
As much as strong church authority types like TGC boys love their authority with a side of Complementarianism, the two ideas are bad for each other, in this way.
Complementarian couples will say things like “We can’t tell you what it’ll look like for you, but here’s what it looks like for us.” when you ask what it looks like. It’s a bit nebulous even for them in actual practice, and on a level that’s fine – love is going to look different from person to person. The roles are going to look different from couple to couple, and in theory that should be fine (within their framework of thought, at least) – if they’re simply calling wives to submit, and husbands to love, in the way that best fits the two people involved.
But, strong church authority comes in (like in the case of Piper here), and tries to declare clear boundaries of right and wrong and things that “should be obvious” about how complementarian relationships will work. Church authorities want to tell you exactly where your relationship to your spouse is wrong or right. In my opinion they’ve hoist themselves by their own petard. They’ve given themselves huge difficulties in trying to micro-manage and data-mine the Bible to produce a consistent ethic that crosses not only relationship but church/world boundaries.
They have indeed backed themselves in a corner. In trying to always be able to say “Thus Sayeth The Lord” as the self-appointed church authority/Keepers of the Keys, they’ve left themselves no option but to press on in this area til they have every role of man and woman nailed down. Every public thing they see on favor of gay marriage, broken homes, etc just reinforces this need in their minds.
They’ve left themselves no option but blatant legalism and micro-managing of their flock.
lydia wrote:
I attended BBC in the past and met a lot of people like this who then went to the mission field.
Chemie wrote:
He rarely speaks in front of anyone but adoring audiences. Outside of Bethlehem it has mainly been young pastors, wannabes and the fan club. Not a recipe, over the long haul, for sharpening iron.
@ JohnD:
And black widow spider females eat the male black widow spiders.
@ roebuck:
well, I heard you say “In human reality, men and women are different”. which I understood to mean men and women are different from each other. cardboard stereotypes make that idea true. i think a more realistic view is that people are different. for every person who at least seems to fit neatly into the man box or woman box there are many others who simply do not. beneath the packaging is a world of variety.
@ theologian:
Exporting Piper’s god. Chilling.
lydia wrote:
And then he found himself subject to Queen Elizabeth.
Relations were somewhat strained.
Gram3 wrote:
No doubt about it, the annual Passion Conference launched John Piper to stardom. Before Louie Giglio (founder of the Passion Movement) put Piper on the stage, JP was barely a blip on the radar. Catering to 18-25 year olds, this annual event attracts thousands who sway to the beat of popular Christian musicians mingled with speakers who serve up reformed doctrine. Many of the young, restless and reformed were birthed into the movement by attending this conference. Giglio continues to give Piper a platform which advances his visibility to a new crop of young folks each year.
Val wrote:
Like robbing banks, “That’s where the money is.”
Sean wrote:
Sean, you experienced what I call a “check in the Spirit.” It was God’s way of protecting your mind from reformed indoctrination. Praise God that you did not follow your peers who were drawn away by the Pied Piper’s tune. “He did not help me understand Christ better” is a good indication that this theology is off-track.
Mark wrote:
Both suffer from the same spiritual sickness, just different expressions of it.
Thus spake the Pied Piper:
And Dee opined:
So basically, this song would represent Pied’s worst nightmare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjdIJ5ZSpSk
(Ironically enough, the same song would be a dream come true for me. I guess that means I’m an Unbiblical Man™. Mope.)
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3, I actually asked an SBC-YRR church planter in my area that question. He planted his church near a Baptist college and within 1 year went from a core group of 25 to over 500 – mostly college students and young professionals (a crowd but not a congregation of the Lord). His response to my question: “Because reformed churches are the only ones that are growing.” These young folks appear to be attracted initially by the “differentness” of it all (is that a word?). The messages can challenge the intellect, particularly when they run contrary to everything they may have been taught in “traditional” church. When a young pastor tells you that the reformed movement is all about recovering the gospel that the rest of Christendom has lost, that’s exciting stuff! Many of these young folks don’t like the way their parents do church. To them, New Calvinism offers the alternative they have been looking for, whether or not they understand the long-term impacts of such aberrant theology on evangelism and mission. They just like to hang out, enjoy the music, and the free coffee/donuts … and have their minds stretched by Piper Points, Driscoll Drivel, and Mohler Moments spewing from young pastors with spiky hairdos.
Gram3 wrote:
Education does not produce one ounce of revelation. Young folks drawn into this movement don’t have enough sense to discern the difference.
Nancy2 wrote:
Indeed! As one example … the “Old” Calvinists in SBC could not have pulled off Calvinization of the denomination without the youthful energy and militancy of “New” Calvinism. They use and need each other.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I’ve been wondering this for a while. I know it’s not kind to think it, but with all the word salad he’s spewing, maybe he’s going senile and no one has the courage to tell him, “Uhm, time to retire. For real, this time.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Now that was really funny!
@ LHR2020:
The irony is that they studiously avoid the real/legendary Amazons and the influence of their female-supremacy thinking on the women at Ephesus. Amazons are useful when they want to make a negative point about women but they are not useful when Amazonian belief undermines their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2.
lydia wrote:
Affirmation breeds the need for more affirmation. In such an atmosphere, there is no room for reproof, rebuke and correction … all of which Piper needs right now. When you’re already the sharpest tool in the box … when you are 100% razor sharp … who could hone your edge? There is no shortage of arrogance in the reformed movement.
lydia wrote:
The Calvinist God is not the one I have known for 60+ years. Much of what they tell us about this being is contrary to the very character of the God of the Bible. A determinist God who saves some and damns others before they ever draw breath is a misrepresentation of the God of Scripture who is not willing that any should perish. The whole of the Bible proclaims redemption for whosoever will accept the message and Cross of Christ for ALL men. Actually, we do need to export Piper’s God from the American church … but pity the poor souls who end up with him.
Max wrote:
“Reformed churches are the only ones growing” sounds a lot like “Everybody’s doing it.” Those of us who are older have BTDT, some way or the other, right?
And the “cause” is important, too: “recovering the gospel” and the superiority “that everyone else has lost” (you know, that stage when you are sure you know more than your parents that some of us may or may not have exhibited ourselves!)
The millenials who are our offspring, OTOH, do not “get” it either. For one thing, they actually know the Bible and can think, and have been exposed to the thinking of different streams of Christianity. They are also very concerned with social justice and do not like the alignment of the gospelly folks with the far right in the GOP. They are concerned with the church shutting the doors in the face of people who are LGBT. Very concerned. Unlike many of my generation who are straight, our LGBT friends tended to be closeted back then and we didn’t know they were LGBT hence we were much less likely to have real people in mind when grappling with the issue. That has changed for the millenials. So a TGC post that says we need to “retain our gag factor” (pretty much a quote) is a major turn-off. Additionally, because of the internet, millenials are exposed to many more atheistic challenges to the Bible, Christian beliefs, etc. Churches that have “pat answers” may be attractive in the short term for some; for others, the inability to think, question, and grapple with tough questions means that they will end up “nones” if they don’t find an alternative.
@ Abi Miah:
I made a switch from general to our specific children there and don’t know if it’s clear. I also then generalized from our children to their friends.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
I’ve thought about that a lot, for various reasons. The baptistic Wayne Grudem spent time with Rushdoony and others in the 70’s and may have picked up his male supremacy and clerical authority views from them along with their obsession with the notion that “feminism” was causing the destruction of society. He was also at Westminster with some Rushdoonyites as well, IIRC, along with Susan Foh. Then Grudem hung out with the Vineyard and possibly got infected with the shepherding virus while he sojourned with the charismatics.
Piper was pure Baptist fundamentalist and all that entails, and I think that background accounts for his goofiness. If you spend so much time in that bubble, your reality testing skills disappear.
So, maybe when they got together, they formed the theological nucleus of what would become the YRR movement. Grudem with his ST and work on kephale and authenteo/authentein and Piper with his stadium events and early adoption of WWW2 and by making his “resources” available for free and thereby increasing their circulation. We can probably credit Barnabas Piper for that concept and implementation.
elastigirl wrote:
Closely observe his face when he talks about female subordination.
Max wrote:
Max, 25 years ago you could have substituted “seeker mega” for the same answer.
Abi Miah wrote:
I remember that article. It was on the TGC website. I left a comment on there basically telling the author that I retain my “gag factor” for the molestation and abuse of children in churches, rather than for what consenting adults do in private.
JYJames wrote:
Interesting…care to elaborate? Surely the theology informed the practice?
Max wrote:
Let’s say they are right. Then, what was the point of Jesus suffering and dying on the cross?
May wrote:
As a matter of fact, I know of one Vacation Bible School that was directed by a very young man who had very little experience of any kind. He directed the activities of women who included school teachers of various levels, mothers, and grandmothers. Yet this male who was barely post-adolescent was the “head” of these experienced and wise women. After a few years of rolling disaster leading up to and including the VBS, the leadership of the church came to a very late but wise decision. Going forward, VBS would be directed by one of the experienced women, and since then the programs have been very successful and a lot less stressful since the experienced and skilled women did not have to tiptoe around the “authority” of the young pup.
Nancy2 wrote:
God had to pour out His pent up wrath on someone. So the lesser Jesus was sent for that reason. Scream of the damned. So basically, the pre damned will still experience the wrath one day but the pre saved won’t. Also, preaching must be done to “activate” election so the pre saved can be pre saved here.
May wrote:
Narcissism. The theology produced narcissists. We have sons and my husband did not want to see them fall into that trap. He felt there is a higher calling in being a man than becoming extremely selfish, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration.
Nancy2 wrote:
Calvinists believe that Jesus died for the “elect” (those who were saved before the foundation of the world). They will twist and turn selected “proof” texts of Scripture to fit their reformed grid (Romans 9, Ephesians 1, etc.). Evangelism to a Calvinist mind is rescuing the elect, rather than harvesting the lost. That’s why you have no altar calls in New Calvinist churches, with no clear message of the Cross of Christ for ALL men. They claim that regeneration (born again) precedes faith and belief, and that is available only to the predestined elect. They distort the message of grace in this regard. There is, indeed, a “point of Jesus suffering and dying on the cross” … it’s the Main point woven with a red thread throughout the whole of Scripture … the reformed mind misses it. If the church you are in does not present this Gospel, put your behind in your past.
*
*
__
“Wartburg Dreamer”
hmmm…
All the leaves are green and the sky is blue,
I’ve been for a walk on a summer’s day,
I am safe and secure as the Lord is at my side,
Wartburg dreaming on such a summer’s day…
“Absolutely no one is gonna stop my Jesus from standng on the Mount Of Olives.” -Sopwith
(but they are welcome to try…)
(grin)
hahahahahahahahahaha !
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0mX6r1Ur0
*
“…go into the highways and byways and bid them all come.” -Jesus
The works you have seen Me do, you shall do far greater, as I go to My Father, to sit at His right hand…” -Jesus
Remember, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unsêên… Heb 11:6
ATB
Sopy
—
Question: Josh Duggar has confessed to being unfaithful to his wife. Pardon my crassness, but did his acts of unfaithfulness include having physical sex with someone that wasn’t his wife? (That’s the first thing I usually think of when someone confesses “unfaithfulness”.)
Even if he didn’t have sex with someone that wasn’t his wife, his other acts of unfaithfulness are bad enough! And Anna and the kids are caught in the middle. 🙁
Abi Miah wrote:
“Everybody’s doing it!” was the pickup line a sexual predator used on me years ago.
I didn’t fall for it.
The Cause so Righteous it justifies any evil whatsoever to bring it about.
Like Citizen Robespierre’s Republique of Perfect Virtue, baring her breasts and beckoning from the other side of the “Regrettable but Necessary” Reign of Terror.
Max wrote:
The God of ISIS and the Taliban, more Islamic than Mohammed.
JYJames wrote:
Your husband sounds wise and discerning.
Pingback: Linkathon » PhoenixPreacher | PhoenixPreacher
Max wrote:
But couldn’t Joseph Smith (Mormons), Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) make the exact same claim?
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
A couple years ago (after a Pat Robertson pronouncement) some commenter made the same comment about Pat Robertson. Said he’d had a boss once with early-stage Alzheimers and Pat was showing some of the same behavioral symptoms.
But nobody tells a CELEBRITY that it’s time to retire.
Nobody tells a CELEBRITY anything other than what the CELEBRITY wants to hear.
Max wrote:
Again, “Who needs Christ when We Have CALVIN!”
Daisy wrote:
These guys are far too obsessed with gender and gender roles.
In part I think the gender role obsession is a red herring to distract people from just how terrible these men are at actual leadership. It baffles me that anyone takes Wilson or his supporters like Piper seriously after the Sitler case. Wilson showed how he is in the clutch: absolutely terrible, and smugly indifferent to the well-being of the most vulnerable members of the flock. It’s a defining failure, one no pastoral career should recover from. The Neocal celebrity pastors’ version of masculinity is frankly pretty cargo cult: just being a man and waving a book around makes me magically qualified to micromanage your lives, no matter what I do. Don’t notice when I fail utterly at every single one of Paul’s many directives for leadership – look at these verses over here instead.
Abi Miah wrote:
AM, I certainly agree with your perspectives on this. Every generation has a bit of rebellion built into it … to question the teachings and traditions of the previous one. On a physical plane, advances in knowledge can be a positive thing (we now have automobiles); on a spiritual plane, such thinking can take those cars down some curvy roads.
Each generation has attempted to be “culturally-relevant” in their church experience, leading to confrontations of worship style. As an old guy, I don’t have a problem with form if it has some substance to it. Which leads me to my point. The Millennials have indeed been exposed “to the thinking of different streams.” To follow a theological movement, of whatever flavor, begins first in a battle of the mind. We must think differently and force our Bible study through a new grid. If we rely on teachings of mere men (e.g., John Piper) to steer us on this new journey, rather than the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, we will eventually end up driving off the road, flip over in the ditch, and become a bruised and disillusioned “none” or “done” until the next movement strikes our fancy. Many of the now “resurgent” reformed followers were once put their hope in “emergent” church. It’s so much easier just to humble ourselves, pray, repent, study the Word by the Spirit, and seek God’s face for ministry … and along the way, pray for discernment to test the spirits that desire our minds and control of the wheel.
Gram3 wrote:
The Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in which I was raised, started ordaining women pastors in 1995 but allows some variation in the local classis. The Reformed Church of America (RCA), which Keven De Young left, has allowed women pastors since 1979 (if I remember correctly.)
There is a chunk of Reformed the people miss on this blog. Many of them are wonderful sorts.
@ Christiane:
Certainly it skews our view. It makes it that much easier to default to being lazy and asserting manhood instead of deferring to truth. When you know your wife is your equal, and you know she knows she’s your equal, you’re both on your toes.
Same way in the Body.
Hierarchy enables laziness. The leaders with godly character are going to want the best for those around them regardless; the ones who are immature will default to asserting their position. Does your system enable the laziness in all of us or does it have healthy checks and balances?
May wrote:
He sure does!
@ lydia:
@ Max:
Oh, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb so that those who are already saved can get saved. So it’s “whomsoever will”, but only if you’ve already been chosen. Much like the lottery winners have already been selected before the tickets are ever printed. So, why should a person by a lottery ticket (tithe money?) if the names have already been drawn?
@ Patrice:
Roger Nicole is one. And I can’t remember names but there was a previous generation of scholars out of Gordon Conwell who were mutualists. Before the internet became huge.
@ Gram3:
The OPC is considered on the very conservative end of the Reformed wing of the Church. As you say, Westminster, including Van Til, etc, was an OPC seminary.
There was a lot of break-ups over women-in-leadership. Here’s the bit on the Christian Reformed Church in Wikipedia:
“The Christian Reformed Church in North America began ordaining women in 1995.[7] As a result, several conservative congregations formed the United Reformed Churches in North America, and the CRC’s position as a member of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) was suspended in 1997.[8]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_churches
The very conservative end split and split following both the Reformed and Christian Reformed denominations decisions. There are now a ton of small ultra-conservative Reformed groups, including Netherlands Reformed, Orthodox Reformed, United Reformed, etc. But the working center of very conservative Reformed remains OPC, largely because of the seminary..
Doug Wilson is another Mark Driscoll – an arrogant, deeply misogynistic egotist with his own empire which he can control completely. I read his take on the Piper thing (he agrees with Piper of course – they luuve each other those guys) – the comments are sick-inducing. His accolytes really believe every pronouncement he makes is gospel. Which, combined with the Sitler scandal (just read up on that again, TWW account is still there but most of the other links have disappeared), makes me believe the KIRK is in face a CULT.
I find Doug Wilson utterly abhorrent as an individual. Plus, he can’t write for toffee.
What partly inspired this rant is the fact that my dear husband admires D Wilson for a ‘debate’ he engaged in with Christopher Hitchens. I thought he came across as an ignorant hill-billy, personally.
@ Nancy2:
That is the sense I got from the Institutes which was a black hole of circular thinking, in my view. The history of Calvinistic thought and variations from history are interesting. Periods of intense determinism are usually followed by the opposite from descendants. The Puritan descendents seemed to favor universalism. Then it rises again. This trajectory is only more complicated by its relationship with the state church dichotomy.
The largest Presbyterian denomination here is quite liberal and focuses on a more social Gospel. They have been ordaining women for a while. Jonathan Edward’s great++++ granddaughter is one of them. :o)
lydia wrote:
I haven’t read any of his books but heard that he was a good kind man, and alo very bright intellectually. Integrity all the way down.
@ Gram3:
The first time my wife and I saw Piper was almost 20 years ago. We looked at each other and knew something was terribly amiss. I pay little attention to him now, can’t really stomach watching his videos. To me, having seen him in person, having watched what he said and did and how he acted, his current schtick seems just like his schtick from two decades ago: the form of humility wrapped around towering arrogance.
As an aside, he was not considered a particularly big deal there, he was just one of many prominent church leaders in the metro, there were a number of churches and ministries more prominent and influential than Piper. You have to realize the TC is the home to the first Christian radio station in the U.S., at the time we were there it was home to a number of national headquarters of denominations as well as the BGEA (which has since moved), there were churches that did a lot more high profile stuff good, bad and indifferent than Beth Bap. I was stunned when I moved many states away and noticed young neocalvinists practically salivating like a Pavlovian dog at the mention of his name. THAT guy? Are you kidding me? I don’t get it.
Law Prof wrote:
You’ve just described the reformed elites who hang out over at The Gospel (I mean Calvinist) Coalition.
Law Prof wrote:
Isn’t that also a description of Chuckles Mahaney, The HUMBLE(TM) One Himself?
@ Law Prof:
It seems being a part of Danvers, hooking up with Grudem and the conference circuit are the catalyst for his success outside of BB. Also a safe base to launch from.
Outstanding post! I truly hope eyes will be opened, and that Patriarchy will diminish.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
But isn’t it the humbleness that makes them so great!
Mac Davis, “Oohhhh, Lord it’s hard to be humble when I’m perfect in every way. I can’t wait to look in the mirror – I get better lookin’ each day …”
Nancy2 wrote:
Interlydia wrote:
FWIW, My Presbyterian denomination (ECO) is relatively new, and probably would win “most conservative US Presbyterian group” awards. And we still ordain women…
elastigirl wrote:
Is “Peeper” another name for John Piper? LOL.
We can call him “Peeper ‘down by the river’ Flutterhands” now.
@ lydia:
I wonder if Servetus was one of the “elect”?
Ken wrote:
Are you the same Ken from the previous thread who sometimes compares, or seemingly tries to compare, Christian gender egalitarian/ mutualist points to radical, left wing, secular feminist points, to discredit the views of Christian mutualists/ egalitarians?
(Some comp on that thread was doing so.)
The URL to that is here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/27/complementarians-or-eternal-female-subordinationists-why-i-still-dont-get-it/comment-page-4/#comment-215440
Max wrote:
And is it just me, but are there so many of these PKs who can’t do anything else if they tried. It’s like they’ve been in church so long, they have to go into the ministry….whether they’re called or not….
Jack wrote:
Cats everywhere disagree with this, because they know that cats are the pinnacle of God’s creation, if not gods themselves. 🙂
(It’s like a t-shirt I saw in a catalog once that said, “Ancient Egyptians worshipped Cats as gods. Cats have never forgotten this”)
Anyway, I agree with the rest of your post.
Patrice wrote:
Its easier to label anything remotely Reformed as false-Gospel. Also, I hear they hate puppies.
Christiane wrote:
Your entire post had several interesting points in it.
I do find it weird that some gender comp men seem to have a strong need to be validated by women.
And on the flip side of that, gender comp men can easily (according to Piper, anyway) be made to feel un-manly or like a lowly worm merely by what a woman says or does. They sure to ascribe a lot of power to women in this way.
If gender complementarian and patriarchal men were truly secure in themselves, they would not have to seek validation by or from women.
They would not be seeking to control women, and tell women how they should be living their lives, or how to interact with men.
Complementarian men, you would think, would be looking for meaning and validation either in themselves and/or from God, and not from a wife, or from other women deferring to them.
I’ve noticed a lot of men are like this, in general terms. My ex fiancee would get annoyed with me if I did not butter his ego enough to suit his tastes.
If I was not, in his view, sufficiently singing his praises loud enough, long enough, or often enough, he would get offended or short with me.
Yet, the joker (that would be my ex) never buttered my ego, not even on the small number of occasions I came to him happy because I just got a raise at work, or whatever accomplishment had come to pass.
These men really expect women to coddle and nurse their ego, but they don’t want to coddle the woman’s ego.
Nancy2 wrote:
You’ll notice that childless men seldom get anywhere near as much stigma about being childless as women do not from secular culture, not from churches.
Women are expected to have babies and thought to be horrible if they do not, but men who don’t want kids, or who simply never have any, don’t usually get demonized nearly as much.
But yeah, I wasn’t getting his point on the previous thread something about a woman needs to have children to keep her from sinning.
I thought it was the indwelling Holy Spirit’s job to sanctify a believing woman.
JohnD wrote:
I don’t know if this still holds true or not, but.
For years, I read that in a lion pride, the head male lion naps all day while the lady lions do all the hunting during the say (all the work).
Maybe lions are the Christian gender complementarians of the animal world, the men lay around getting all the credit and control while the women do all the mundane work and get next to no credit, the men are still considered the boss and the women are the drones.
@ Sad:
I appreciate your commenting here to that effect, as it is not easy to dive in with a flame-retardant once the bonfire is well alight. Besides which, it’s unhealthy for any culture – even this one – to have healthy.
It’s possible that your sister’s experience of Mr Piper really was representative of what he could have been had he not been given a pulpit. Then again, I’ve read accounts of people who’ve heard him lecture on a Sunday and found his lectures perfectly acceptable; so perhaps the problem is that he has been given an apostolic role that no individual, regardless of what gifts (s)he does or does not possess, should have.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Clearly, this sentence is stuck between revisions. What it should say is:
Besides which, it’s unhealthy for any culture – even this one – to be too monocultural.
GovPappy wrote:
Yes, and some gender complementarians teach that a gender comp marriage will reflect the relationship of Christ to the church to an un-believing world.
How can it do so, when so many gender comps say that each expression of a gender comp marriage will look different from each other?
Some of them also say that gender comp is essential to the Gospel, and I think this blog already pointed out, if that is so, why is actually living gender comp out in real life (including in marriage) so inconsistent?
They can’t decide on when and how to carry out gender comp itself, so how can something supposedly so vital to the Gospel be so confusing?
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
My mother used to listen to country music all the time.
There was this one song on the radio when I was a kid that reminds me of gender complementarians and why more and more (even conservative) women are leaving churches, especially ones that are gender comp:
Tompall Glaser: PUT ANOTHER LOG ON THE FIRE Lyrics and Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWpYQjuJ0u0
Seriously, the lyrics to that song sound like something Mark Driscoll could have written. Or Pat Robertson. Or Jim Bob Duggar. Or any number of other gender complementarians.
K.D. wrote:
Sad, but that appears to be the case. Instead of a “calling”, preaching/pastoring has become a lifestyle and they simply go to seminary to prepare for the ministry, rather than being called into it. Instead of carrying an anointing, many are annoying … particularly this crop of New Calvinist PKs who are out and about to change everything. Most could not make a living doing anything else. And if they can hand-pick the right elders to keep the machinery working, they can cruise through a lifetime of ministry with little effort.
Pastor Emeritus Piper’s dream girl can be seen at the 2 minute mark!
http://youtu.be/Hzh9koy7b1E
lydia wrote:
Sounds to me like a sick and twisted version of a Muslim honor killing.
And I’m supposed to believe this in order to be ‘saved’?
As Patrice is fond of writing, pftt !.
Max wrote:
And this is what drove me crazy. Calvinist theology forces you to put asterisks on so many parts of the bible that it ends up meaning something completely different. For example:
John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever should believe in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life”*
*Actually, this isn’t what you think. Jesus only loves the elect with a special love. The non-elect are either not loved, or receive an inferior love than the elect.
1 Timothy 2:4: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”*
*Actually, this is saying something else. He doesn’t REALLY want people saved as much as you think. There are two different wills, one of which is not in the Bible. I, the great theologian, discovered it for you.
1 John 2:2: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
*Actually, he only died for the elect. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.
For ten years I had to perform these kinds of mental gymnastics just to keep my faith intact. I nearly lost it several times, frustrated with a God I couldn’t understand, a Bible I couldn’t understand, and a theology that made my love, and my passion for God, run cold. I kept thinking, “This can’t be true.” But then felt guilty for thinking it, believing that I was one step above heresy, that I was going against what the Bible REALLY was saying.
Thank God those days are behind me.
lydia wrote:
I had to read that several times over and still find it convoluted (their theology / soteriology that is, not your writing).
@ Daisy:
Those lyrics are great….sums up the comps in song.
I should mention though that I met many wonderful Reformed Christians during that time, but the theology completely messed me up. How such kind people could believe in such an unkind, unbiblical God is beyond me.
Daisy wrote:
Clearly, one’s position on gender roles in a marriage is NOT an essential component of salvation. That’s where folks like the Presbyterians may differ from the hyper-“reformed” folks with the spiky hair.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Pat Robertson is around 85 years old now.
Every year, his staff drags out a birthday cake on his TV show. Last time I caught this, it was bday number 83 or 84, I believe.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I told you before months ago that I can just picture some of these guys, like teen girls who plastered their walls with posters of One Direction or Duran Duran, that they probably have posters of Calvin all over their walls. 🙂
Joan wrote:
Sitler was the known pedo, and Wilson married him off to a young lady from his church, IIRC, or something of that nature?
Daisy wrote:
I confess, I’m unfamiliar with the concept of “activating” by preaching. As I understand it, the Holy Spirit is what “softens” one’s heart to make true repentance even possible, i.e. you can hear the message of the Gospel but can’t really respond to it until God makes it possible.
Like in the classic Toto song, Rosanna….God “meets you all the way”
But anyway back to the topic of the thread. When two conservative Evangelicals (Byrd & Trueman) mentioned in the main body of the article are beginning to wonder if Piper has jumped his trolley, it makes the rest of the ixtian world wonder too.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
LOL. You mean “Starla” ?
I’ve seen that movie before a few times, but I don’t remember that scene.
(Vote for Pedro!)
Mae wrote:
I wouldn’t be shocked if I ever found out that was one of the songs sung under Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill during church services. 🙂
And gender comps keep wondering how and why so many more women are leaving churches or taking issue with gender comp? It’s not a mystery, really. It should be obvious.
Jay wrote:
It reminds me of the movie where Zoolander is programmed to assassinate some prime minister at a fashion show, and the trigger to “activating” him to do the deed is the 1980s song “Relax.”
K.D. wrote:
Perhaps a pedantic point on my part here, but everyone who knows the Lord is called into the ministry, no one has a special calling, there being different parts of the Body, each necessary to the successful function of the whole, and no one under any circumstances has a calling to be the sole teacher/main leader in the spotlight on the stage upon which all eyes are riveted. That is Jesus’ calling and He fulfills it well. This is why most churches are to some extent into destructive idolatry, this is why Christian celebs in a culture in which being a celeb means great benefits, affluence and comfort (as opposed to Richard Wurmbrand or the Disciples of Jesus, for whom being a Christian celeb meant death, torture, poverty).
A Christian celeb in our culture is a contradiction in terms.
Patrice wrote:
Which may be why we don’t discuss them! I even know some wonderful “complementarian” Reformed. But they would say the CRC and the RCA have Capitulated to Culture. I need to read up on what a Trueman would say about that. Not sure he would go that far while he still retained male authority in the church and home. I used to read him, but he lost me with Mahaney.
Joan wrote:
I love this. Now I cannot get the image of cargo cult out of my head. Maybe somebody will draw a cartoon for this. I can’t draw or I surely would.
Jay wrote:
It’s a very easy thing to fall into—taking the worst of an opponent and presenting that as the opposing position. I don’t know any human group who doesn’t tend to that, and it’s not really helpful.
A useful debate takes the best of an opponent’s view and argues it. And then it uses the worst parts of their view as examples of the inherent weaknesses.
If a debater can also formally recognize the strengths of the opposition, the broadest picture emerges, allowing for the most learning/understanding (for both groups). It gives us the gamut, from anger to disagreement to respect.
Jay wrote:
Yes, that is regeneration before faith or irresistible grace. The point is that the human does not have much to do with the process.
Patrice wrote:
Let’s just say I’ve had some close personal interactions with some Westminster Van Tilians and their disciples like Bahnsen and their disciples. People who think the OPC has gone liberal. I don’t go looking for trouble but it seems to find me.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh yeah, he does say that. OPC, I think, right?
Of course, “conservative” is a broad word for a number of different belief-sets. Your conservatism is different from Carl’s. Also true for progs/libs, etc. My prog/lib-ism is different from Rachel Held Evans’.
I think that’s great. In some ways, my approach to life is more similar to yours than to much of the Evang Prog set. Keeps things interesting!
lydia wrote:
Which no doubt will lead to an argument over the interpretation of Romans 9…
Jay wrote:
I would not do that except regarding the ones who have made TULIP and Female Subordination into gospel issues. AFAIK, Trueman and the MoS crew do not do that. I have known too many on the lunatic fringe of Reformed theology, and I suppose it shows sometimes. I actually would not even call them classically Reformed. Just like I would not call 1689er Baptists Reformed, either. And sometimes I question whether they are truly Baptists. 🙂
Daisy wrote:
Yes. Daisy wrote:
Yes. Sitler’s wife gave birth to a son earlier this year. Pending the next hearing in September, he’s been allowed by the court to live with the child if he’s “chaperoned” all the time. I doubt someone’s watching him 24-7.
Wilson defended another man, Jamin Wight, who was convicted of statutory rape of a 14 year old girl from Christ Church. Wight was later charged with attempting to strangle his wife. He appeared to be facing sentencing for a lesser charge, but I can’t find the outcome. I shouldn’t be shocked that Wilson still has thousands of fans (like Piper) willing to overlook how he covered for these men, but I am.
Patrice wrote:
A well-trained debater should be able to make an argument for either side, and way back when debate team members were assigned to a position. That is excellent training for seeing the shape of the issue as well and is helpful in identifying, as you said, the strengths and weaknesses of both positions. My takeaway is that things are often, as Okrapod says, complicated.
Jay wrote:
I haven’t heard a lot of venom in general towards old school reformed theology. That’s not what’s so controversial, it’s the present breed of neocal zealots who have drifted farther and farther from the Bible and gone into full blown celebrity idolatry and myth-making, such as the bizarre, cultic notion of a husband giving account for his wife at the judgment seat, as if she were a child. Many of the neocals are quite unprincipled and infiltrate churches with the clandestine intent of conducting a hostile takeover (one such occurrence led to a case that made it all the way into the court of appeals in my state) or conduct purges such as a young, astonishingly foolish Al Mohler did two decades ago, in the process destroying the academic quality of what was a perfectly good seminary.
Those are the sorts that I see people exposing here, not some old school reformed people who have integrity and demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit. My person opinion, having rubbed shoulders with many of them, is that while a number in the movement are Christians who’ve lost their way or got off on a bad foot with the wrong crowd, a large chunk of the YRR/neocal movement is made up of deeply disturbed people who are Christians in name only, but are instead fans of a theological view, and but for circumstances they might have become zealots for political conservatism, liberalism, strict judicial constructionism, environmentalism, Islam, or the Pittsburgh Steelers. I think we can see the fruits, and they are almost wholly corrupt.
Patrice wrote:
That is true, and it is one reason I try to define it when it gets muddy. The issue is what are we trying to conserve? “Hold fast to what is true” is conservative, but “Pressing on to your calling in Christ” sounds progressivey. Jesus was conservative, but he was also progressive when viewed from the POV of the Pharisees, for example. Too often we want to identify the group espousing an idea before we examine the merits of the idea itself.
Jay wrote:
That sounds like fun. 🙂 But first we have to hand out the Covie and Non-Covie tee shirts.
Gram3 wrote:
Yeah, trouble does find you, I see lol.
The even-more-conservative-than-OP people are tres weird. A sour group of people who become increasingly rigid as the years pass—and their judgmentalism grows apace.
I have an OPC uncle/aunt, another who is Netherlands Reformed and 2 who are Orthodox Reformed. They are, frankly, off the wall. (OPC couple are most approachable.) ISTM that they are driven by terror (beyond fear). I can’t understand it even though I’ve tried.
That ridiculously over-used word “bitter” applies well to them, but combined with this terror, it’s deforming. It squeezes out all the life. And good grief, absolutely no sense of humor at all! I stay away from them, which is fine with them, since they see me as reprobate.
A good friend of mine is great-niece of Van Til and she still suffers from his theology, even though she’s scoured some of it away. It shows in her as a quiet hopeless longing for God’s love. It’s sad!!!
Law Prof wrote:
I don’t disagree with anything you just said. I will say, however, as a newcomer to the blog, it’s easy to interpret several folks’ commentary as Reformed=EVIL, which naturally comes as a bit of a surprise to the folks coming out of the “classic” Reformed mold.
Also, some of the examples you listed make me cringe…Husbands giving account for their wives?? That’s nuts…it’s practically Mormon!
I think in Piper’s world, the postman delivers the mail through the slot with a mighty thrust of his hips :p
Patrice wrote:
Baptized in Lemon Juice, Vinegar, or Battery Acid types?
Law Prof wrote:
You’ve never been around a seminary have you? It is ANYTHING but what you think it should be.
It was the most disgusting place I was ever at….look, they see people in two groups. Us, and the non-called. They won’t say it aloud, but that’s the way it is……
Richard wrote:
Too good a lead-in to pass up…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457N1m4oUZw
@ Patrice:
Isn’t there a URC as well? Where did DeYoung go?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
“Horse with a Hat”?
Also too good a lead-in to pass up…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84PZbL_-jjU
Gram3 wrote:
This made me laugh out loud.
Gram3 and Patrice – You should come hang out here. I’m in a suburb of Grand Rapids – ground zero for all the CRC, RCA and Reformed stuff.
When we flirted with patriarchy years ago, we visited many different kinds of Reformed churches (CRC, OPC, PCA, UPC, etc.). Some of them were so spiritually oppressive you could cut it in the air with a knife. Very little joy evident. Just a lot of jots and tittles being attended to with meticulous care.
And, yes, much of it is fear-driven.
That said, I agree that Reformed people get lumped together too much here in TWW comments. They are not all evil, women-hating, Calvin-worshiping legalists. I get tired of that shtick and have to leave at times because it gets old.
Max wrote:
TGC has hijacked the word “Gospel.”
Gram3 wrote:
Agreed. I may be a “five pointer”, but I don’t believe that my being correct on any of those concepts makes or breaks my salvation. I’m a big fan of “essential” meaning exactly that: essential for salvation, i.e. “Believe the Good news of the gospel.”
(this is the part where the Presbyterian reflexively says “In Jesus Christ, we are forgiven”)
Jay wrote:
Yes, there is no doubt in my mind about this. They hate anything that loves.
Jay wrote:
Stick around and read here some more. The vast majority of the people who say things against Reformed theology are addressing people who have elevated Reformed doctrine from “what we believe best represents Biblical truth” to “If you don’t believe Reformed Theology you have lost the Gospel.” Also, throw in some “Arminians teach a man-centered theology” and “Arminians are Pelagian” and you can see how some people get wound up. My personal favorite is “You are breaking covenant” with/by fill-in-the-blank. The YRR have infiltrated and taken over the churches and split families and churches in much the same way that the Reconstructionists did in Reformed churches back in the 80’s. Some day a Baptist John Frame will write a book or essay about the Baptist split P’s that have occurred in the past 15 years or so.
Daisy wrote:
Or that Cold War-era thriller “Telefon”.
P.S. “Relax” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood — five separate official music videos made for that song; four were set in an S&M gay bar and the fifth (the only one to be shown on MTV) was a straight performance video. USA’s Night Flight once showed all five back-to-back. (Gives a whole new meaning to the song’s chorus.)
Velour wrote:
But *I* love puppies, so that disproves your theory in toto.
Nancy2 wrote:
Not according to The Calvin Himself…
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This is what I was thinking too: It’s not that John Piper hasn’t done kind and decent things to people. It’s that he hasn’t done them consistently.
Nancy2 wrote:
And they’re the only ones that can’t see how ridiculous they are.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh, I plan on sticking around, thanks! I was actually heartened by the comments in this thread in particular. I suppose I’m blessed to have never had the displeasure of experiencing the “YRR” effect in person.
Bridget wrote:
I believe he went to URCNA. It gets confusing to me because the *church* name is University Reformed Church or URC which is too much like United Reformed Church [in North America.]
Velour wrote:
“A being that can still love is not a Devil.”
— C.S.Lewis, Preface to Screwtape Letters(?)
Max wrote:
And that is called a cult–recovering the secret lost ways of Christianity. It’s always that way, and it’s always exciting. 🙁 Until it’s not. Until it becomes a millstone around your neck. 🙁
Tina wrote:
I think Anna and those children are in danger!
Jay wrote:
What some of us have experienced would be like Reformed Baptists infiltrating a PCA church by stealth and then gradually moving to strictly congregational polity (no elders) and forbidding people to baptize their children. Then, if you dared to question them, they would accuse you and kick you out of the church.
Southern Baptists have almost universally rejected *at least* Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption/Definite Atonement. There is in the cultural memory of the SBC some experience with hyper-Calvinism, too, and I mean that in the theological sense not in the sense of 5-points on your TULIP. But that is now being pushed and Southern Baptist history is being revised to pretend that the Anabaptist heritage of the SBC never existed.
The Reformed Baptists in the Founders Movement in the SBC, like 9Marks, advocate delaying believer’s baptism until the kids are independent. I guess that is the logical extension of requiring membership covenants. You need to have reached the age of majority before you can contract.
Anyway, if you can imagine how you would feel, maybe you get a sense about the source of any vitriol you see here.
Bridget wrote:
I figured out the URC. One of my kids went to a school associated with a Reformed Church that split. They became the CRC (women elders) and the URC (only male elders). It was a very difficult school socially. You were either in the group (Dutch) or not in (alien/Christian). Very strange.
Sopwith wrote:
Brilliant, Sopy.
Jay wrote:
Funny, that’s exactly what I said yesterday on this very forum. Apparently there is a strain within neocalvinist complementarianism that holds to just that.
My wife holds to a number of reformed views, I used to be on the paid staff of a Presbyterian church. One of the most vicious church leaders I’ve ever had the displeasure of working beside was a committed Arminian holiness-type. He was also an unprincipled cad, and had infiltrated a nondenominational church with the primary purpose of introducing holiness doctrine and, I think, finding fresh narcissistic supply because he’d been shown the door quite unceremoniously at his previous church) We believe that some of the so-called points of Calvinism (not all) represent the truth, but that’s of a wholly different order than what I’ve encountered among the YRR crowd, if you challenge their dogma, they rise up with a visceral reaction that I most closely liken to hate, the closest I can come to compare is in attempting to tell a Muslim zealot about Jesus.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Thanks but no thanks. A friend of mine went to college in Michigan, and I hear that it is colder than Antarctica in the winter and hotter than Death Valley in summer. And also the mosquitoes eat the bats there which is a reversal of God’s Good and Beautiful Design and Order of Creation.
Like Lydia, I’ve spent too much time in Ground Zero territory.
Gram3 wrote:
It was meant tongue-in-cheek. No matter where you go to church around here, the Reformed background impacts it. I ran into a woman from a Baptist (GARB) church where we were members for about a year. When we told her we were attending a CRC church the look on her face was like we had told her we had become Satanists and had done a blood sacrifice before going shopping at Meijer.
I’d like to know where your friend went to school. It rarely hits 90 here in the summer and winters are cold, but not that cold. And I haven’t had a mosquito bite in years.
Law Prof wrote:
And it doesn’t stop there with the bizarre comp doctrine/authoritarianism. The NeoCals pastors/elders also use it to justify having control over church members’ lives by having them sign (legally binding and un-Biblical) Membership Covenants and tell new members that the elders *will have to give an account to God for your souls*.
K.D. wrote:
They seem to say it aloud once they get a secure position in a large enough church to satisfy their desired for authority. I am sick of hearing people discuss “my calling”. I remember once such knave standing in front of the church as he gave us the “My calling” sermon. He said something like “For any of you who have ever experienced it, you know there’s nothing to compare with getting a calling from the Lord into the ministry.”
Oh yes, that narcissistic pastor was right, nothing compares with the calling into the ministry, and that calling happens to all of us at the moment we come to know Him and follow Him, and if you happen to get a calling as a leader it typically means you’re older and a little bit tired and past your years of ambition and youthful stupidity and it typically means your calling is to do the drudgery behind the scenes, the thankless stuff, always ensuring that you’re last in line, picking the worst seats for yourself (not the illustrious front row at the illustrious T4G Conference), being a servant of all, never once compelling anyone to do anything, but being a good example, a helper to all.
Bridget wrote:
I think URC is United Reformed Church, one of the splits. I think it’s interesting that the ultra-conservatives made sooo many splits—their intolerance towards even each other is telling, ya think?
Kevin De Young and his congregation voted to go, with church building, to the PCA. It was a lengthy process and I’m not sure what came of it.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2014/05/27/university-reformed-church-votes-to-leave-the-rca/
Gram3 wrote:
But Grand Rapids is down in Da Mitten.
Trolls (Below Da Bridge) not Jackpine Savages from Yooperland.
(And I can’t find any copy of “Don’t Go Up Dere!” by Da Yoopers on YouTube!)
Gram3 wrote:
There’s a bit of what you are describing that has been going on in Presbyterian circles as well. PC(USA) has been/is fracturing over what many assume is over things like ordination of gay pastors/elders and now SSM. Many churches (like mine) went through the process of being labeled as “just like Westboro” because “we hate teh gays”, local news tried to play gotcha via soundbite with our senior pastor, the whole 9 yards. The reality is, it wasn’t JUST about our position on ordination, or traditional marriage…PC(USA) had done next to nothing to enforce ANY discipline whatsoever amongst the pastorate. Think of someone being ordained, who does not believe in the divinity of Christ. Not joking. In more recent years, mostly East Coast and West Coast churches led the charge to change the Book of Order standards of ordination by repeatedly calling for votes for years, then when they finally had a plurality of congregations to go their way, declared the debate to be over. (sound familiar?) So, decades of descent into questionable theology (from our perspective) informed our local Session to recommend dissolution from PC(USA) but of course, it was obvious we were just haters.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Well, yes, if you go to the UP in the summer the black flies will feast on you as you slowly go insane…
@ Jay:
That’s an important point, methinks. Most folks I’ve run into tend to dismiss experiences that are not their own. It takes effort to stick around and pay attention to other’s experiences for the purpose of educating yourself against future duping. Thanks for doing that.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
I live on the other end of the state. 2 uncles/aunts in GR/Holland area, cuz Dutchies tend to stick together, yes? Only, not me.
Needn’t be difficult to keep the issues in their proper place—-simply use “neo-puritan” or “new calvinism” rather than “reformed”. Or if “reformed” then “ultra-conservative reformed”. No spill-over or offense.
Found the lyrics, though:
(They’re sung in two voices; a female Outsider asking questions in standard English and a male Yooper (Northern Michigan local) answering back in a thick U.P. dialect and accent. Both voices join in for the chorus.)
1. I HAVE TO GO TO MARQUETTE TO ATTEND A SEMINAR
DO THEY HAVE MOTELS UP THERE AND ROADS TO DRIVE MY CAR?
NO, LEAVE YOUR CAR BELOW DA BRIDGE CAUSE THERE`S NO ROADS UP THERE!
DEY’LL PUT YOU UP IN A TENT SO BRING LONG UNDERWEAR!
I KNEW A GUY WHO HAD AN AUNT WHOSE COUSIN HAD A FRIEND
WHO ONCE WENT UP ABOVE THE BRIDGE AND WAS NEVER SEEN AGAIN
HE WAS TRAMPLED BY A MOOSE OR EATEN BY A BEAR
OR SCALPED BY DOSE INDIANS WHO STILL RUN WILD UP DERE!
DON`T GO UP DERE! STAY WHERE YOU AT!
DON’T GO UP DERE! YOU WONT COME BACK!
DEY DON’T HAVE NO ELECTRIC LIGHTS TO KEEP AWAY THE WOOFS AT NIGHT!
DEY DON’T HAVE NO LAW AND ORDER! STAY DOWN HERE BELOW DA BORDER!
STAY WHERE YOU AT! DON’T GO UP DERE! YOU WON’T COME BACK!
2. I HEARD THERE WAS A NATIVE TRIBE WAY UP IN THE WOODS
THEY CALL THEM JACKPINE SAVAGES AND THEY DON’T SPEAK SO GOOD…
YA THEY ALL CARRY GUNS AND KNIVES AND GREAT BIG TOMAHAWKS!
AND DEIR WOMEN DO DEIR LAUNDRY BEATING CLOTHES AGAINST DA ROCKS!
I WANNA GO VACATIONING WAY UP IN THE SOO
SHOULD I BRING ALONG SOME CASH OR WILL MY PLASTIC DO?
ONCE YOU GET ABOVE DA BRIDGE HIRE YOURSELF A GUIDE —
HE TAKE YOU DERE BY DOG SLED FOR FORTY BEAVER HIDE!
DON`T GO UP DERE! STAY WHERE YOU AT!
DON’T GO UP DERE! YOU WONT COME BACK!
DEY DON’T HAVE NO SHOPPING MALLS! DEY LIVE LIKE NEANDERTHALS!
DEY DON’T HAVE NO STORES OR FRIDGES! STAY DOWN HERE BELOW DA BRIDGE!
STAY WHERE YOU AT! DON’T GO UP DERE! YOU WON’T COME BACK!
3. IN JULY I’M GOING TO YOOPERLAND TO GO SWIMMING IN THE LAKE
I’LL BRING SOME SUNTAN LOTION — WHAT ELSE SHOULD I TAKE?
YOU BETTER BRING AN AX ALONG FOR CHOPPING THROUGH DA ICE
AND WEAR A THERMAL DIVING SUIT TO GUARD AGAINST FROSTBITE!
I WANNA GO TO YOOPERLAND TO LIVE A PEACEFUL LIFE
TELL ME WHAT I HAVE TO DO TO BE A YOOPER WIFE?
YOU GOTTA BUILD AN OUTHOUSE AND SKIN AND COOK A DEER!
AND SNOWSHOE TO DA TRADING POST WHEN YOU’RE OUT OF BEER!
DON`T GO UP DERE! STAY WHERE YOU AT!
DON’T GO UP DERE! YOU WONT COME BACK!
DEY DON’T HAVE NO JUMBO JETS! NO TELEPHONES! NO TV SETS!
DEY DON’T HAVE NO RUNNIN’ WATER! STAY DOWN HERE BELOW DA BORDER!
STAY WHERE YOU AT! DON’T GO UP DERE! YOU WON’T COME BACK!
@ Law Prof:
Yep. I’ve missed you.
Bridget wrote:
There are several enclaves of Dutch-Americans across the States and Canada. Crossgenerational sticking-together. Some of them just simply believe the cliche: “If you ain’t Dutch, you ain’t much.” Sorry your child had to experience that–it can be ugly and destructive.
I’m just re-reading my earlier half-written sentence:
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I wonder if I should apply for some kind of “TWW out-takes/bloopers” award. That one is so bad that a kind of grandeur creeps into it.
@ Daisy:
Well love is going to look a bit different from person to person as well, and our love should be the love of Christ showing out, but that’s just my point – these guys don’t seem content with just leaving it at a submission/love dynamic, leaving it up to the couple to work out how that looks for them. No, they want to define every role in the home, church, and now public sector around their ideas.
This is where their insistence on authority will end up leading to their exposure as frauds, at least in this area. They don’t have biblical answers, yet they have to have them.
Patrice wrote:
I honestly think that will end up happening in the SBC over time.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
She went to Michigan State, and I was thinking of Minnesota mosquitoes(Piper has taken over my mind!!!) Coming from Florida, she was surprised by how hot it got in the summer, and anything below 50 is zero in Florida, hence Antarctica. I’ve never actually been to Michigan except to have an unfortunate stop at the Detroit airport, though we have some wonderful friends from the UP, or youbetchaland, as I tease them. I heard about the MN mosquitoes via an online argument about whether MN or AK has the biggest, baddest mosquitoes. We were going to AK, so it was pretty important.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I call it Youbetchaland.
@ Law Prof:
You do a better rant on “my calling” than I do! One of my pet peeves since we know all believers have anointing. (1 John) It is nothing but an attempt to be set apart from the pew peons.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
LOL! I had the same reaction when I told a YRR person we had visited a CBF (Cooperative Baptist Fellowship that broke off from the SBC) church. I thought it best for his health not to mention the woman pastor. :o)
The irony is it was filled with older folks, incredible music (big pipe organ) and lots of reading of scripture.
Daisy wrote:
The convolutedness doesn’t stop there. There seems to be no point in praying for the salvation of someone who is going to have salvation imposed on them by virtue of being one of the elect. The Calvinist argument is that God does not just ordain the end (the person’s salvation) but also the means to that end. Prayer is one of the means. If I don’t pray the person will not be saved, but that cannot happen because God has predetermined that I will pray, therefore there is no possibility that I will not pray.
@ Jay:
Yes. I don’t read Romans as being about individual election. Believe me, one does not live at ground zero without discussing Romans….a lot. You cannot go into a startbucks here without over hearing a discussion on Romans.
My experience with what we are now calling old school reformed is quite pleasant. Mostly they were into social issues and would not dream of ramming their doctrine down throats.
The joke in these parts is that SBTS is the real Presbyterian Seminary and the only reason that is funny is that there is a Presbyterian seminary across the road from SBTS. They used to be one of my clients and I often found myself on the same 6 am flight to Chicago with the President. Delightful man. Many moons ago.
Bridget wrote:
Yep, in reformed circles, Calvinism = Gospel. When you hear them preach gospel-centered this and gospel-centered that, they are really pointing to their theology which the Christian life should revolve around … rather than a Christocentric criterion. Out of the heart, the mouth speaketh.
Law Prof wrote:
This is it. In fact, I am sick of the whole doctrinal focus even though I can go 100 rounds with them. (Got tired of them telling little old ladies they did not know the true gospel) How about a BEHAVIOR focus for a change? Think of it…. In Matt Chandlers mind, HIS doctrine is so important and so “right” it is worth trying to ruin a young woman’s life over.
To me, that is corrupt behavior. He could not see it until the PR got so bad he was in danger of the money not flowing. How can these guys not see their behavior is corrupt? They end up making good evil (any good you do is filthy rags,,,ad nauseum) and evil, good.
Jay wrote:
I think it’s because the YRR crowd has co-opted the term “Reformed” for themselves. As a result, old school Reformed, with their confessions and covenant theology get ignored. It’s like how Baptists have a bad name from the nutcase fundamentalists.
I’ve been researching Reformed Christianity some this past year, and the differences between confessional Reformed and YRR Reformed have been pretty fascinating. Many don’t even consider YRR truly Reformed (which was news to me). Now, because of TULIP, I could never ever adopt Reformed theology, but I’ve gained a new appreciation for other Reformed doctrines (like covenant community, infant baptism etc.) even if I don’t share them myself.
From here on out, I will no longer use “Reformed” when referring to the Neo-Calvinists. They’re two pretty different groups.
@ Law Prof:
Now that I’m thinking about it, a young-ish friend of mine got kicked out of his church (there was a lawsuit and everything) because he was invited in as pastor to some old-school local Baptist joint and then tried to install 9Marxism on a bunch of country folks. It was ugly.
I never knew the details much and it wouldn’t have meant anything to me when I first heard it anyway, but given he’s done the same thing at a new church (which is now on the 9Marx website), it all makes sense now. What’s sad is I like the guy, and his family. Great music director – he did the music at my wedding.
This is what we’re fighting with. Young whippersnappers “called to preach” with not much more than an ESV and desiringgod.org who will stop at nothing in setting up the kingdom of Calvin upon this earth.
Gram3 wrote:
Exactly! I’m no so much anti-Calvinist, as I am anti-Calvinization. These young rebels are convinced they are right and the rest of Christendom has had it wrong for centuries. It’s the spirit of Calvin, not Christ, that propels them.
@ Sean:
Yep, in reformed jargon, “All” = all of the elect … “World” = world of the elect … and assorted other distortions of Scripture to make it fit the Calvinist grid.
Lydia wrote:
Maybe because they have a total war mentality. One of the things I appreciate about Foyle’s War is that it exposes the kinds of things that are necessary or deemed necessary in order to win an existential war. I think these guys think they are in an existential war for The Gospel which is in danger of being annihilated by feminists and gays and Arminians. Which is ironic given their ideas regarding God’s sovereignty. So, to infiltrate a church and take it over is winning a church back to God, not destroying a functional fellowship. Destroying the reputation of a young woman is a necessary evil in order to win the battle for RegenerateChurchMembership and ElderRuleWithTheVeneerOfCongregationalism and BiblicalWomanhood.
@ Jay:
Jay, I can see where you would be offended by my comments. I have always loved history and always had a problem with anything that came out of the state church mentality but did not really give it much thought as far as doctrine. Frankly I saw a lot of evil behind stages in seeker megas. The whole system is a sin trap.
We did not identify as “Protestants” growing up in my neck of the SBC woods. But when the YRR came on the scene I started studying Calvin, Luther and Augustine. I was even attracted to it at first because of my time with the shallow seeker megas. But I cannot wrap my head around it. It presents a different God with a different relationship to humans than what I believe. However, that is not a friendship breaker in my book. I don’t subscribe to the us/them separating over issues but would rather discuss ideas/understandings. (That is verboten with the YRR)
The YRR are the ones separating and then demanding a fake unity with the non YRR never disagreeing. I would love to see a church where both are taught and people could discuss it like adults.
What are essentials? God (Triune) love us, He is where we find wisdom and He sends us rescue.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Like “North Ontar-i-o-i-o”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBXb1kgMo
GovPappy wrote:
I was on the road taking the family to a family reunion, so not much of a web presence for the last few weeks.
Interesting experience, that reunion. Her parents are both academics (as my wife used to be and as I now am). We stayed at their huge place on the edge of the fancy liberal arts college campus for a few days. Was a big reunion, all the relatives from both coasts there. We were essentially treated like pariahs by her parents because we, being educated people, chose that “enormously foolish, low brow” path of having lots of children. So we are in that odd middle ground, we can’t stand being around most home schoolers, they being too often smitten with the Gothards and Phillips and Duggars of the world, but those who share our passion for education tend to view us, at best, at oddities, and at worst (such as her parents) as being beneath contempt for daring to create so much life than dares to suck up precious air.
Sorry for the rant, this one was hard to take. We feel like people without a country.
Max wrote:
Screwtape would be proud.
Lydia wrote:
Purity of Perfectly Correct Ideology has ruined lots of lives.
Ask the mass graves in the GULAG or Cambodia’s Killing Fields.
GovPappy wrote:
Like the Komsomol or Red Guard.
The Cause, the Perfect Ideology, justifies anything & everything.
“Today Geneva, TOMORROW THE WORLD!”
I have had some unexpected issues to deal with today. I will try to catch up on the comments.
Law Prof wrote:
Can’t understand grandparents thinking that way. I wonder which of your kids they would be willing to send away? Sorry you and your wife had to go through the family drama. Maybe if you had a Gulfstream and flew the whole crew to Davos every year you could buy indulgences for their cute little carbon footprints.
Abi Miah wrote:
Fundies often preach the hardest against the stuff they are fantasizing about. Growing up fundie the pastors yelling about teenagers having sex were having sex with teenagers in their youth group. Guys railing against alcohol consumption were secret alcoholics. So I wonder what good ole JP’s kink is.
Daisy wrote:
It’s mostly true. Male lions are careful about how they expend their energy. If they are not needed for a hunt they usually won’t be there, but there are times when five hundred pounds of male lion on the hindquarters of a buffalo is the difference between eating and not eating. Most successful hunts take place at night when lions are exponenentially more successful than during the day. The cooler temperature is the major factor.
I would be reluctant to call lions the Christian gender complementarians of the animal world. The females seem to take many of the important decisions. Male lions are not the major providers. They do however patrol their clearly defined territories regularly to keep out intruding males and keep the pride safe. The women and children don’t accompany them. It’s hard work and dangerous. Cecil was probably on one of these patrols when he was enticed with not just a carcase but probably also the recorded roars of another lion. He would have gone after the sound instantly.
Jay wrote:
I understand and can commiserate, having been on the paid staff of a PCUSA. At the regional presbytery meeting I attended, there were people within the PCUSA who basically would just like to excise Jesus from the denomination, He being the one who continually gets in the way of them being culturally relevant. My head practically exploded going to a presbytery meeting and seeing the overwhelming majority vote for the ordination of a guy who essentially had declared in his statement to the voting members of the presbytery that the Bible was a useful myth.
I too am one of those “haters”. I believe that the Lord did not just want us to do whatever we pleased and with whomever we pleased with our private parts. I personally think that practicing homosexuals ought not be welcomed into full fellowship, they being very much like the guy who was playing around with his step mother in I Corinthians. Perhaps we both occupy that hated middle ground, despised by hyper egalitarians and fundamentalists both. It can be a lonely place.
Gram3 wrote:
Ah, Gulfstream, I teach at a university very close to their corporate headquarters (I better not say more or I’ll blow my net cover). Yeah, if only I’d chosen to worm my way into Big Law rather than low-paying academia we might have been able to afford the Gulfstream and but those indulgences.
__
“What ‘Really’ Is Calvinism?”
hmmm…
The belief that if their ‘god’ chooses NOT to ‘elect’ them to [salvation], they can kiss their @zzzzz goodbye?
—
@ Law Prof:
Y’all didn’t conform to expectations, eh? They might have respected you, but the kids just make y’all a nuisance to them? That’s sad. I remember that dynamic, being one of ten. My parents just didn’t believe in birth control though.
Seriously then, welcome back.
(If you ever need a pair of ears to rant on, I’m here – I am specially trained and uniquely qualified to…. Do something, I’m not sure)
@ GovPappy:
Just think many of us are active here because those closer to us think we’re crazy or heretics. I hate to see people going crazy for lack of listening ears. I’ve been there.
Bridget wrote:
He left for the PCA, I understand. I thought his church would join a more conservative Reformed (continental Presbyterian) versus Presbyterian denomination . When I looked up his church in past it appeared his church had women leadership. I thought this was unusual. The church really tauts the celebrity of their pastor was also what I noticed at the church website.
Jay wrote:
Jay, glad to hear you are sticking around. I know it is hard to stick around when you feel that a lot of what you say is not easily received, but it is good for this site to have many different views. I think one of the difficulties with the YRR is that they tend to be a bunch of young guys, who seek advice from their seminary buds who agree with their points of view. They do not like to have their views questioned or challenged. The two YRR guys who drove bunches of good people out of my previous church, certainly did not like other points of view.
Now, I am not a big fan of Calvinism. I have huge problems not only with Calvinism but what Calvin did in Geneva. On the other hand, I have not met any group that gets Christianity completely correctly. Also, some of the criticisms that the Calvinists have of other theology should make all of us think. I think it is good to have our assumptions challenged.
Part of the problem, with the YRR, is talking to them is almost impossible. They often go to ad hominem and name calling.
Glad to see you here!
Lydia wrote:
I think your perspective and mine are similar. I have problems with reformed theology, but I know some wonderful reformed people. But when dealing with the new breed of Calvinists, their doctrine is so sacrosanct that you cannot disagree. And they infuse it in everything. On Sunday evenings, we had a prayer group at my church. We went from praying from personal concerns, praying for the lost, praying for the persecuted, to praying about Calvinist doctrine. When I said I would no longer attend the prayer meeting, I was the one who was breaking unity!
GovPappy wrote:
I suppose you are specially trained, being one of ten; you know what it is to be considered somewhere on the spectrum between quirky and evil. You know what it is for your parents to be asked “Know what causes that?” “Must be something in the water!”, “Wow, your hands sure all full!”. We have nine. In “crazy” territory, extreme outliers, certainly among people in academia.
Will M wrote:
My experiences exactly. This is because they are ignorant and insecure. The refuge of the ignorant and insecure is typically ad hominem, invective, and increased decibel levels.
Will M wrote:
This is an example of the extremely divisive calling others divisive.
Lydia wrote:
You might enjoy reading:
Judaism for Everyone
By Shmuley Boteach
Daisy wrote:
Yep!
@ Law Prof:
No I definitely jest on the specially trained part – I need to be ranting to you for wisdom, not the other way around! I’m still very much a young’un.
Dang, 9! My hat’s off to you. I hope y’all will (or have already) find rest and a home.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Law Prof wrote:
In defense of my friends with many children, who are frequently under attacks like you and your wife get (complete with the environmental impact report on having children and the ensuing lectures), I have become a whiz at memorizing and repeating all of the data about the “replacement rate” for the U.S. population and those of other countries (Europe and Japan), and how sad it is we won’t have enough children to do the jobs that it takes to run a country and have a vibrant ecomony. (My counter argument to the environmental impact of “lots of children” is to ask the people present who have just two of them living in a large home, lots of space, lawns, etc. that must be a huge environmental impact for just a few people. “You should really think about downsizing.” OK, I am sorry, LawProf, but I have worked for some of the best litigators in the nation…and sometimes it comes out in curious ways…)
Law Prof wrote:
It is a good thing your wife married you and got away from that mindset. I once heard the late Elizabeth Elliott on the radio decrying the fact that her own daughter had a lot of children. It boggles me how any parent or grandparent would think that, but even if they did wonder about it in secret what kind of person would say it out loud? There is something wrong about somebody’s heart if they look at their own grandchildren and think/say that.
okrapod wrote:
My own extended family looked none too kindly on us for that. Course we had other issues too, but the idea of a large family just assaults some folks. It’s not for me and the missus (reasons), but I see plenty who are cut out for it, and I respect that.
My parents (they and I don’t see eye to eye on a lot of things) used to say things like “which of these do you not want?” to preachy family members. There’s some truth there.
Law Prof wrote:
Gag, been there, it is pulling out the “God card”. How can I a mere mortal quibble the guy is unsuited to even bus dishes when “God CALLED him to ministry”?
Velour wrote:
I love it.
And it is not just family size that some people don’t like. It can be other things about kids also. When young daughter and her husband adopted internationally they listened to snide remarks of various kinds. One favorite thing was to try to shame them for spending ‘that much money’ on an adoption. One snotty ** tried that with young daughter in front of some folks at church “I just can’t imagine how much that must have cost. How much did it cost, anyhow?” To which young daughter replied “not nearly as much as that car of yours out in the parking lot.”
okrapod wrote:
Her father the retired professor has four children and ten grandchildren. All sounds quite normal until you realize two children have none, one has one, and one has nine. I like to think that the wife and I have done our part to give him a perfectly normal mix of children and grands. Not that he sees it that way.
@ Sean:
Prefect analysis. The Calvinists just can’t admit they must omit large chunks of the Bible for their theology to fit together perfectly. Throw those verses back in, and it isn’t so clear cut as they wish. Mystery is a bad word in Calvinism.
Law Prof wrote:
A wonderful older gentleman I knew attended a PCUSA church locally. Decades ago he confided that he would continue to hang around as long as he wasn’t divisive. He was head of their session when it came time for a new pastor, on close examination the session found the top two candidates recommended by the Presbytery were essentially unbelievers. There was one pastor candidate that session thought looked good but the Presbytery apparently blacklisted him and said they couldn’t have him. They went through another round in the selection process and the one pastor they liked was still available so they finally got him.
Some yeas ago that church left PCUSA and appears to be a good place to be. To me it was a testimony how one person with the respect of his peers could make a difference. If it was an authoritarian, pastor runs everything, it would likely be just another empty building.
Val wrote:
So is Love.
@ Sallie Borrink: Sallie, can I ask where you found a church home? I too live in a suburb of Grand Rapids and am at a loss as to where to look…
@ okrapod:
Your daughter is a sharp cookie!
Velour wrote:
No kidding. Let me qualify by saying that I think Rob Bell has some pretty squishy views of theology. Not a fan. However, remember his book that sent the reformed in orbit, Love Wins. The very title made some of the YRR go whacky. I would say that I thought that Love wins, and the response was “But …
Velour wrote:
We’ve heard that one, at least a form of it. Her father has regularly said to us in conversations: “No more children!” They like to pride themselves as academics on being open-minded and they tend to consider people like us who are Christians and have huge families as being close-minded prigs. Yet they’ve frequently tried to influence our family size, and not once in all these years have we told them they didn’t produce enough children. Nor do we insist that our Christian views be enshrined in the secular law, or think we have a sacred duty to reproduce so we can take over the world and control political systems. We’re not even political, we’re just taking care of our family, asking for nothing from anyone, we don’t beg them for money, strain their finances, have never asked them to babysit and never will, our kids aren’t spoiled brats who reject their dinner and scream for chicken nuggets, they don’t expect (and don’t receive) gifts at Christmas or on birthdays from her family, on those occasions that we’re able to visit, our kids are honestly kind to their grandparents, they behave around them. yes, I know they’re a little wild, but darn it, that’s at home with us, not on the road at grandma and grandpa’s, and in any event they’re never unduly selfish or hateful. We don’t put them out at all, honestly. Yet we’re treated like proverbial red-headed step children. OK, I’m done now, I know I’m whining. But when you’re told “Don’t come back, you can’t handle your own children” (when we know darned well our children were very well behaved, darn it, they were!) dang that sucks! OK, I’m really done now.
Law Prof wrote:
Yes, many academics I know happily take this stance. What ever happened to manners? Not everything that crosses a person’s brain should EVER cross their lips!
@ Sallie Borrink: I have Reformed relatives and have heard enough from my mother to find certain aspects of this tradition edifying. There is a difference between this Neo Calvinism being described here at Wartburg Watch and Calvinism. A Pastor at my relatives church handed me a Heidelberg Catechism. I am a baptist so this kind of a confession, the Pastor warned me, might be a little different. One of these days I will read through it and look at the Scripture contained in it. My relatives church is considered ultra conservative in the Reformed world. Women can’t vote. I don’t care because they are nice people.
@ Will M:
@ Mark:
Thanks! (They will know us by our what – ? – our Love!)
^My post was to Will, not Mark. (Howdy to Mark, anyway.)
Becky Hill wrote:
Becky,
Right now we have no church home. We moved to Rockford four years ago and before that we were in NE GR/Riverside Park area.
Aside from the fact that I have medical issues that make it very difficult for me to attend, we’ve found that the churches in a wide radius around here fall into one four categories:
1. Loud, loud, loud (my daughter has sensory issues so this is not an option for her or me)
2. Heavily complementarian/9Marks/TGC (just no)
3. Very liberal (which we aren’t)
4. Huge and/or multi-campi sites with holographic pastors preaching (just no)
I grew up Baptist and would prefer a Baptist church, but that isn’t an option around here. Everything is heavily GARB and/or complementarian. I’ve tried numerous times to force myself to be in a comp church and I simply cannot do it any longer. It seriously depresses me. I won’t raise my daughter listening to Piper and Driscoll type stuff.
So we’ve been in CRC churches which carries with it it’s own set of baggage in a number of areas such as membership expectations that we don’t agree with.
Right now we have no church home. We’re Dones at this point although we don’t want to be.
What are you looking for/not looking for? Which quadrant of GR are you looking for? We’ve been in a LOT of churches the past nineteen years. I might be able to point you to some possibilities.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
@Sallie,
I hear ‘ya! I hope you can listen to conservative (but sane) Baptist pastor Wade Burleson (Enid, Oklahoma) here on Sundays at The Wartburg Watch and E-Church.
Wade and his church, plus Dee and Deb do a fantastic job!
Wade has a great website, with great articles on his blog, and I hope you will find it helpful. It has really helped me!
Blessings from California
Velour wrote:
Yes, I’ve really appreciated Wade’s sermons and blog posts. He is a breath of fresh air! 🙂
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Amen, Sister!!!
@ Gram3:
I’m a “millennial”, I saw this question, and have been thinking about it. First of all, I didn’t grow up in the church so take my answer for what it’s worth. For a young Christian who grew up in an apathetic church with people who were just fulfilling the routine of southern culture as they defied the law, church discipline sounds good. For a young Christian who grew up in a Footloose-style church, a church that permits cool clothes and alcohol without compromising conservative theology seems like the place to be.
I don’t give a lot of credit for my peers to discern the details of John Piper’s Reformed theology vs. old school NAPARC Reformed vs. all other things. The YRR pastor says John Piper is the smartest dude ever (I’ve definitely heard that sermon that dramatically concludes with “And John Piper says,”), the brown-nosers take to him, others fall for the vague Christianese platitudes and don’t connect the dots the way we do here, and then there’s a herd, and then there’s herd instinct
@ Jay:
Jay, I appreciate you! I’m a PCA member in a church that went through a nasty split with PCUSA. But I recognize that Calvin was just one sinner with some valuable insights that happen appeal to my life experience. It’s not the gospel(TM), as we call it here. It’s no one’s holy mission in life to force Reformed theology on other evangelical churches by hook and crook. My prayer is enough of our leadership remembers the divisiveness of the PCUSA before they invite TGC and their secondary issues into our bed. We’re already listed on their church directory.
@ Patrice:
Did you know there’s a group within the fundamentalist Bible Presbyterian Church concerned about the denomination drifting into liberalism for having relations with the OPC, because the OPC has relations with us apostates in the PCA?
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=233
Gabriel wrote:
Combine the spiel about women police officers and the lecture about women wearing dresses with low necklines, my guess would be a stripper dressed as a cop, with a billy club and handcuffs.
Law Prof wrote:
Open-Minded = As Long As You Agree 1000% Completely With MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
(Like Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of A.Hitler in the TV-movie The Bunker.)
Velour wrote:
I actually don’t care for those sorts of arguments, that try to shame and guilt adults into having children- that is how these arguments are normally used, rather than to defend folks who already have a large family.
Women who never marry and never have kids (like me) get shamed over this by a Christian culture that is heavily into natalism and promoting the idea that God demands all women to marry/have kids, and there is something wrong with you if you don’t do one or both.
You get a little tired of people accusing you of hating kids, being selfish, being immature, materialistic, etc., either because you can’t have kids, or just are not interested in having any, so you opt out.
lydia wrote:
Your husband sounds wise and discerning.
Interesting comment. I believe my husband had the spiritual gift of discernment indicated in 1 Cor. 12:10. “Had” because he passed away. One Sunday in the 1990’s our family dined with church friends Frank and Kim Vennes. Later my husband said never again because “Frank is a crook”. My husband noted that unemployed Frank was a major church donor and a schemer- “doesn’t add up” he said. Today, Frank Elroy Vennes Jr. is a jailed “multimillionaire and convicted money launderer. He was the primary fundraiser for Tom Petters, who was convicted of organizing a $3.5 billion Ponzi scheme in Minnesota.” See wikipedia. Frank even bilked former missionaries out of their retirements. My husband saw Vennes as a crook and Piper as a fake – “some things don’t add up,” he said. We were blessed by his spiritual gift – freely given by the Holy Spirit no strings attached for the benefit of the church. Unfortunately, often the “church” functions on money and the cult of the personality, shiny things over substance and missing the boat with the Holy Spirit’s gifts. Gifts. Powerful gifts. Given by God through each believer for our benefit. Given not sold.
lydia wrote:
Interesting comment. I believe my husband had the spiritual gift of discernment indicated in 1 Cor. 12:10. “Had” because he passed away.
One Sunday in the 1990’s our family dined with church friends Frank and Kim Vennes. Later my husband said never again because “Frank is a crook”. My husband noted that unemployed Frank was a major church donor and a schemer- “doesn’t add up” he said. Today, Frank Elroy Vennes Jr. is a jailed “multimillionaire and convicted money launderer. He was the primary fundraiser for Tom Petters, who was convicted of organizing a $3.5 billion Ponzi scheme in Minnesota.” See wikipedia. Frank even bilked former missionaries out of their retirements.
My husband saw Vennes as a crook and Piper as a fake – “some things don’t add up,” he said. We were blessed by his spiritual gift – freely given by the Holy Spirit no strings attached for the benefit of the church.
Unfortunately, often the “church” functions on money and the cult of the personality, shine over substance and missing the Holy Spirit’s gifts. Gifts. Powerful gifts. Given by God through each believer for our benefit. Given not sold.
Pardon me; I don’t know why the comment appeared twice. Once is enough and the repeat can be removed, as well as this comment. With appreciation – JYJ
JYJames wrote:
Thank you for sharing your husband’s spiritual gift..about spotting the crooks!
I am sorry for your loss.
Thank you for your lovely post.
Daisy wrote:
Perhaps, Daisy, it depends on where you live in the country as to the inappropriate remarks you are subjected to about family size. Where I live – California – a passel of kids will get the parents subjected to all kinds of criticism.
I just wish that these critics would mind their manners on the family size topic (large or medium, small or none). People shouldn’t have to discuss their personal business with others.
I would like to recommend three books by Susanna Krizo which attempt to expose the Complementarian agenda.
*“Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Patriarchy”
“Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Patriarchy” examines the main arguments in an easy-to-read dialogue format that allows the reader to reach his/her own conclusions while enjoying a deep, yet lighthearted, theological discussion.
Here is an excerpt from one book review:
“Thank God for Susanna Krizo! She makes complicated theology easy and fun to read. This is one of the most entertaining books we’ve ever read. At times it is so funny that you find yourself laughing and having a good time, and totally forget that theology is usually a dull topic to read! What we love most about her writing is that she works so hard to develop a full logical argument, address both sides of an issue, and really thinks things through to reasonable conclusions, all the while staying faithful to the Bible. Many theologians don’t like answering questions because they don’t really want to think things through because then their conclusions fall apart. But the Bible says “come let us reason together” because we need to really test all doctrine before accepting it. That’s what this book does so well.”
*“When Dogmas Die: The Return of Biblical Equality”
“When Dogmas Die” begins with a comprehensive look at Genesis 3:16 and the view that women are born inferior.
Book Quote: “Always ask why—not who, but why—for if you ask who gave the man authority over the woman, you may not find out why the man was given the authority, but if you ask why the man was given authority over the woman, you will find that it was the man’s idea.
Book Review Excerpt:
“When Dogmas Die” is a stunning critique of one of the great handbooks of Patriarchy in the Church: “Restoring Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” the collection of essays on gender roles compiled by John Piper and Wayne Grudem.
Grudem is considered a scholar by many in the church, so it comes as quite a surprise to find his work so tainted with errors and omissions, as this book aptly demonstrates and documents.
The subjection of women by men began as a result of the fall in the garden, and Krizo begins the book with a Chapter entitled “Genesis 3:16” to prove that point, and to show why Piper and Grudem’s attempt to teach a God-ordained hierarchy prior to the fall is in error.
*“Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles”
Book Review Excerpts:
“Witty and insightful, Susanna Krizo’s new book joins an ever-growing body of literature calling for the full recognition of women’s equality in all corners of the Christian faith. Challenging patriarchal assumptions carried over from ancient cultures, Krizo paints a picture of women and men sharing authority and celebrating what it means to be created in the image of God.”
“If the creation account doesn’t mention the man’s authority, and if Ephesians 5 instructs husbands to love their wives the way they love themselves instead of exercising authority over them, why do our theologians nevertheless insist that Ephesians 5 confirms that the man was given authority over the woman as part of creation” (from Chapter 7)
“The answer is simple: because men desire to rule women as a consequence of sin and no longer love their wives the way humans were created to love — unselfishly.” (from Chapter 7)
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_13/185-3355441-8987659?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=susanna+krizo&sprefix=susanna+krizo%2Cstripbooks%2C277
@ Barb Orlowski:
Hi Barb,
Excellent book recommendations! Would you also mind copying your post and putting it under the tab at the top of the page here called Interesting, Books. We also try to keep a good list of things over there.
Hugs from California.
I am a nurse, a peculiarly female profession (yes, I know many male nurses, but the preponderance is female). Piper had better not ever find himself in the hospital. If he does, he will find himself being personally directed by women at every turn! (“Come on. You have to get out of bed and walk around the nurses’ station, at least once, NOW. I’ll help you.”)
Something is really wrong with his theology if, according to his guidance, women can’t even be nurses!
Pingback: Wednesday Link List | Thinking Out Loud
@ Law Prof:
They don’t know what they are missing. My mom was the one who always started the water balloon fights that became epic wars between grandkids and the adults.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Lol! Yes. Holographic!
JYJames wrote:
Well said.
Daisy wrote:
No, I’m the Ken who argued at some length why the NT does not entail ‘mutual submission’ in (amongst other things) marriage, giving several reasons that have been studiously ignored.
I also said I think in principle all minstries in the church are open to men and women. Also I believe attracted no comment, doesn’t fit the stereotype ‘comp’, so-called.
I don’t think determining the meaning of scripture should be influenced by secular, left or any other wing views. My main encounters with feminists in real life have either been ‘equal pay and opportunities treat us with respect types’ (no problem) or ‘my unquestionable right to abort my unborn child, that is, pregancy tissue’ types (nothing in common with them at all).
Men are still sinful, we live in a fallen world very far gone from original righteousness, and injustice is part of that less than perfect scenario, but I do find it a bit irritating when middle-class western women bleat about how hard done by they are, when you think of what some people have to put up with on this planet.
But then I am only human and not yet perfect.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Would this be the “Godwinning” of TWW? Comparing YRRs to murderous communists? 😛Law Prof wrote:
So you seem to know exactly where I am coming from. Our Presbytery was horrible to us during the entire process, to the point of inappropriate use of Presbytery resources to assist the handful of folks who were not in favor of dissolution, intentionally misrepresenting the consequences of our split, and generally not negotiating in good faith. We ended up having to negotiate what amounted to a “ransom” payment to resolve the property ownership issue. Property which had been wholly paid for by the local congregation since oh, 1890…but remember the by laws require all property is held in trust by the Presbytery in PC(USA). This loathsome requirement is absent in denominations like EPC and ECO, figuring that you shouldn’t have to hold a gun to a church’s head to keep them.
The good news is although we lost a few members, (the vote to separate was like 93% in favor) our church seems stronger and more focused. We continue to do our local, national, and international missions and have a new focus on discipleship. And we no longer belong to a church whose website has an “Issues” section that read like a particular political party’s talking points.
Sad wrote:
Like Hitler and the Volkswagen or Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile. Just sayin’.
Sue wrote:
Excellent comment!
JYJames wrote:
JYJames wrote:
Exactly what I thought. Or Ted Bundy.
One *nice* gesture does not make the totality of a human being. It’s consistent nice, decent gestures. Piper is weird and he has done much harm.
Ken wrote:
And you conveniently omitted all of the men who demand that their wives or girlfriends get abortions.
Ken wrote:
A bit vague, Ken. Hard to know exactly what kind of “bleating” irritates you. Would you care to elaborate?
Velour wrote:
It makes you Enemies of The Plaaaaaaanet.
An even worse SIN than voting Republican.
Law Prof wrote:
For what it’s worth, my father wanted me to become a lawyer.
Reason: That’s where the Money is.
Nancy2 wrote:
Handcuffs?
Like 50 Shades of Grey with a Rule 63 genderflip?
Stan wrote:
From your link: “During the 1950’s, a group of influential evangelicals grew weary of the fundamentalists’ protest against heretical liberalism. These leaders…developed a different strategy, replacing confrontation with dialogue. The idea was to make friends with liberals and infiltrate their institutions. This was a clever tactic, but out of step with the manly, honest defense of Christianity taught in the Bible.
The movement advanced….Billy Graham stepped forward with a declaration that prominent liberals and Roman Catholic clergymen were Christian brethren.1 A magazine, Christianity Today, dedicated itself to promoting the new ideology.”
“Manly honest defense of Christianity taught in the Bible” ahahaha.
IMO, some people become deeply bored by life, not being able to see the many invitations to explore that our world offers. So they hone into a small bit of human thought and turn it into the universe (and God too!). Thus fundamentalism.
Jay wrote:
I know some folks in an old and conservative PCUSA church that had to fight their presbytery and had to come to a settlement agreement with them that seemed way out of line to me. After the church pays back any investment in the property which the prebytery or denomination have made, the church should be free to depart. I believe this church went to ECO, but it may have been EPC. Interestingly, the reason this couple joined the church is so that the wife, who has a Ph.D. in theology, can minister on an equal footing. For years she was the women’s “director” at a large church, but she was always subject to what a man wanted to do, regardless of whether that served the women. Now she is free to serve as the Lord leads, and their church is free to follow its conscience.
I find it interesting that the PCUSA as an institution champions all kinds of freedom, but freedom of conscience is not among those. It is just another kind of coercive behavior in the church where it should not be so.
Patrice wrote:
looking through a straw and they love their straw
Ken wrote:
And, likewise, we find it a bit irritating when middle-class western men bleat about how hard done by they are by unsubmissive women when you think about what women have to put up with on this planet.
I think I addressed your points about mutual submission, but if not, let me know which one(s) went unaddressed and I will try to come up with something. Likewise with any other points you think have been ignored. Not my intention at all. The multiple Kens get confusing for me.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And here, the conversation degenerates from a reasoned discussion into slander. Let’s keep the conversation above board.
Sue wrote:
Could you imagine having Mark Driscoll and John Piper on the same floor at the same time? Stranger things have happened. I work with the nursing profession, and nurses have justifiably earned very high public marks on opinion polls.
Mark wrote:
Yeah, I was surprised they picked that denom, too. Maybe because it’s larger and more influential? Might be important for Kevin because he obviously wants power, as you note. When he came to United Reformed, they’d had women as pastors for a couple of decades already, so he made a LOT of changes. For a while, he talked about “creating change from within” but apparently that didn’t work out very well lol
Ken wrote:
If you are the Ken who posted the comments below, your comments were not studiously ignored. I am trying to get my husband to buy a leash and collar for me now. Since women are so prone to deception, I think it might be in my best interest if I am physically contained. That would also mean that my husband will have much less to answer for on my behalf when he stands before the bema seat of judgement. ahahahaha
***It stikes me that Christ through his apostle is asking more of the husband here than the wife, and it is important to keep in mind that both are under authority. It’s not something either party is free to choose whether they like it or not.***
***This means the wife will give account if, rather than ‘submit’, she was assertive or semi-independent and obeyed what she learnt in her gender studies course at university at the expense of respecting her husband. To look into that holy face and find she actually displeased him in her attitude.***
***Personally, knowing the account is coming, it’s made me revisit the marriage theme so often discussed here to see if I’m getting it right. In my case I fear I may actually not have always done the ‘head’ part of the equation.***
***My comment would be that the point is not whether women make good leaders, as though leadership is all that matters, but part of the reason for the limitation on their ministry is that they are more prone to deception.***
***Why did Satan go for Eve, rather than Adam? Could it be that in some respects, women are more prone (Daisy missed the comparative there) to particular forms of spiritual attack? ***
***Why did God blame Adam for the fall of the race, and not Eve? They were both guilty, but Adam had a greater responsibility, I think derived from the order of creation; and this is Paul’s reasoning too.***
@ Ken:
All joking aside, those comments really do make me feel like I am expected to have the intelligence, behavior, and accountability of a dog, just because I fall short in the testosterone department.
Patrice wrote:
So is Kevin DeYoung someone who was called to Pastor a church that was of a certain leaning and when be couldn’t get it to change he took ‘his’ followers and left. Or, he had a large enough following that the (original) ‘others’ just left?
JYJames wrote:
“All that glitters is not gold” (Shakespeare ?)
Sallie Borrink
Right now we have no church home.
Join the club. It’s growing.
We’d just like to find a place where:
1). Iron sharpens iron because everyone submits to everyone else; i.e., where no person is considered intrinsically greater or lesser than another within the Body,
2). There is no CEO who stands in a spotlight preaching and preaching and preaching (in my experience a huge percentage of these types are sociopaths and NPDs anyway–check out the recent scholarly research from Canada on this point–stunning)
3). Leadership is shared and elders are actually elder, beyond their years of foolish ambition, actually humble, and would never, ever think they have the right to lead by compulsion, only by example, and said elders would never think they’re the final word on matters anyway, that being the province of the Body as a whole,
4). The Bible is preached as something real that contains objective and spiritual truth, not just a pious Bronze and Iron Age myth.
We can find a church without a sociopath in the pulpit where there’s some semblance of community, meeting criteria 1,2 and 3, but those churches tend to stumble over #4. Getting weary of it all.
JYJames wrote:
Ah, that’s why their argumentation is full of straw men. 😉
Velour wrote:
“Discernment of spirits” is a specific gift given to some Christians. Most church folks will say that these gifts died out in the first century church. I don’t see that recorded in Scripture and believe God is still dispensing spiritual gifts as He chooses. Lord knows “spirits” are at work in the church – we need to be open to those who can discern them and heed their warnings! Every Christian has the ability to test the spirits to see if they be from God – we should each pray for a new measure of discernment in that regard. The enemy is coming over the fence and into the camp with his aberrant theologies. We need to be able to spot him. Much of discernment is just observation – listening and watching carefully what goes on in church. We should have spotted the current “icons” coming a mile away!
Law Prof wrote:
Would have been better to say “The Bible is taught, or shared, or learned.” I’m growing to hate that word “preached”, yet there it is, still popping up in my vocabulary. These mindsets can be tough to shake. People ought to teach each other, learn from each other, on a regular basis, from greatest to least, “submit one to another”. And everyone with the Holy Spirit is qualified, on some level, to be one from whom others can learn, be it through explicit teaching or good example. “Pastor” should not be a title, a profession, it’s more a verb, something that we do for one another. Again, “submit one to another”.
Jesus said call no one teacher, leader, father, what-have-you, because there’s only one, our Father in heaven and Jesus our Lord. That’s it. I’ve had it with the usurpers and blasphemers in the pulpits who want to take titles and honors for themselves–their actions in even taking that pulpit week after week show they are either so ignorant of the implications of what Jesus said (and thus unqualified to do anything but shut up and learn from others) or they literally hate what Jesus said (and thus should be exposed and avoided).
I am so done.
Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. … Piper is from Uranus.
Ken wrote:
I have found it extremely irritating that evangelical men in the comp camp cannot seem find their way to “leadership” unless women submit to them. You guys really are giving women the power, you know, to “make” or break you as a “leader”. I find the comp position quite fascinating from a sociological pov.
Bridget wrote: So is Kevin DeYoung someone who was called to Pastor a church that was of a certain leaning and when be couldn’t get it to change he took ‘his’ followers and left. Or, he had a large enough following that the (original) ‘others’ just left?
I only know rumors (cuz living in-state), so am not sure. Rumors were that there was a coterie of disaffected members. The church called Kevin De Young (note Dutch last name–he was “one of them”) and together they evolved the church to it’s current self. Some left, same became convinced, and some denominationally disaffected joined up. I’m sure it was nasty for some but I don’t know the inside story.
The CRC and RCA went through a lot of turmoil over the last 30 years. It’s mostly calmed down but the appearance of neo-calvinism has made it more difficult in some places.
One of the bloodier issues facing churches who withdraw from their denomination is deciding who gets the church building and local missions. People have to leave behind all investment in denom missions, seminaries, colleges, etc, etc. It causes a lot of rancor, and is intensified when done in an ethnically-similar group. And the Am-Dutch are an organized and thorough bunch, so yah…
So glad I’m not involved in all that.
Law Prof wrote:
“Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment” (James 3:1). Payday someday.
@ Bridget:
Oops, that first para is yours, Bridget. Don’t know how that happened.
@ Law Prof:
\Great comment. I can relate.
Patrice wrote:
This is happening in the SBC, too. People who invested years in a church are now leaving because some YRR guys consolidated power during the honeymoon period most pastors have. Those who eventually leave had literally thought it was their church, too, along with everyone one else who invested. They thought wrong. That is not how the Neo cals approach it at all.
The Neo Cals run most of the SBC entities, now, too. they won.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, makes me wonder ….. WHERE ARE my tithes going, and how ARE they being used?
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, I continue to be amazed that the majority in SBC pews don’t have a clue about this! While they slept, key entities came under New Calvinist leadership: Southern Seminary, Southeastern Seminary, Midwestern Seminary, International Mission Board, North American Mission Board, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and LifeWay. That’s 7 of 11 primary entities. More are headed in that direction … yet, the majority millions in SBC membership are non-Calvinist and would not be in agreement with this theological takeover if they weren’t so uninformed, misinformed, or willingly ignorant!
May wrote:
I like to refer to Wilson as “Uncle Backwards”. Because that’s exactly what I think of a lot of his teachings and attitudes.
What I can’t decide is whether he’s trying to set back racial and gender relations only 100 years, or 200, or perhaps more.
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy2 wrote:
Try finding out how much money NAMB has spent on Acts 29 over the years. Seems it is impossible.
Lydia wrote:
To paraphrase a line from Ghostbusters:
“There is no Christ. There is only CALVIN.”
Snyde Clyde wrote:
C’mon. That’s not helpful.
Nancy2 wrote:
Shut up and TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!
(Sounds like that crooked Homeowners’ Association I was stuck with years ago…)
Pingback: Wednesday Link List | Christians Anonymous
Nancy2 wrote:
Whoops. My previous post quoted things Nancy2 did not write. I had the “blockquote” margins in the wrong place. My comment is:
Nancy, these are days to designate your tithes, rather than put them in the pool. Consider this … 40% of SBC’s North American Mission Board’s budget comes from Cooperative Program funds given by local churches; 50% of their budget comes from the annual Annie Armstrong Easter Offering taken up by local churches. NAMB used part of those monies to plant nearly 1,000 new churches last year; NAMB is now directing approximately 50% of its revenues (nearly $60 million!) to an aggressive church planting program. Every Southern Baptist should rejoice about new church plants … right?! However, much has been written on TWW and other watchblogs about the concerns of New Calvinism proliferation within SBC, primarily through YRR pastors at church plants. Of course, NAMB does not keep a record of the theological leaning of pastors at their church plants (so don’t try to find it), but I can tell you most, if not all, in my area are staffed with YRR. For the first time in my 60+ years as a Southern Baptist, I now eye those Annie Armstrong Easter Offering envelopes in the pew in a different light. Sad days.
Max wrote:
Or there’s “All that is gold does not glitter, not all who wander are lost….”
Max wrote:
You can read all about it at: http://www.namb.net/annualreport/
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Sounds like Maslow’s Heirarchy as in First World Problems.
Because if all you have are First World Problems (cue the Weird Al song), you’re living in a society (or at least a part of it) that’s beaten the Survival Game. You’re not spending 24/7 just trying to stay alive.
Problem is, the survival instinct is hardwired in, and if all you have left are First World Problems, you’re going to react to them with the same intensity as if they were A Matter of Life or Death.
@ Law Prof:
It’s starting to bother the missus as much as it does me, when someone refers to their pastor as “Pastor”, or “Preacher”, with no name attached.
It’s the “little things” – the little things that aren’t really little.
Max wrote:
“Today Geneva, TOMORROW THE WORLD! IT’S PREDESTINED!”
Patrice wrote:
I honestly don’t think the average CRC member in West Michigan is even aware of the Neo-Cal take over in terms of co-opting the Reformed label and turning it into something else that doesn’t resemble what it has meant for the past 160 years around here.
Chemie wrote:
Cough. Splutter. Uhhhh…John Piper who permitted Mark Driscoll to slandet and destroy the lives of countless godly Christians and did ZERO when he was asked to intercede (shunning and excommunication and firing of Paul Petry for opposing Driscoll’s unBiblical consolidation of power. Shunning of Petry family. Same Bent Meyer. On and on. Piper’s stance on domestic violence victims staying. On and on. He is so bizarre across the board he invites speculation.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
That, in itself, is scary. DeYoung is definitely of the YRR crowd and seems to have successfully acquired a congregation.
@ Velour:
Also the same John Piper who called Seattle and the congregations abused by MD “small potatoes”
With that said, he’s said, not said, done, and not done enough legitimate insanity for us to not stoop to bashing him for things he hasn’t. His “volatile sex” comment does lead one to believe he has some unresolved issues spawning some of his ideas though.
Bridget wrote:
University Reformed Church was RCA before they left, not CRC.
@ Patrice:
Someone is always hurt, sadly. I am pretty much against church property and buildings for this very reason. Most of the money poured into churches today goes to salaries and benefits and buildings/property. I’d rather meet in a house/ park/public building and have finances go to those in need in the fellowship and beyond.
IBridget wrote:
I should have also said that I can’t really speak about the RCA because we’ve avoided that denomination since we didn’t want to get sucked into the issues. My in-laws were founding members of an RCA church in the area. That church just left the RCA for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
Bridget wrote:
But where you gonna put the pulpit?? And nobody has an organ in their house no more.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I totally agree about the obsession with First World Problems. The issue with Ken’s allusion to that is that he is comparing the wrong sets. He is comparing First World Women with non-First World Women. The actual comparison we have been discussing is First World Women compared to First World Men. Whether Ken intended to or not, that minimizes the issue. And, for the record, it is the Female Subordinationists who totally ignore the atrocities committed against women in the non-First world because Target toy aisles are so mission-critical. We mutualists are not the ones who have things way out of whack.
Bridget wrote:
Great idea! It’s actually the church model that the early church launched over 2,000 years ago!
GovPappy wrote:
Every believer is a priest. Everyone can offer a song unto the Lord from the melody in their hearts.
@ GovPappy:
In times way past, the one currently known as “Pastor Bob” was known as “Brother Bob” which highlights that we are brothers and sisters with none above the others. I think the old way of doing things is a lot more like what we see described in the Bible.
Snyde Clyde wrote:
Too funny !
Ken wrote:
Oh, you’re the really ignorant Ken, yes I remember you.
GovPappy wrote:
Exactly, nowhere 😉
GovPappy wrote:
Maybe all the better (ans not because I dislike the instrument). I do like to hear voices, though. It is always good to learn to make do.
If I have not already said so on this thread, this Piper incident is yet another example of the idiocy that ensues when Female Subordinationists do or say something absolutely consistent with their doctrines. It is only when they are inconsistent or disingenuous that they seem possibly reasonable. The Target toy aisle signage is another recent example of Cuckoo Consistent Complementarianism.
Ken wrote:
Your reasons were not ignored, they were rejected because they were invalid reasons, heavily influenced not by the secular liberal culture, but by the ultraliberal complementarian culture in which you have foolishly placed yourself. I say “ultraliberal” because having been an elder at a church that was full blown complementarian, I know just how liberal they are with the Bible, how anything that doesn’t tickle their ears gets thrown out whole cloth–e.g., such as mutual submission. I know also from years of experience exactly how a (primarily) male neocalvinist complementarian tends to treat the Bible, just what levels of depravity they’re willing to reach to explain away all that doesn’t make them the boss, them the holder of the gnosis, they are, in a word, charlatans.
If a man does not mutually submit to his wife, then he is worthy of being called “Nabal” (fool), for he is very much like the Nabal of the Bible who evidently couldn’t bring himself to listen to his much-wiser wife Abigail, who finally had to take matters into her own hands, but too late to save her fool of a husband.
Ken wrote:
If you get to use the insulting “bleat” with regard to women (oh how you nail the stereotype, Ken, and are apparently not quite self aware enough to know it), do we get to use “bray” with regard to you and how “hard done” you think you are by all these egalitarians and liberal feminists and women who actually think they are equal in every way to men–as Jesus treated them as He walked among us?
Law Prof wrote:
Well it’s an improvement on last time, but I don’t think I deserve this kind of censure.
Personally, I think you are getting close to breaking the rule ‘Name calling will not be allowed’.
Disagree with me all day long, I’m not infallible and I may not always word things well, but don’t let it get personal
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Even 20 years ago it still mean something generally decent and honorable.
lydia wrote:
Yep, NAMB refers to church planting “partners”, but faisl to identify them and how they are financially linked. There are SBC church plants in my area which have dual affiliation with Acts29. SGM (C.J. Mahaney) has also had their hand in shaping SBC’s church planting program. The Village Church (re: Karen Hinkley issue) is an SBC church; its pastor Matt Chandler is also President of Acts29. And the beat goes on.
Law Prof wrote:
You have my solidarity too Law Prof. There is nothing I hate worse than the verbal cruelty some folks display when they look down their noses at others who don’t share their world view of few or no children
Gram3 wrote:
That’s a good point. It was helpful to both me and the missus when we were working out our beliefs (still are, actually) to ask “What does this even mean?” when discussing tenants of comp doctrine. When truth, love and making the right decision is the goal between us, my “headship” is just a meaningless ego trip – her “I’ll let you decide” being a meaningless step at the end of a discussion.
And that’s when everything is going well.
When I’m selfish, or she is, headship and submission looms between us as another obstacle to keeping the peace and being truly loving. It’s superfluous at best, and enabling of our selfish traits at worst.
The facade breaks down in actual practice. We discussed various things in our history and also possible conflicts that might arise and looked at them in the light of both mindsets. What you said makes total sense to me – it only makes sense when it’s not tethered to reality.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh my –that is so true!
Law Prof wrote:
I both sympathise and empathise. Try being an intellectual in the UK charismatic church or, if that doesn’t work, a broad-spectrum continuationist in the UK non-charismatic church.
All of those labels are crude and unsatisfactory (apart from “broad-spectrum”, which I like), but I’m sure you know what I mean!
Ken wrote:
Western middle class women bleating about how hard they have it– isn’t just a tad insulting?
GovPappy wrote:
Bingo!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Charisma is a wonderful thing, when it is from God. The problem with so many Charismatic churches is the Spirit has already left the building and the pastor(s) need to convince everyone it hasn’t. So, for the pastor, it involves surrounding him/herself with gullible people. People who will never notice if the Spirit left a long time ago, or the Pastor isn’t the purveyor of prophecy and charisma.
It doesn’t happen right away, but all the long time Charismatic churches are full of used-car salesmen type pastors. They are really excited and need to convince you they have the power of God, but don’t want you to look too closely. The pressure to not question the leader’s legitimacy is also huge – “touch not my anointed” puts the pastor above any sort of questioning.
It’s a great gig they have going, but it requires people willing to accept what they are claiming without question. Having intelligent people around who question them could disturb their sheep, so there is a push against anyone not “buy it”, which is really just “buy their act”.
That is my (Canadian) observation on why Charismatic churches are void of intellectuals, it is a culture that says “we believe” without question due to many false prophets running it over the decades. There are genuinely gifted pastors and leaders, and they are very unafraid, but the church culture is usually so anti-intellectual that the congregation remains very unquestioning and resistant to intellectual thinking.
Gee, he must have a very fragile ego. I’ve worked in the real world for 30+ years, and have seen every combination of women and men working, supervising, collaborating, etc. Gender stuff simply isn’t an issue.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Feel free to speak up about what Reformed part of the church you are talking about. The Young, Restless and Reformed (YRR)/Acts 29/9Marx & ILK have used “Reformed” so much in the spread of their authoritarian, abusive, comp NeoCal doctrines that many people are referring to that bunch when they speak of “Reformed”.
@ Val:
I have never been involved in any charismatic movement in my life and don’t think I have even once attended a charismatic church. YET: because of all the shenanigans out there, one hesitates to even mention gifts/Holy Spirit anymore. I think the problem is that folks don’t equate the HS with wisdom but with signs, miracles, utterances, etc.
Velour wrote:
Yes, “reformed” took on a whole new connotation when the YRR hit town. “Old” Calvinists for the most part have been fairly innocuous in word and action. While the basic tenets of their faith agree with “New” Calvinism, many of the reformed old guard do not agree with the militancy and methodology of their neo-brethren.
GC wrote:
That’s the conclusion I come to from all the comp talk about how men and women should interact “for the sake of the man’s ego” it appears.
Most of these men have NEVER or very minimally worked outside of church positions. They are in a bubble and don’t seem to know it.
Max wrote:
Max, this is what is so stupid. Acts 29, SBC church planting partner, REQUIRED that the church planters be Reformed (sorry guys that is the terminology they used) and the church be Reformed. So saying they don’t keep records of such things is a cop out.
I do not know if Baptist 21 or Sojourn have the same wording in their church planting guides/contracts/whatever they are, but I bet it has been removed although we know they are Neo Calvinists to the core. Sojourn was an Acts 29 plant and hired Mars Hill staffers after the first coup.
Lydia wrote:
Yep, Southern Baptists have essentially relegated the Holy Spirit to the back pew because they view the Spirit as something that gets on Pentecostal folks and they don’t want it on them! As a result, we have cut the Holy Spirit out of much of SB life and diminished spiritual gifts … thus, SBs have not been operating in spiritual wisdom and discernment to spot aberrant teachings when they come in the back door.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, it’s even hard to get a fix on which churches hold dual SBC and Acts29 affiliation. Last number that was made public indicated around 200 of such hybrid churches, but that was a few years ago. One can get that number by searching the Acts29 list of churches and checking their individual websites for SBC affiliation, but that is cumbersome. Following the money on church plants jointly sponsored by both groups is even more awkward. IMHO, that should be more transparent to all Southern Baptists who are bank-rolling NAMB and its church planting program.
Snyde Clyde wrote:
A little momento from classic Dr Demento:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr1Ay0jo7FM
GovPappy wrote:
Though I would like to see what Ol’ Doc Freud would make of his bizarreness.
Max wrote:
Yes. If anything the “Old” Calvinists are rather insular in their approach. They are not sending people out to take over churches and flip them to their way of thinking.
Max wrote:
Agreed, Max. Old Calvinists that I know – including in Europe (long-time church elders) are shocked by what is going on in the American church, complete with excommunications and shunnings, etc.
Corbin wrote:
In the dead of winter, a feminine dress accessorized with hiking boot, pistol, toboggan, thermal socks and underwear would be too far.
Halloween, maybe.
Max wrote:
Something of an aside here – we’ve just had tea, accompanied by a very nice Sauvignon Blanc from New Zealand that was on offer in the local Co-Op *, so I should probably wait until I’ve sobered up before attempting to post anything substantive.
Be which as it may, the aside is: the problem is not always aberrant teachings, but is more subtle: Aberrant people infiltrating the church using accurate teachings. The bulk of Marq Driskle’s theology is accurate. He’s not a false teacher primarily because he spreads false teachings. Rather, the man himself is false. He doesn’t really believe the stuff he teaches, but is savvy enough to know what will get him an audience. But I certainly agree with you in that the gift of discernment would have spotted him long ago, before he became infamous, and before he ran away from a church while under discipline because he refuses to acknowledge any authority but his own (though he may find it convenient to pass this off as “God’s authority”).
* This will be meaningful to the UK-based regulars, but for the rest: the Co-Op is a UK-wide chain of supermarkets that has been trading since 1850. Co-Op is short for “co-operative” and it was, in its inception, a local co-operative that was based on the radical principle of not exploiting the vast numbers of people impoverished in the Industrial Revolution. It is a rich and fascinating history, and quite beyond the scope of a short post, especially by somebody this pashed.
Ken wrote:
{***My comment would be that the point is not whether women make good leaders, as though leadership is all that matters, but part of the reason for the limitation on their ministry is that they are more prone to deception.***
***Why did Satan go for Eve, rather than Adam? Could it be that in some respects, women are more prone (Daisy missed the comparative there) to particular forms of spiritual attack? ***}
Ken, as a woman, I take statements like these as personal affront.
Velour wrote:
Right. Many of the “Old” Calvinists would be some of the staunchest supporters of what TWW is trying to accomplish. That’s why I find the constant harping on being Calvin worshipers, Servetus and so on ridiculous. Name me one denomination that doesn’t have skeletons in its closet. They ALL have a checkered history. Every single one of them.
We’ve been members of two CRC churches and in regular contact with another one in the past ten years. I can’t think of a single pastor in either one who would be on board with what the Neo-Cals are doing in the SBC or elsewhere via 9Marks.
I wish people here would stop vilifying some of the very people who could be helping your cause. It undermines the very thing that is being accomplished via this website.
Muff Potter wrote:
Thanks for that, appreciated. I swear to you, straight up, we don’t show disdain for those who have fewer than us. That’s one of the reasons why we can no longer stomach being in association with the quiverfull crowd (not that were were ever more than informally associated with some of them), because they simply could not get around being in idolatry of their fertility, it’s as if they’re some hybrid of Christianity and a Pagan Fertility Cult. They take one verse written to Bronze Age tribals in the Middle East and spin it out into a free standing religion. We believe, with all our hearts, that God Himself told us to relinquish control of OUR fertility, we don’t insist He demands that of everyone else. How can I know what God says to another? If fertility and lots of kids were so crucial, why didn’t Jesus marry and produce lots of offspring? Why did Paul live single and celibate for the latter part of his life? It’s not a sin to marry, so why not? God says some things to some, other things to others. We don’t try to insist that everyone does it our way.
Law Prof wrote:
And I, with my one wild child who grew up to be one hard headed woman, commend you for your courage in taking on the challenge and risks involved in having several children. I also commend you for the courage it takes to allow your children to grow into their own personalities and distinctions and not trying to force them into some preconceived mould.
Nancy2 wrote:
A lot of men have fallen for that false teaching and never repented of the damage it’s done to their sisters in Christ.
Now who’s more prone to deception?
Sallie Borrink wrote:
The only exception I can think of is the Founders Ministries within the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a group of Old Calvinists who have conducted over several years what they call a “Quiet Revolution” (they even wrote a book under that title). Their projects have included handing out reformed systematic theology textbooks on SBC seminary campuses and holding conferences to paint their picture of ABC’s history with reformed doctrine. But, it’s all been pretty upfront and straightforward … not the aggressive behavior of New Calvinists.
Max wrote:
… meant to say “SBC’s history”
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Thanks, Sallie, for explaining the differences between the old Cals and the new breed of NeoCals. While older Christians may know those differences, many younger ones in the faith – myself included – may not. Where I am located – California – we have the extreme version Acts 29/9Marx & ILK taking over.
They have done an enormous amount of damage to churches, peoples’ lives, good and godly Christians, our witness before unbelievers, and their theology is wrong.
You are correct that all denominations have their skeletons. I personally don’t hold John Calvin up as some kind of hero as he didn’t live a life like our Lord’s and Calvin did so much damage.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
I understand your point, perhaps people are being loose with their nomenclature, perhaps I’ve been at times, but I don’t see much hating on old school reformed people, garden variety Presbyterians and the like, around here.
They’re not the ones cynically infiltrating and lying and scheming hostile takeovers of churches and parachurch ministries and seminaries. They don’t tend to be much into abusing in God’s name. It’s a subset of the neocal/YRR crowd that’s causing the bulk of the damage, at least within reformed circles (and of course, it’s not just reformed, there’s plenty of damage caused in the name of God by the a subset of Arminians as well, such as some of the Pentecostal holiness crowd).
If people are doing it, they’re shooting themselves in the foot and discrediting their arguments, because likening YRR zealots to old school reformed is akin to likening the typical mentally disturbed Arminian holiness campus preacher to a kindly Methodist elder.
Nancy2 wrote:
Thanks! Not like I really have a choice, though. We’re just along for the ride. You can try to teach them your values, but their tendencies, will, stubbornness, etc., that all seems burned into them from the womb. The only thing we’re doing right, perhaps, is not teaching them to be superficial and phony. And boy have we gotten hated and in some cases slandered by the homeschoolers around here for it!
One thing I will take credit for, maybe my one cool and good dad moment, is when my eldest befriended an atheist who respected her faith but insisted that she read his favorite thinker: Christopher Hitchens. He wanted her to read (gasp) “God is Not Great”. At first I bristled and said “No way is my teenager going to read that garbage!” We had a little spat over that one. Then I got to thinking, we’ll, she’s getting to be an adult now soon, she’s going to be exposed to this sort of stuff anyway, and so after thinking it through I approached her and insisted “You’re going to read ‘God is Not Great’.” “No, daddy, really, it’s OK.” But I insisted. So we walked down to the university library, found the book and together I (open, uncloseted Christian prof at a secular state U) and my teen freshman daughter checked out Hitchens. She read it through. I braced for the worst, hoping I could counter the brilliant arguments from Hitchens that would sabotage her nascent faith. Waited about a week, then asked “So, honey, how was ‘God is Not Great’?” She said “Hitchens was a spoiled child, his arguments are ridiculous.” And now, because I stopped being fearful dad, she has a faith tested by a bit of fire and can be a more effective witness to her atheist friend.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Someone once said that heresy is an over-emphasis of a long-neglected truth. No Christian would toss aside “grace” as truth, but New Calvinists stretch grace beyond its Biblical bounds. Likewise, their teaching of the truth of God’s sovereignty is unbalanced when it comes to the role of human responsibility in accepting or rejecting the Gospel. At this point, however, I still prefer “aberrant” to “heresy” in referring to reformed theology. And I agree that cult-personalities peddling truth are definitely aberrations to God’s plan for his servants.
GovPappy wrote:
We all have our weaknesses, but those weaknesses are not defined or relegated according to who has the X chromosomes and who has the Y chromosomes. One of our duties as brothers and sisters is to strengthen one another, according to our gifts. I might add that our gifts are not defined or relegated according the X or Y chromosomes, either!
Eagle wrote:
First off I am so sorry to hear how Piper had such a horrible effect on you. I agree that even from a historic Reformed perspective, much of what he says is unbiblical, un-reformed, and at times down right dangerous. I can only imagine how difficult your journey back into the faith was, but I am encouraged that God kept his hand on you through that confusing time. Only years after breaking from his teaching can I see the dangerous subtleties in his approach – and it is especially attractive to young men who are dissatisfied with their church and Christian experience.
Piper actually is criticized in the Reformed world, but the problem is not by anyone prominent enough to gain much of a hearing. Much of his teaching (especially in his magnum opus Desiring God) is highly idiosyncratic when viewed in light of what Reformed churches have historically taught. But, one doesn’t gain much popularity in the Reformed Industrial Complex by criticizing St. Piper or calling his aberrant teaching into question, because there is a “happy center” in American Reformed Christianity that takes what the big names as near-gospel (e.g. The Gospel Coalition, T4G, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals). The current cultural moment seems to favor a Reformed flavor of evangelicalism, but those at the top have created such toxic leadership structures that this can’t and won’t last. The old boys club type relationship between these organizations, celebrity pastors and scholars, and Evangelical for-profit publishing houses has created relationships that are ripe for all kinds of corruption.
I have no problem with people writing books, or promoting books or other media, but when this happens under the guise of ‘ministry’ as opposed to the business and profit-seeking enterprise that this is I have huge problems. I realize some like Piper have donated most if not all of the proceeds from his books back into his ministries, but this is the exception to the rule. What ends up happening is much of what is passed off as “ministry” only enriches or advances the interests of powerful and highly influential Christian celebrities. Imagine how much good could be done in local churches if the millions that go into conferences and honoraria went to actual ministries in real communities and churches – I do and it angers me that there is such a vaunted, self-serving, self-congratulatory role of certain parachurch ministries.
@ Sallie Borrink:
That’s a fair point for us commenters, but I think the Deeb’s posts are pretty clearly targeted.
I’d say most of us are commenting within the context of their posts, but I do know some of us have issues with Calvinism that may bleed over. I’m becoming one of them, but I do respect the doctrine.
I haven’t been here too long, but pretty much every post I’ve seen that’s referenced Calvinism has been under the context of this new wave of crazies, not the old established gracious variety.
Nick made a good point up there about false doctrine, and false *people*, that might just be relevant here.
@ Law Prof:
Yeah, if our kids are going to learn and grow, we have to give them enough rope to hang themselves. But we need to keep them close enough so that we’ll be there just in case that rope needs to be cut!
This is just my HO as a mom and former teacher, but I think you’re doing a great job. My best students were those who were allowed the freedom to explore.
@ Nancy2:
I agree – just exaggerating for sake of making the point – putting the shoe on the other foot, as it were.
I’m one of those that tacitly consented to that doctrine for much of my life.
@ Eagle:
Thanks for the link as well Eagle, Piper would do himself and all of us a huge favor if he would curtail his social media activity. Knowing his M.O., that’s doubtful. But, so you know I have been vocally critical of Piper, and have even directly tweeted him on a few occasions. But, I am just a guy behind a keyboard, and beyond the blog circles I run in, am pretty much a nobody (and very content with that). I am glad to see Trueman taking him on – Trueman still has enough respect in the broader Reformed community to level meaningful criticism. Guys that I follow regularly like DG Hart are far too prickly and contrarian to get much of a hearing from the Gospel Industrial Complex.
Will M wrote:
Yep! Trust me, there will be no John Piper books on my daughter’s future reading lists. I wouldn’t tell her not to read him, but I certainly won’t encourage it, and if she does I would want her to read critically.
But, fortunately I don’t have to worry about that, we are still working on Goodnight Moon and The Giving Tree right now.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
Totally agree WtH, the sooner the old-school Reformed can split with the new-Calvinists the better as far as I am concerned. Let them be what they are and us be who we are without all of the acrimony in our denominations and churches.
BTW, keep up the good work on your blog, still enjoying it even though the Driscoll saga has quieted from last year.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Another point is that the Neo Cals idea of “missions” is converting “Christian” Non Cals….all over the world.
Jed Paschall wrote:
Amen! And they must cover each others’ posteriors to keep the movement moving. That’s why potty-mouth Driscoll was given so much leeway … he was good for the movement, even if some of the elites didn’t like his message and method. His antics drew in the young, restless and reformed by the thousands, exposing them to the greater New Calvinist who’s-who (and their books, of course). After awhile, Driscoll became more of a liability than an asset, and they ceased using him. But they may go crawling back to him when he reinvents himself in a new thread they want to be a part of … Charismatic Calvinism, or something of the sort.
@ Jed Paschall:
Several years ago when the church we were in hired a new Youth pastor, my daughter texted me and said, Mom! He is quoting John Piper!
:o)Jed Paschall wrote:
Check out some of the 990’s from those ministries and you won’t be so impressed. DG paid for a crew to fly to Geneva to shoot his professional retirement video. That is “ministry?.
Jed Paschall wrote:
Stay tuned! Driscoll is launching an unrepentant comeback in Phoenix. He’s been quietly reinventing himself … again.
My wife works out and lifts weights. I enjoy it quite well thank you!
P.S. – Have you ever seen Piper’s wife?
Max wrote:
This might be a topic for the ODP, but I don’t think I would include Founders in with at least the Continental Reformed crowd which is what Sallie has been talking about. In the Baptist tradition, they most resemble the Primitive Baptists with a slightly softer edge. Charleston tradition of English Baptist stock. IMO, it is a slightly different type of Calvinism that has developed a polemical edge which is due, again IMO, to the fact that they have been a minority view for so long and whose minority view is that they are the true Baptist tradition which has been lost and needs to be recovered.
Calvin and his doctrines are another issue. Sallie makes a good point. People talk about Servetus, and it is truly despicable what he did, regardless of what excuses his apologists may make. But the Calvinists now do not promote a state church just like Baptists now do not promote slavery which caused a lot of deaths as well, arguably. I would not want to be held responsible for what some of my Baptist ancestors supported. Many of them opposed slavery, but many of them supported it.
Lydia wrote:
Good Lord! I missed that. Geneva didn’t become a Christian utopia when Calvin was there … I’m sure that fine city didn’t even notice Piper and his retirement entourage. If he is “retired”, why is he still complaining about muscular women?
@ Lydia:
Yikes!! What happened to a cake reception and a reasonably priced watch?
Lydia wrote:
It is if you’re making a claim to the Throne of Calvin.
Somewhereintime wrote:
Does he even have one?
Never heard whether he’s married or not.
@ Gram3:
Agreed. Getting a fix on the aspirations of “Old” Calvinists, of whatever flavor, is tougher than the in-your-face YRR crowd. With 40,000 Christian denominations and organizations on planet earth (according to Christianity Today), it’s getting increasingly difficult to get a true read on any of the brethren!
Lydia wrote:
Does Desiring God file a 990? 9Marks doesn’t. I guess I assumed that DG hid behind Bethlehem’s exemption. Do not get me started on what constitutes “ministry expense.” OTOH, becoming Apostle to the World is not without cost. Plus you need to knock down towers in Dubai and watch all the riverfronts for kids making out and monitor bridges and nearby activities which might cause them to fall, and the National Weather Service for tornado activity. That costs some serious moolah.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
http://noelpiper.com/about/
^John Piper’s wife, Noel.
Velour wrote:
I just googled her and looked at some photos. I think she could pin her hubby to the mat and hold him for the count, if she was of a mind to do so!
__ Lydia,
For Piper's christian status' que, the spiritual subservience of women — is 'ministry'? —
@ Law Prof:
Bravo! 🙂 —
I’m just going to be nice and not make any comments that I’ll need to repent from….
Is it me or does Piper just sound like a creeper?
“Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive. It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.”
Can someone check this guys hard drive please?
Nancy2 wrote:
As you should, Nancy. Some men like to take smug, person shots at a person’s womanhood (or personal attribute of theirs) and use words like “bleat” to describe their complaints (you dumb little lamb, you), and then play the aggrieved victim when the one whom they just demeaned takes it personally. I have no time for that stuff which I will not describe here with the sort of words appropriate to it, because I don’t want to dump my post into moderation.
What I would like to know from Ken is why Adam, and not Eve, was the one who needed a helper? And why would anyone make up such a twisted theology such that the one who needs the help is superior to the one providing it? I teach students, have taught many thousands over the last decade plus. I am their helper, their “ezer”, so to speak, just as Eve was to Adam. Am I, with two decades of knowledge in my discipline, under them? The Lord Himself is described as our “ezer”, same as Eve, all over the Old Testament.
It has been my experience that men are usually less wise, less aware of their own motivations, less self aware in general, more prone to fantastically stupid arrogance, more general trouble to themselves and others, than women. I have seen so many bachelors go to seed versus unmarried women that the truth of this maxim just slaps me in the face: men typically need women in a way that women seldom need men. This does not mean that men are inferior, but they are almost undeniably, as a rule, more in need of guidance, their ezer.
The reason that most complementarians, neocalvinists, ultraliteralist fundamentalists, the John Pipers, Mark Driscolls, Doug Phillips, Bill Gothards and other abusers and assorted crackpots get so off base, so ugly and distorted, is in my opinion in large part because they cut themselves off from their ezer.
Nancy2 wrote:
She is no shrinking violet
Somewhereintime wrote:
Malware? Think there’s been a breach in his firewall? Is it piggybacking to other hard drives?
Nancy2 wrote:
Thanks for saying it. I don’t know, I do a pretty crummy job much of the time. I just hope I’m not the reason they reject Jesus.
Somewhereintime wrote:
Just checked. It was NEVER ISSUED!
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy2,
In Piper-talk “Malware” = Female
Somewhereintime wrote:
We just need H.U.G. to give us an appropriate youtube music video.
Law Prof wrote:
I’d vote Professor in as a church elder any day.
How do you look in a pair of skinny jeans and a beard? How’s your ESV game? Do you have a passable “caring elder” tone you can use?
Velour wrote:
“Jeepers, creepers, where’d ya get those Peepers”?
GovPappy wrote:
Pappy, Pappy, Pappy,
According to Article XXXXXXXI, Paragraph A., Sentence 6(a) of your Binding Gulag NeoCal Church Membership Covenant, you are NOT permitted to vote for ANY church elder.
Just do as you are told and keep giving The Gulag your weekly offerings, attend all “optional” MANDATORY church Care Groups, Sunday Schools, Bible Studies, Functions, Meals, Prayer Groups, etc.
Nancy2 wrote:
Girl, you are FAST on the draw!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That’s exactly how my husband felt at Bethlehem Bapt. Sunday preaching sounded OK (at the time) but my husband discerned a lived disconnect so we didn’t stick around.
Velour wrote:
What is a ” world Christian?”
Have I missed something again?
@ Velour:
Piper failed at his original career goals? You don’t say.
K.D. wrote:
Ahh yes, under Noel’s description by her picture. I’m thinking a “world Christian” right now means being in Geneva, Switzerland, for John Piper’s retirement.
It’s hard being a “world Christian”. There’s the First Class flights to other countries to travel one to be a “world Christian”. Time differences from home/jet lag. Getting used to a new 5-start hotel bed, having to figure out a new room service menu, and on and on. It’s a real challenge to be a “world Christian”. There’s switching your American dollars into Euros. The math. There’s a lot to it.
Val wrote:
God protects us from false prophets with, for one, the gift of discernment. The Acts 5 chilling account of Ananias and Sapphira demonstrates God keeping his church holy. 1 Cor 12, Rom 12, & Eph 4 = 18 or 19 gifts to realize church. I always pray to have all activated in my life. They are God’s promised gift(s).
Nancy2 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0lgswGOgrs
(Hard to find the oldie; most returns are of the horror movie.)
Somewhereintime wrote:
I’ve linked Josie Cotton’s “Johnny, Are You Queer?” too many times in response to that one….
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Thanks Nancy2 for the song suggestion and H.U.G. for posting the classic!
@ Velour:
Child free /childless women get hit with comments, criticisms, and questions all the time about having zero kids. People always want to know why you never had kids, sometimes they assume you hate kids, or whatever. All kinds of assumptions or put downs.
Max wrote:
And most Southern Baptists are not Calvinists. If they only knew ? Now this sounds like a takeover . I just wonder if neo Calvinism is impacting other denominations to a similar degree? There is another baptist denomination, the GARBC, that had also been going through a Calvinist revival, and some of its theologians have close ties to Al Mohler. We may hear about this due to secondary separation issues, and they tend towards the insular.
Nancy2 wrote:
Just to let people know that the bizarre teaching of the complementarians is not limited to Piper, we bring you the lead article from the TGC site:
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/should-women-wear-head-coverings
If any one questions why some on here get a little bit worked up about the teachings of the YRR complementarians, take a look. You see, even though(according to the author) both the I Timothy 2 and the 2 Corinthians 11 passage make appeals to creation, the first is universal while the second is cultural. You see that in the first, Paul’s prohibition of women being elders and teaching is directly tied to creation. His direct point is that women should not be teaching men. While in 2 Corinthians his wanting women to cover their heads is based on and indirect appeal to creation. His appeal to creation “explains how man is the image and glory of God, and how the woman is the glory of man.” Voila, thus the fact that they see head coverings as not mandated, does not nullify their views on women teaching men.
Maybe just a little eisegesis? Does anyone see why women might be a little bit suspicious of what is going on? Men should be too. And, I find the whole TGC bunch just a tad weird.
Lydia wrote:
The new reformation.
Barb Orlowski wrote:
Thank you for the book suggestion. I’ll try to get a copy some day.
Barb Orlowski wrote (quoting book author):
Yep. Exactly that.
Will M wrote:
Thank you, Will. May your tribe increase.
Will M wrote:
His appeal to creation “explains how man is the image and glory of God, and how the woman is the glory of man.”
What? What? What?! Those of us fellows in the real world figured out at age 19 or 20 what’s wrong with the “I have a girlfriend so I’m better than you” mindset.
Ken wrote:
But it absolutely does teach mutual submission.
Jesus says to all believers that all are to serve each other, not one group (men) are above another group (women).
Also, Eph 5.21 (which is written to all) says:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”
The Bible says, “submit to one another…”
It does not say, “Only women submit, and to men”
Ken said:
Yet you kind of refuse to see that even your smiley, “happy face” version of gender comp still hurts women, as it hurt me.
I’ve explained why and how gender comp has harmed me on previous threads until I am blue in the face.
In even older threads, I’ve explained how I saw examples in the Bible that don’t fit the gender comp view, (for example, Deborah in the OT led men into battle).
Gram3 has also explained to you on the last thread how gender comp hurts women…
…(including how the undue emphasis on child bearing demeans childless and child free women, yet you have blinders on and refuse to understand how or why your views harm and insult women).
Also, even your smiley face version of gender comp is un-biblical, as it’s the same thing as codependency, which the Bible sometimes refers to as “the fear of man,” and by using other phrases and examples.
And the Bible asks us to not fall prey to being codependent, because it turns us away from God and to human leadership (turns man into an idol), and it makes us vulnerable to being used and abused by dishonest people.
Ken said,
And I do not determine the meaning of Scripture by culture or left wing view (if this is what you’re suggesting?)…
…but ironically, you do, and you are.
You continue to point to disagreements you have with feminists to somehow bolster your gender comp interpretations of the Bible.
(I take it you assume if all the world were gender complementarian, all of society’s ills would go away, there would be no more abortion on demand, etc.?
Gender comp is not a full proof cure for societal problems… most cultures have been under a gender comp view for centuries. Gender comp is the status quo; it is not counter-cultural.)
You don’t always use the Bible to explain your views, but keep pointing to left wing feminists in many of your posts.
I’m not left wing nor a feminist, so I don’t know why you keep bringing them up in posts to me or to Gram3, either (Gram3 has told you several times she is not a feminist and adheres to conservative views.)
I have no idea how pointing to how feminists are supposedly wrong on whatever topic proves gender comp is true, or that all women every where should have kids (which the Bible does not teach, by the way).
Ken said,
This is irrelevant. I am not a feminist.
Disputing feminist views, practices, and beliefs does not prove or demonstrate the gender comp is biblical and true.
Ken said,
I’m pretty sure you’re the same Ken.
Please see:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/27/complementarians-or-eternal-female-subordinationists-why-i-still-dont-get-it/comment-page-4/#comment-215440
Stan wrote:
Keep in mind that this man is not any ordinary man. He is a professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is the level of “exegesis” and “logic” that our young Baptist seminarians are being taught. This article is so poorly reasoned with so many fallacies and unsupported assertions, that I wonder if there is a mole at JETS who is trying to make them look ridiculous.
@ Will M:
What’s even scarier is the comments!! Sounds like TGC wants to reinstitute head coverings. I think they need to read to the end of the chapter.
Velour wrote:
I read something about this months ago.
There was a group of guys online who promote abortion – they go by some term, like “bro abortionists” or something – they want abortion to be legal so that they can drive their girlfriends to get abortions.
These are guys who want cheap, easy sex but don’t want any of the responsibilities of fatherhood.
A few months ago, I saw some Christian web page or news story about some campaign about Christian men who posted their stories. They had gotten their GFs or wives to get abortions and were now on camera, some crying about it, saying they now regret it.
So yes, sometimes men pressure women into getting pregnant.
I think I’ve read in articles before that women in violent relationships get beat up the most while pregnant. The violence escalates while they are pregnant. I don’t remember why that is.
Daisy wrote:
I meant, to get abortions.
Oooh, but I have read of controlling abusive guys who do trick women into getting pregnant, they sabotage the GF’s birth control, etc. They do it to keep the woman hanging on.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Your father sounds like my father. My dad tossed that out at me, or he suggested I become a doctor.
(But that was only after first suggesting I MARRY a lawyer or doctor.)
Bridget wrote:
Yes, Bridget, that is correct. And Nancy2 and I have some advance planning to meet this growing market for the NeoCal’s “War on Women” – known across the internet as “Shehad” (pronoun She + Had, sounds like Jihad).
Yes, we will be marketing a whole line of NeoCal products, stockades, kindling, stakes (for burning people), and of course NeoCal Burkas. We call them Hotel NeoCalifornia.
I am the brains behind the product line; Nancy2 will be sewing them into the night.
Sincerely,
Velour, Vice-President of
Product Development
at Shehad
Will M wrote:
What kind of covering was Eve wearing when God brought her to Adam?
Velour wrote:
Yeah, Hotel NeoCalifornia leaves me in stitches!
Bridget wrote:
Not surprised by the comments at all. There were women who covered at the last two churches where we were members. There is a headcovering movement. Once you institute a system with outward signals of sanctification, people will adopt the outward signals. So, in Quiverfull, you have a van full of kids. In headcovering circles you have women who cover their hair to “demonstrate their submission.” Whatever happened to the idea that God looks on the heart and that we are not to judge by outward appearances? I certainly hope none of these people ever braid their little girls’ hair or wear braids themselves or pearl earrings or gold wedding bands. Or expensive clothes that did not come from the thrift store. If it did not compromise the pure grace of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit this would be just silly. Did anyone ever settle how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
Nancy2 wrote:
I hear you. But this stuff falls on deaf ears with Ken.
Ken has seemingly been unsympathetic and mostly unresponsive to how gend comp plays out in real life, the dangers it can and does pose to women, etc., the times I’ve brought it up on previous threads.
Ken is not personally affected by gender comp (and all it implies), so he is blind to how it is insulting and harmful to women.
Bridget wrote:
For sure! They’d discover that it’s not a shame for men to have long hair since it was required for a Nazarite vow. And Absolom’s hair weighed nearly 5 lbs. when he cut it and he was considered very handsome!
Gram3 wrote:
I wish this were the case. Max and Lydia can give everyone a little bit of a primer on what has happened to reason and common sense in the Baptist world.
And, if you peruse the TGC on a regular basis, you will see that reason and logic are not necessary for having an article published there. Agreeing with their doctrine is (which often contradicts reason and logic). Here is another wonderful article from their site today:
http://9marks.org/article/congregationalism-doesnt-stop-at-8-p-m/
This one is written by some kid. He is a PhD candidate. From his picture, he seems real young. He is talking about life within the congregation. How much experience does he have with “church life”. Has he had friends (pastors and members) abused by the church? Has he seen the struggles that people go through in the church. He has an MDiv and is now going for his PhD. How long has he been at Third Avenue? Will he stay there? He says,”All of the good and necessary “stuff” that’s part and parcel of church life are ultimately expressions of the church’s doctrinal commitments.” Once again doctrine triumphs. There are so many very young men in the SBC and other groups, who are making definitive statements about doctrine, discipline, church life. Do, they not see that leaning on some of the older people who have struggled with life might help inform their views of church life? The logical thing would be to incorporate the thoughts of the older members, but no we get a whippersnapper to talk about this stuff.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, I’ve picked up on this too recently.
It’s weird. Gender comps won’t allow women to have formally recognized power, but yet, they end up giving women a lot of unofficial power in other ways.
For example, (according to comps), men are easily led astray by hot women. Women can make a man fall just by flashing a bare ankle. If guys are that weak to a woman, so easily enticed and incapable of self control, maybe men should not be teachers or preachers.
And in the manner you speak of, that is true, too. In order for them to be the “leaders,” they need another class or group to be subordinate to them, which is usually women.
Bridget wrote:
They don’t read to the point where Paul sums up the point of his argument. They start with “headship” where they assume that “head” means “authority over” and then we are off to the races with nary a look back at what the structure of Paul’s argument is or how the culture of the early churches might inform our interpretation or any of these things.
Start with “authority over” and end with “authority over.” This is also where they get their notion of the Eternal Subordination of the Son. Except that Paul does not mention Father-Son. This is “source” or “came from” language, not boss language. Also, this is where Bruce Ware gets his notion that the woman is created in a derivative image of God. Because she was created from the man and is the glory of the man. But man is the glory of God.
Nancy2 wrote:
And I almost forgot. Our slogan is, “We’ve got you covered – from head to toe.”