John Piper And Friends Tripping on the ‘Masculine Feel’ of Christianity

"Golden living dreams of visions; Mystic crystal revelation And the mind's true liberation." Hair link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=153204&picture=rainbow
Rainbow


  Peace

Brothers and sisters, put on your bell bottom jeans, leather peace necklace, Birkenstocks and let's travel back to those heavy days of hippies, Woodstock, Nehru collars and LSD fueled trips. I promise it will be groovy. Here is some music just to get you in the mood. 

Piper's unusual thoughts on all sorts of things, just to get you warmed up.

Are you feeling it yet? You need to be in the mood to deal with what we are going to lay on you! We all know that John Piper does not dig: 

 Whoa, this is getting to be a bummer. Time to chill.

I'm back in the groove again

Piper in the sky with diamonds and feminine feels

Now, our dear bro from England, home of the Beatles, DaveAA turned us onto Piper tripping on the whole dude/chick thing. Darrin Patrick, Doug Wilson, Crawford Loritts groove along with his mystic crystal revelations. DaveAA, man, cool. We all need to prepare ourselves to get into this far out groove. From More on thed Masculine Feel of Christianity (2012 Desiring God)

If it is done right, this masculine feel creates a space. It is big, it's roomy, it's beautiful, it's peaceful. It's just full and radiates with all the good things of life and in it women, flourishing, will give it that feel. So that as you walk in on Sunday morning and strong singing, led primarily by men, and then a voice from God is heard, and women are loving this, they're radiant, they're intelligent, they're understanding, they're processing, they're interacting. Then all the gifts that were just articulated will flourish in that space. And as you navigate that community there will be feminine feels all over the place.

Thoughts:

  • What are these feminine feels going on all over the place? We may be hip but we are not into orgies. There are safe feels and unsafe feels. I hope these are the safe kind.
  • The masculine feel creates a space: beautiful, roomy, peaceful. Didn't Timothy Leary get down with this vision decades ago?
  • So, dudes are the ones who are primarily in charge of the singing? What would Joni Mitchell, Mama Cass, and Linda Ronstadt think? Do dudes sing the Magnificat as well, just like in the Bible? Bummer, it was a female who sang that one.
  • When the dudes are leading the singing, the chicks can flourish process, interact and become radiant. This is quite a trip. Is it legal?

Men can be feminine and women can be masculine.

Piper continues the revelation by saying that men can be feminine. Whoa, this is getting interesting. Do any of you have any idea what he's seeing?

 One of the things I would have said is that in a community where there is a secure, strong, humble, masculine feel, men are free to be appropriately feminine. And women are free to be appropriately masculine. In other words, when you look at any given human being, the most attractive, interesting, winsome human beings are not all masculine or all feminine. 

Watch to the end where John Piper talks about playing football when he was growing up 😉 Pay particular attention to Crawford Loritts' expression! 

Thoughts from the Twitterverse

Here are some responses to the tweet I sent out with a quote from Piper in this post.











 

I leave you with two videos. One is a final, deeply theological assessment of Piper's comments. The other is Piper's entire video.

Oh yeah-Peace Out!

Entire video – John Piper's remarks come at the 5-1/2 minute mark


Comments

John Piper And Friends Tripping on the ‘Masculine Feel’ of Christianity — 685 Comments

  1. dee wrote:

    eWhyNot? wrote:
    The vast majority of women at Grace saw motherhood as the highest office, as well as gateway to advancing them in wo

    I can empathise with you as a single man. I once saw a Christian book on Fatherhood which said “Fatherhood is man’s highest achievement”. It made me like a worthless failure!

  2. Darlene wrote:

    Further, should persons in their congregations be struggling with sexual temptation, the remedy is to go out and find someone to marry as QUICKLY as possible, just so those sexual urges can be satisfied.

    This is called a “Marriage of Continence” — a marriage entered into purely to legalize the sex. It does not sound like a good idea for the long term.

  3. Max wrote:

    mot wrote:

    The only way to stop it is to quit feeding it money.

    Discerning SBC churches are already bypassing the “Cooperative Program” and supporting missions and missionaries directly.

    I have seen where you have tried to engage with Rick Patrick at SBC today about the fact that the SBC is already Calvinized. Rick wishes to deny it, but I believe you are the one that is correct, Max.

  4. Velour wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    I wonder how many married people even bother to find out what kind of situation single people are in before expecting them to be maids and babysitters without pay.

    A woman at my ex-church volunteered my time to parents to take care of their children, without my knowledge, permission, or consent. I was getting up at 3:30 a.m. for my job, commuting, working a full-time job, going to night classes at college, earning straight A’s, and I had NO free time.

    Parents then asked me about taking care of their children, I was publicly embarrassed and humiliated when I was put on the spot and I had to apologize that “So sorry, no free time. Must be a misunderstanding.” Then the parents were angry with me, not with the woman who promised my time.

    There’s something to be said for boundaries.

    AND for Camp Backbone

  5. ishy wrote:

    I’m pretty sure the wacko, authoritarian misogynists haven’t spent one second considering that they may be causing more crazy liberal feminists.

    Ain’t that the truth!

  6. Lea wrote:

    Seriously. Never identified as a feminist but if one of these goobers called me one I would say ‘yep’. I honestly thought the people who were talking about patriarchy were making stuff up, because in my regular life people don’t generally talk like this. And then I come here and read this stuff and wow.

    You ain’t seen nothing yet until you go over to Wilson’s Blog and Mablog. That’s patriarchy on steroids. I think many of those men who comment there – the Doug sycophants – must be very insecure. They’re always acting like their masculinity is being threatened by the feminists. Why there’s a FEMINIST behind every rock. Watch out boyz! 😉

  7. mot wrote:

    I have seen where you have tried to engage with Rick Patrick at SBC today about the fact that the SBC is already Calvinized. Rick wishes to deny it, but I believe you are the one that is correct, Max.

    I was young and now am old … along the way, I’ve developed a little wisdom about things. Whoever controls the SBC machinery can control the destiny of the denomination for years to come. We saw it in the conservative vs. liberal mess several years ago, and we are seeing it again in the “Traditional” vs. “New Calvinist” rift. As Rick pointed out in his article, New Calvinist leaders now control most SBC entities (all with direct ties to Al Mohler, which is not accidental IMO). Whoever controls the seminaries, mission agencies, and publishing house can control the theological trajectory of the denomination … the New Calvinists are at the wheel now – it cannot be denied, they lead key agencies.

    In my SBC Today comments, I shared my perspective based on what I’m seeing in my area in Missouri. Several SBC church plants here are predominantly staffed by the young, restless and reformed. Additionally, I can take you to a nearby long-established traditional SBC church which was recently taken over by a New Calvinist pastor who deceived his way past the pastor search committee to gain control of the church. Various TWW commenters report of similar problems in their regions; other watchblogs have dealt with this. Rick Patrick pastors a church in Alabama – traditional churches there appear to be holding the new reformers at bay and New Calvinist church planters are not as active in that region … so Rick has a different perspective on things from where he sits. I understand that; but Calvinization of the SBC and other denominations continues nevertheless.

  8. Darlene wrote:

    They’re always acting like their masculinity is being threatened by the feminists. Why there’s a FEMINIST behind every rock. Watch out boyz!

    They cannot handle women, so they try to make them into ‘the girls’.

  9. The thing about being single is you can’t share tasks. You have to do all the washing, cleaning, grass cutting, everything. Single parents have it the worst.

  10. Max wrote:

    I was young and now am old … along the way, I’ve developed a little wisdom about things. Whoever controls the SBC machinery can control the destiny of the denomination for years to come.

    COMRADE O’BRIAN, INNER PARTY: There is a Party slogan about the past. RECITE!
    6079 SMITH W, OUTER PARTY: Whoever controls the Past controls the Future. Whoever controls the Present controls the Past.

  11. R2 wrote:

    The thing about being single is you can’t share tasks. You have to do all the washing, cleaning, grass cutting, everything. Single parents have it the worst.

    Don’t forget the 168-hour workweek so beloved of bosses. INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY! MULTITASKING!

    And all the marrieds assume you have all this free time and nothing to do with it except party every day and night.

  12. Christiane wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Atwater’s ‘The Handmaid’ ….. terrifyingly prophetic?

    I always thought Atwater based her dystopia on a Christianized version of Iran.

    Turns out she based it on IFB-style abusive church culture and the Take Back America/Christian Nation activists.

    And I’ve been calling MenaGAWD like The Two Douggies (and maybe Piper) “wannabe Commanders of Holy Gilead”.

  13. ishy wrote:

    SureWhyNot? wrote:
    And the single young women, of course, always seemed to do a lot of free-babysitting for the wives in leadership.

    I had a friend some time ago that did a lot of free babysitting, and she convinced me to do it in her place one time when she couldn’t make it at the last minute. She told me that they just needed so much help, and us singles should be willing to give all our free time to help those in need. My friend was barely making ends meet at the time, and I remember her repeated prayer requests for financial stability.
    So, I go over to these people’s half-million dollar house and find out the mom (who only had 1 child) wasn’t even going anywhere, she just wanted someone to help with chores. I had a full-time job at the time, and was going to school on the side. Now, I give stay-at-home moms lots of credit, but in this instance, this lady didn’t need one shred of help, and they clearly could afford to pay for help, especially to someone who really needed it.
    I wonder how many married people even bother to find out what kind of situation single people are in before expecting them to be maids and babysitters without pay.

    Oh goodness. That is disturbing and sad.

  14. R2 wrote:

    The thing about being single is you can’t share tasks. You have to do all the washing, cleaning, grass cutting, everything. Single parents have it the worst.

    And if you are a caregiver. I remember some people in a women’s ministry pressuring me to participate when my dad had cancer. I told them I couldn’t, since I was working from home and working on my teaching certification along with shuttling him to appointments daily. They kept pressuring me, and saying stuff like, “You can make time for God. You’re single; you have free time.” That church was pretty far from my house, and it just wasn’t feasible. They didn’t really ever get that being single does not mean I have loads of free time, and I got the impression that several leaders there were convinced I was just a slacker.

  15. @ MidwesternEasterner:

    SBC Guidestone.

    https://www.guidestone.org

    I don’t blame them either. If SBC church’s fail, they won’t get bailed out or have a gov guaranteed pension. This is tough on 50 something people, like those SBC career missionaries, who have quietly gone about their work but Platt makes them an offer they can’t refuse or its worse for them.

  16. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Whoever controls the Past controls the Future. Whoever controls the Present controls the Past.

    A very relevant quote to SBC’s situation. While the SBC may have been founded by slave-holding Calvinists in the South prior to the Civil War, Southern Baptists started distancing themselves from that theology after the War. Non-Calvinist belief and practice prevailed for the next 150 years, until the New Calvinists appeared to take the denomination back to its roots … without asking millions of Southern Baptists if they wanted to go! But, since they now control the Past through reformed indoctrination at SBC seminaries, they will control the Future pulpit and are already having an impact on the Present.

  17. Patricia Hanlon wrote:

    @ ishy:
    Please reassure me that this is your FORMER church.

    Yes, I left that church several years ago due to that and several other issues. Now I left elsewhere, so it doesn’t matter anyway. I think as it became a megachurch they began to think more in numbers instead of spiritual growth, and it saddened me.

  18. ishy wrote:

    They kept pressuring me, and saying stuff like, “You can make time for God. You’re single; you have free time.”

    Just like bosses who believe in the 168-hour workweek.
    “You’re single, you don’t have a wife & kids, you have the time, you can work more hours, you can work weekends, you can work from home whenever you’re not here…”

  19. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Just like bosses who believe in the 168-hour workweek.

    Julie Anne linked an article by a pastor who listed all the bad reasons you could miss church, and one of them was recently having had a baby! In the comments he defends this by saying he knows people who came back a week (A WEEK!) after having a baby, so it’s not un-reasonable. But it’s just another judgy, I know better than you, way of looking at things. When the alternative is treating you like an adult who can make your own decisions.

    The main problem here is that they think they own your time, and that they are the ones who should decide what is reasonable. Even a job gives you time off, though!

  20. Lea wrote:

    When the alternative is treating you like an adult who can make your own decisions.
    The main problem here is that they think they own your time, and that they are the ones who should decide what is reasonable. Even a job gives you time off, though!

    Especially when the most opinionated ones are people who do have a lot of time, or they get paid to be at the church. “Well, I’m paid to be here, so everybody else should be here, too.” Oh, are you going to pay me to come? Many of those people don’t get it after conversations about boundaries, and they seem to think I’m a little kid because I’m not married. I may not have kids, but I have an elderly parent who needs a lot of help, along with a job. My church now is great about it, but among the churches I’ve gone to, it’s rare to be treated like I can decide for myself.

  21. ishy wrote:

    or they get paid to be at the church. “Well, I’m paid to be here, so everybody else should be here, too.” Oh, are you going to pay me to come?

    Seriously! And look at places like Gateway, the pastor is out half the time anyways and he gets paid to be there. Why can’t parishioners do the same?

    And then they want to get on people who go on vacation on sunday. That’s because they are off work and only get so many days off?

  22. Lea wrote:

    Julie Anne linked an article by a pastor who listed all the bad reasons you could miss church, and one of them was recently having had a baby! In the comments he defends this by saying he knows people who came back a week (A WEEK!) after having a baby, so it’s not un-reasonable. But it’s just another judgy, I know better than you, way of looking at things. When the alternative is treating you like an adult who can make your own decisions.

    I know a very committed young lady who gave birth to her first child just as flu/stomach viruses began going around. She waited 2 months before she came to church with the baby. I can’t say that I blame her one bit. Some of these viruses can be deadly to newborns.

  23. Here’s a Scripture for that pastor to read if he ever takes a break from making lists:

    (from the first chapter of I Samuel)

    “she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD. And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and his vow. But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned”

  24. Jerome wrote:

    Here’s a Scripture for that pastor to read if he ever takes a break from making lists:
    (from the first chapter of I Samuel)
    “she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD. And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and his vow. But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned”

    That practice continued into the early church as well; it was normal for mothers to recover at home for 40 days.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churching_of_women

  25. Piper from OP: “If it is done right, this masculine feel creates a space”

    If it is done right?
    There’s the rub.
    How is it done right?
    Who gets to define what doing it right is?
    Or better, I should ask, who gets to say what God’s definition is?
    And if all these churches are doing it right, by their own or by supposed God’s definition, why is there so much going wrong? Why are things spiraling out of control so badly in so many churches?

    As has been said so many times before, Piper uses so many words to perpetuate his fantasy concerning gender. But they are only words. Wind.
    Does he forget that he who sows to the wind will reap a whirlwind.

    I know. Kind of late for a comment like this. But lately I’ve been seeing a lot of female spaces being done right and accomplishing much, no man involved. These female spaces are light years ahead of the huge messes we see happening in these man spaces.

    I may have to do a blog post on the beautiful female spaces I’ve seen lately untainted by the masculine feels that Piper promotes.

  26. Mara wrote:

    Who gets to define what doing it right is?

    Whoever has POWER.

    “Some will say that what we do is illegal. Before that can happen, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
    — L Ron Hubbard

  27. Jerome wrote:

    But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned”

    Good one! Some guy in the comment section was harping about Mary going to the temple to get Jesus circumcised! Like that’s the same thing.

  28. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Mara wrote:
    Who gets to define what doing it right is?
    Whoever has POWER.
    “Some will say that what we do is illegal. Before that can happen, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
    — L Ron Hubbard

    L Ron Hubbard – Scientology – cult and for the past year, I can’t help but draw the comparisons from some of the beliefs and practices of the higher ups in Calvinism and Scientology. Calvinists seem to thrive on overcomplicating and picking to death the most basic of Scripture until it looks and sounds like something else. They are deep into the contemplative and give the vibe that they have achieved a higher plane of spiritual knowledge simply by being Calvinists. it’s bizarre that the comparisons between the two show systems that are eerily similar…and this doesn’t even touch on the membership contracts.

  29. waking up wrote:

    and this doesn’t even touch on the membership contracts.

    I really hope that The Wartburg Watch will have LawProf, Mirele, An Attorney and others write some kind of article about how 9Marxists, Mark Dever, Jonathan Leeman, and others in NeoCalvinism are violating U.S. laws and appellate court rulings: that religious associations are voluntary and that people can actually leave churches (which abusive, authoritarian NeoCalvinists insist that they can’t).

  30. waking up wrote:

    They are deep into the contemplative and give the vibe that they have achieved a higher plane of spiritual knowledge simply by being Calvinists. it’s bizarre that the comparisons between the two show systems that are eerily similar…and this doesn’t even touch on the membership contracts.

    I think both are just a result of extreme narcissism. What’s really sad is the number of people that get bilked into them.

  31. Nancy2 wrote:

    Mara wrote:

    Who gets to define what doing it right is?

    Insecure men.

    I remember back in the 80’s and 90’s the drum beat by the FUNDAMENTALIST we have to get rid of the ‘liberals” and those that will not say the scriptures are inerrant. The Southern Baptist Convention was thrown into an upheaval and many good people were forced out and some just left.

    I think the condition of the SBC is much worse now after all the “liberals” and those that would not say the scriptures were inerrant are gone and the Neo-Cals are in charge.

  32. mot wrote:

    those that will not say the scriptures are inerrant

    And let’s not forget that the men who came up with this phrase and the Chicago Statement: believe in the overthrow in the U.S. government, believe that ten “Christian men” from each local area should take over, believe in “slavery for non-Christians” (which is apparently anyone not in lockstep with their beliefs), believe in an American society that functions like a Biblical Patriarchy, deny that the Holocaust took place, and hate the Jewish people.

    No, just no to all of it.

    These men were only looking for ratification of their own sick and twisted beliefs.

  33. Mara wrote:

    How is it done right?
    Who gets to define what doing it right is?
    Or better, I should ask, who gets to say what God’s definition is?

    Best question ever! Thank you, MARA

    here is what I believe may have meaning for some:
    “”Deep within his conscience,
    man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.
    Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . .
    For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . .
    His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary.
    There he is alone
    with God Whose Voice echoes in his depths.”

    ‘Authority’ may teach, it may offer guidance, and give direction, but for a Christian person, no ‘authority’ can ever take the place of his or her own moral conscience.
    Perhaps for many who are not of my faith, there is little or no recognition of the supreme importance of informed ‘conscience’ as moral guide, within the whole tradition of mainstream Christianity.

    Samuel Clemens, who wrote under the name of ‘Mark Twain’ once cautioned people, this:
    “re-examine all you have been told in school or church or in any book, and dismiss whatever insults your own soul”

    Perhaps he had a insight that might prove useful in our own time,
    when we are pulled this-way and that by so many who would decide for us too many things,
    and if we let them decide for us, our own hearts must ‘look away’. By our gift of moral conscience, we were formed by God Himself to be better than that.

  34. Velour wrote:

    mot wrote:

    those that will not say the scriptures are inerrant

    And let’s not forget that the men who came up with this phrase and the Chicago Statement: believe in the overthrow in the U.S. government, believe that ten “Christian men” from each local area should take over, believe in “slavery for non-Christians” (which is apparently anyone not in lockstep with their beliefs), believe in an American society that functions like a Biblical Patriarchy, deny that the Holocaust took place, and hate the Jewish people.

    No, just no to all of it.

    These men were only looking for ratification of their own sick and twisted beliefs.

    What people in the pews do not realize is these people in power are ruthless.

  35. mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    mot wrote:
    those that will not say the scriptures are inerrant
    And let’s not forget that the men who came up with this phrase and the Chicago Statement: believe in the overthrow in the U.S. government, believe that ten “Christian men” from each local area should take over, believe in “slavery for non-Christians” (which is apparently anyone not in lockstep with their beliefs), believe in an American society that functions like a Biblical Patriarchy, deny that the Holocaust took place, and hate the Jewish people.
    No, just no to all of it.
    These men were only looking for ratification of their own sick and twisted beliefs.
    What people in the pews do not realize is these people in power are ruthless.

    Precisely.

  36. Velour wrote:

    mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    mot wrote:
    those that will not say the scriptures are inerrant
    And let’s not forget that the men who came up with this phrase and the Chicago Statement: believe in the overthrow in the U.S. government, believe that ten “Christian men” from each local area should take over, believe in “slavery for non-Christians” (which is apparently anyone not in lockstep with their beliefs), believe in an American society that functions like a Biblical Patriarchy, deny that the Holocaust took place, and hate the Jewish people.
    No, just no to all of it.
    These men were only looking for ratification of their own sick and twisted beliefs.
    What people in the pews do not realize is these people in power are ruthless.

    Precisely.

    My heart will forever ache for the people who were so mistreated during the takeover of the SBC. I have some scars from the takeover but mine are minimal to some others who lost their livelihoods-reputations-families because of divorce, etc. I often wonder how they will have to pay for these sins if left unconfessed,

  37. Lea wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Just like bosses who believe in the 168-hour workweek.
    Julie Anne linked an article by a pastor who listed all the bad reasons you could miss church, and one of them was recently having had a baby! In the comments he defends this by saying he knows people who came back a week (A WEEK!) after having a baby, so it’s not un-reasonable. But it’s just another judgy, I know better than you, way of looking at things. When the alternative is treating you like an adult who can make your own decisions.
    The main problem here is that they think they own your time, and that they are the ones who should decide what is reasonable. Even a job gives you time off, though!

    The main reason to not come back for six weeks after a baby is to NOT expose the baby to hundreds, perhaps thousands of germy people in the first few weeks of life. The pastors who said this are idiots.

  38. mot wrote:

    My heart will forever ache for the people who were so mistreated during the takeover of the SBC. I have some scars from the takeover but mine are minimal to some others who lost their livelihoods-reputations-families because of divorce, etc. I often wonder how they will have to pay for these sins if left unconfessed,

    I hear you, MOT. I am not a Southern Baptist but am deeply grieved by what was done to moderates within the denomination.

    I had my brush with NeoCalvinism at a 9 Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. I would describe it as Salem Witch Trials II.

  39. Velour wrote:

    I hear you, MOT. I am not a Southern Baptist but am deeply grieved by what was done to moderates within the denomination.

    I would add that I am deeply grieved about what has happened to those left behind as well. If you look at the actions, behaviors, and sins of the SBC it is crystal clear that the fundamentalist takeover conservative resurgence has had a deleterious effect on SBC.

  40. Velour wrote:

    mot wrote:

    My heart will forever ache for the people who were so mistreated during the takeover of the SBC. I have some scars from the takeover but mine are minimal to some others who lost their livelihoods-reputations-families because of divorce, etc. I often wonder how they will have to pay for these sins if left unconfessed,

    I hear you, MOT. I am not a Southern Baptist but am deeply grieved by what was done to moderates within the denomination.

    I had my brush with NeoCalvinism at a 9 Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. I would describe it as Salem Witch Trials II.

    What I found so sad was the word moderate became to mean “liberal”. To be labeled “liberal” during the takeover and if it stuck was the end of of any ministry position. I know there were a few liberals but thousands of innocent ministers got unfairly labeled as “liberals.”

  41. Mara wrote:

    Piper from OP: “If it is done right, this masculine feel creates a space”

    OK, but seriously. Let me translate:
    “I said something really stupid, and now instead of letting it die or better yet admitting that I was wrong, I’m going to double down on that nonsense!”

  42. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I hear you, MOT. I am not a Southern Baptist but am deeply grieved by what was done to moderates within the denomination.
    I would add that I am deeply grieved about what has happened to those left behind as well. If you look at the actions, behaviors, and sins of the SBC it is crystal clear that the fundamentalist takeover conservative resurgence has had a deleterious effect on SBC.

    So true.

  43. Velour wrote:

    If you look at the actions, behaviors, and sins of the SBC it is crystal clear that the fundamentalist takeover conservative resurgence has had a deleterious effect on SBC.

    So true.

    They let the nastier, meaner, more negative, intensely hateful, horribly smug genii out of the bottle …. and then once in power, they couldn’t control him

  44. Christiane wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    If you look at the actions, behaviors, and sins of the SBC it is crystal clear that the fundamentalist takeover conservative resurgence has had a deleterious effect on SBC.

    So true.

    They let the nastier, meaner, more negative, intensely hateful, horribly smug genii out of the bottle …. and then once in power, they couldn’t control him

    They can not control him and he will destroy this denomination. He has already reduced the SBC great missionary force by 1,000 missionaries. And not a peep from any SBC leaders as to why this major event happened–just crickets.

  45. Bridget wrote:

    The main reason to not come back for six weeks after a baby is to NOT expose the baby to hundreds, perhaps thousands of germy people in the first few weeks of life. The pastors who said this are idiots.

    The guy legit said if you’re worried about health reasons ‘talk to your elders’. Not your doctor.

    So yes. Idiot.

  46. Mara wrote:

    As has been said so many times before, Piper uses so many words to perpetuate his fantasy concerning gender. But they are only words. Wind.
    Does he forget that he who sows to the wind will reap a whirlwind.

    So well said, Mara.

    Like so many others, I believe there are deep insecurities of identity behind this ideology. That is why it is so passionately and irrationally defended, IMO. How could Piper and the other Female Subordinationists possibly deny their very identity which is conflated with their ideology?

    I think that they are sowing the wind but very many others will reap the whirlwind, including innocent children whose families will be destroyed because their parents bought into an ideology which taught that the most intimate personal relationships are based on power dynamics rather than on mutual love and respect. Those children will have no models of healthy adult human relationships in their homes. How tragic.

  47. Gram3 wrote:

    taught that the most intimate personal relationships are based on power dynamics rather than on mutual love and respect. Those children will have no models of healthy adult human relationships in their homes. How tragic.

    Also, very well said, Gram3.

  48. waking up wrote:

    I can’t help but draw the comparisons from some of the beliefs and practices of the higher ups in Calvinism and Scientology. Calvinists seem to thrive on overcomplicating and picking to death the most basic of Scripture until it looks and sounds like something else. They are deep into the contemplative and give the vibe that they have achieved a higher plane of spiritual knowledge simply by being Calvinists. it’s bizarre that the comparisons between the two show systems that are eerily similar…and this doesn’t even touch on the membership contracts.

    Those aren’t the only similarities, I’m sorry to say. The Pied Piper’s gibberish is eerily reminiscent of Hubbard and his penchant for using words in strange ways and/or making them up entirely.

    From Piper’s rambling above: “If it is done right, this masculine feel creates a space. It is big, it’s roomy, it’s beautiful, it’s peaceful…And as you navigate that community there will be feminine feels all over the place.” And, as we all realize, he’s saying nothing meaningful here.

    As a point of comparison, some decades ago Hubbard claimed to invent “Study Tech”, a self-proclaimed revolutionary educational method for kids, which is still being pushed by Applied Scholastics (a Scientology front group). He claimed that the main barriers to learning are misunderstood words. Hubbard described this as follows: “A student who encounters this barrier will tend to feel squashed, bent, sort of spinny, sort of dead, bored and exasperated. He can wind up with his face feeling squashed, with headaches, and with his stomach feeling funny.”

    Complete and utter word salad. And not a good thing for Piper to resemble.

  49. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    he’s saying nothing meaningful here.

    He says nothing meaningful but it is all very emotional and means something to him. I think he believes it with his whole heart and being. He thinks it is deeply profound, that there is an essence to actual ‘masculinity’ that produces things beneficial for both masculine and feminine that the feminine can neither duplicate nor reciprocate. It is something only the masculine can produce that the feminine is privileged to submit to, even needs and longs to joyfully submit to.
    It is as though he DOES look at ‘head’ as ‘source’, a sort of source of greater life, deeper life, better life, life more abundantly. He seems to feel that this dynamic comes from the very heart of God. So much so that it has become and essential part of the gospel.

    This is a fantasy as mentioned above. But it is not only a fantasy. It is ascribing to men and the masculine what can only come from Jesus Christ. It is an idolatry of those masculine feels. He worships this stuff. Word salad or not.

    But no matter how passionately and he expresses it, his words don’t make it so.

  50. Mara wrote:

    This is a fantasy as mentioned above. But it is not only a fantasy. It is ascribing to men and the masculine what can only come from Jesus Christ. It is an idolatry of those masculine feels. He worships this stuff. Word salad or not.

    Just as their explanations of ESS puts these men in God’s seat on earth. You’re right, they are not reverent; they are idolaters of themselves.

  51. @ ishy:

    Romans 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23a and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man.

  52. Bridget wrote:

    The main reason to not come back for six weeks after a baby is to NOT expose the baby to hundreds, perhaps thousands of germy people in the first few weeks of life. The pastors who said this are idiots.

    They really are idiots stuck in the not-so-golden-past. They are the same guys transported out of the medieval period who would eschew Roman water and sewage methods as being “pagan” and then blame the Jews when the wells got contaminated with sewage run-off.

  53. Bridget wrote:

    The main reason to not come back for six weeks after a baby is to NOT expose the baby to hundreds, perhaps thousands of germy people in the first few weeks of life. The pastors who said this are idiots.

    Well, idiots surely, but I think there is worse pathology here. The pastors who said this are not mothers, they have not given birth, but they are trying act like they are-mothers-by making decisions for some ‘other’ woman and her newborn. This is sicko, IMO. Maybe they do have to be in some group of men which feels its masculinity before they feel theirs, but if so they need to seek medical help, or psych help, or just go ahead and deal with their own unmentionable issues.

  54. @ okrapod:
    heavy control issues, plus a bit of malevolent ill will approaching pure meanness

    the mother of a newborn is also going through her hormone levels re-adjusting to ‘normal’ and sometimes this means a bout of post-partum depression ….. so you take someone that vulnerable with a newborn to care for and jerk them around ‘for the glory of God’ or whatever other miserable reason these psychopaths need and you’ve got some real negativity going on ….

  55. mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    mot wrote:
    Velour wrote:
    My heart will forever ache for the people who were so mistreated during the takeover of the SBC. I have some scars from the takeover but mine are minimal to some others who lost their livelihoods-reputations-families because of divorce, etc. I often wonder how they will have to pay for these sins if left unconfessed,

    “I never knew you”?

  56. Velour wrote:

    mot wrote:
    those that will not say the scriptures are inerrant
    And let’s not forget that the men who came up with this phrase and the Chicago Statement: believe in the overthrow in the U.S. government, believe that ten “Christian men” from each local area should take over, believe in “slavery for non-Christians” (which is apparently anyone not in lockstep with their beliefs), believe in an American society that functions like a Biblical Patriarchy, deny that the Holocaust took place, and hate the Jewish people.
    No, just no to all of it.
    These men were only looking for ratification of their own sick and twisted beliefs.

    Can you provide a link or some resource to check that out?

  57. Lydia wrote:

    mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    mot wrote:
    Velour wrote:
    My heart will forever ache for the people who were so mistreated during the takeover of the SBC. I have some scars from the takeover but mine are minimal to some others who lost their livelihoods-reputations-families because of divorce, etc. I often wonder how they will have to pay for these sins if left unconfessed,

    “I never knew you”?

    I really believe that is what God is going to say to these folks. They took the Good News and turned it into something that damaged and ruined people’s lives.

  58. Lea wrote:

    Jerome wrote:
    But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned”
    Good one! Some guy in the comment section was harping about Mary going to the temple to get Jesus circumcised! Like that’s the same thing.

    A fella from the Manosphere at Doug Wilson’s blog recently said that he, unlike Joseph, would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.

  59. Darlene wrote:

    A fella from the Manosphere at Doug Wilson’s blog recently said that he, unlike Joseph, would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.

    That’s probably one of the same guys on social media complaining that girls always reject him.

  60. ishy wrote:

    Darlene wrote:

    A fella from the Manosphere at Doug Wilson’s blog recently said that he, unlike Joseph, would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.

    That’s probably one of the same guys on social media complaining that girls always reject him.

    Because they are superficial or only like guys with money. Not because he is loathsome.

  61. ishy wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    A fella from the Manosphere at Doug Wilson’s blog recently said that he, unlike Joseph, would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.
    ishy wrote: That’s probably one of the same guys on social media complaining that girls always reject him.

    I have no doubt that the donkey would have rejected him, too …… quite soundly.

  62. Nancy2 wrote:

    A fella from the Manosphere at Doug Wilson’s blog recently said that he, unlike Joseph, would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.

    what an ass, and I’m not talking about the donkey either

  63. Nancy2 wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    A fella from the Manosphere at Doug Wilson’s blog recently said that he, unlike Joseph, would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.
    ishy wrote: That’s probably one of the same guys on social media complaining that girls always reject him.

    I have no doubt that the donkey would have rejected him, too …… quite soundly.

    Was it Chesterton who shared an anecdote about a traveler in the modern Middle East seeing a couple who could have been Mary and Joseph, except that the man was riding the donkey and making his wife walk?

  64. Darlene wrote:

    would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.

    And needless to say, very impractical.
    Do you know how slow a very pregnant woman walks?
    She can’t help it. Everything in all out of balance and you feel like the bottom is going to drop out any minute. I’ve been there. I know.
    Joseph probably wanted to make good time. He wasn’t going to let his patriarchy get in the way of practicality like the fool commenting on Wilson’s blog.

  65. Darlene wrote:

    would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.

    This also shows the height of his misogyny as everyone can see.
    Not only would he treat the woman he thinks he would own through marriage this way, he’d have the gall to treat the one God entrusted to him to help to bring the Savior safely into this world.
    He is pretty far down a path of no return.
    Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

  66. Darlene wrote:

    A fella from the Manosphere at Doug Wilson’s blog recently said that he, unlike Joseph, would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.

    Seriously? I’m completely gob-smacked that some guy would diss the Mother of God in this fashion. And ohhhh puhleeeeezzzz! before the accusations of Catholic Mariolatry start to fly, I’m not Catholic. I’m a free-thinking syncretist who draws on all traditions with which I find resonance.

    Papa Chuck, Brian Brodersen, Raul Rees, or whomever, can deny or minimize Mary’s crucial role from now until the ice sheets start moving South again, and they still will not subtract one electron of mystery and magic from her person.

  67. Gram3 wrote:

    I think that they are sowing the wind but very many others will reap the whirlwind, including innocent children whose families will be destroyed because their parents bought into an ideology which taught that the most intimate personal relationships are based on power dynamics rather than on mutual love and respect. Those children will have no models of healthy adult human relationships in their homes.

    Only Comrade O’Brian and Voldemort:

    “The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering among the powerless.”

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”

  68. ishy wrote:

    Darlene wrote:

    A fella from the Manosphere at Doug Wilson’s blog recently said that he, unlike Joseph, would have made Mary walk while he rode the donkey.

    That’s probably one of the same guys on social media complaining that girls always reject him.

    Like the Manifesto of the Santa Barbara Shooter?
    (Who left quite a Social Media Presence after his mass murder/suicide. His Manifesto and hundreds to thousands of Selfies Selfies Selfies Selfies Selfies Selfies Selfies…)

  69. Mara wrote:

    This is a fantasy as mentioned above. But it is not only a fantasy. It is ascribing to men and the masculine what can only come from Jesus Christ. It is an idolatry of those masculine feels. He worships this stuff. Word salad or not.

    https://i1.wp.com/nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/biblical-manhood.jpg?w=600

    But no matter how passionately and he expresses it, his words don’t make it so.

    “ABRACADABRA!” = “I Speak And IT IS SO!”

  70. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Those aren’t the only similarities, I’m sorry to say. The Pied Piper’s gibberish is eerily reminiscent of Hubbard and his penchant for using words in strange ways and/or making them up entirely.

    Does he ever include Elron’s smirk of superiority when the Pre-Clears swallow his word salad?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *