Can We End Violence Against Women by 2030?

 Mitch Randall, executive director-elect of the Baptist Center for Ethics, denounced “complementarianism” — the view that God creates men and women for different and complementary roles — as “theological malpractice”.

Baptist News Global

 

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=66150&picture=womanWoman

Did you know that November 25 is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women? Its hashtag on Twitter is #orangetheworld with orange being the official UN color of the Day, symbolizing a brighter future for women and girls free of violence. According to the United Nations website, the goal is to end violence toward women by 2030. Clearly, we’ve got a tremendous amount of work to do over the next 13 years!

Two days ago (11/25) Mary Kassian chimed in about the significance of this day in a post over at the Desiring God website. In it she describes how her friend Sandra was being tormented by her abusive husband. Based on how Mary describes the scenario, we assume it is a real life story. In her example, the church elders devised a plan, and members helped rescue Sandra a life-threatening situation. Mary concludes this part of her post with these words:

Her physical wounds quickly healed. But it took years to heal from the severe emotional, psychological, and spiritual abuse her husband had inflicted.

We have to wonder whether Mary Kassian ever saw John Piper’s response to question regarding a very similar marital situation.

John Piper’s response is still mind-blowing to us. The group sex remark and enduring being smacked around for one night are bizarre and frightening! Piper’s position was so upsetting to so many people that he wrote a post explaining what he meant entitled Clarifying Words on Wife Abuse.

What we found most troubling in Piper’s follow-up post was what is missing – the option for a wife to divorce her physically abusive husband. We are left wondering how Mary Kassian advised her friend Sandra regarding staying in an abusive marriage or getting the heck out! After all, her life was at stake!

In her post, Mary Kassian also wrote the following (see screen shot below):

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/you-tooFunny thing… Mary Kassian was a member of the committee that invented the term “complementarian” and drafted the Danvers Statement, which marked its 30th anniversary earlier this year. How interesting that she is calling to account self-described complementarian men who, as Mary puts it:

use Scripture to justify arrogant, selfish, domineering sinful behavior

Even before Dee and I launched this blog, we sometimes discussed how domineering and even abusive men are easily drawn to a religious system in which they are elevated by church leadership and tasked with being ‘in charge’ of their household. This can be a recipe for disaster!

In her post Mary Kassian had this to say to her sisters in Christ:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/you-too

We do hope that many complementarian women will heed Mary’s advice and stop suffering in silence. If you ever want to share you testimony, just let us know via email. (see contact info at the top of our blog)

Earlier last week, Baptist News Global published an article that relates to what we are discussing here. The title was “Baptist ethicist says ‘egalitarian theology’ a safeguard against abuse. The article begins as follows:

The incoming head of a Baptist ethics agency says church teaching that subordinates women is partly to blame for the rash of allegations of sexual abuse by powerful men in media, business and politics making headlines in the last two months.

Mitch Randall, executive director-elect of the Baptist Center for Ethics, denounced “complementarianism” — the view that God creates men and women for different and complementary roles — as “theological malpractice” in a Nov. 22 article on EthicsDaily.com, the BCE website.

Randall, who has pastored a church in Oklahoma for over a decade, explained that if a church teaches a girl to be subservient, then it gives the idea that women are less important than men and it “empowers men to believe they have a distorted right to treat women in a lesser role”.

The Baptist News Global article further stated: (see screen shot below)

https://baptistnews.com/article/baptist-ethicist-says-egalitarian-theology-safeguard-abuse/#.WhzvcUtrwUtAs more and more women, Christian and otherwise, come forward and speak out against abuse in its various forms (physical, emotional, spiritual, sexual, etc.), there is a strong possibility that we can finally turn the tables on these various kinds of abuse.


Comments

Can We End Violence Against Women by 2030? — 218 Comments

  1. I think Mary Kassian’s reply is a bit odd. We can certainly point our fingers in blame at those who our deserving. Why talk about respecting our brothers? Perhaps if some of the abusive men had been taught to really respect women, we wouldn’t be in this place.

  2. Piper is a very troubled soul and if those that are part of his entourage, who say they love him, cared for him, they would get him help. Mark my words I hope I am wrong but this guy has been off course for some time. Am I the only one that senses this?

  3. Since Mary Kassian has long been complementerian and i am assuming she still is, i would note that her words to advise women include not being victims and not pointing the finger of blame at men and not using ‘solutions concocted by human wisdom’ but to ‘love them, respect them, affirm them, encourage them in their pursuit of Godliness and remember you are a sinner too’ is the same old complimenterian crap that says dont call 911 forvive and encourage instead because you are a sinner too. This is exactly what keeps domestic violence going!! Argh!!! Does anyone seriously think that if a woman came to Jesus when He was walking in Galillee and said ‘Lord help me, my husband is beating me, or the priest raped my daughter..’ that Jesus would say anything remotely like what she said??? ‘Oh just go home and encourage and love him more!’ Argh!!!!!! And….a pastor patting her arse once doesnt qualify her for any #MeToo Argh!!!!

  4. Mary Kassian’s last re- tweet on twitter was pipers statement against egalitarianism. His statements were a meandering of reasons why egal. is bad, including that an agnostic supports it, it leads to gender and sexual confusion, it makes men not know they have to protect women and have valor, and it makes women not be appreciative of the ‘peculiar’ care a man has for them. No where have i seen her or piper ever say a woman should defend herself, leave, notify police, maybe i missed that somewhere??
    I think Jesus would say ‘come follow Me, and let the dead bury the dead.’ or at a minimum He might tell a disciple to take her home to his family and protect her while He dealt with the abusive spouse’ I just haven”t seen anywhere in the gospels where Jesus said ‘go back and do whatever he says and let him abuse you and the kids, if you die you will get God points for sticking it out’.

    When it says in the bible for children to obey their parents it DOES NOT mean a child has to do something sinful if their parents tell them to. Would God be pleased that a child murdered someone because their parents told them to, or robbed a bank?

    We all have to answer to God for our actions, we are all called to obey Him even if someone over us says to do something else. Women often stay in abusive relationships that put their children in danger because some complementarians have convinced them to submit to the husband no matter what. Women that love their children do this even though their heart says its wrong. We are not under the law. Also wives don’t get a free pass for sinning if they did it because their husband said to as in Ananias and Sapphira, she died too even if he may have planned it she went along with it. I stayed too long and i never thought it would happen but he hurt one of my kids too. The fear of God finally overcame my fear of my husband and my fear of going against church doctrine. When i remembered who i really have to answer to, the Love of God got me out and into freedom. Jesus never told me to let myself repeatedly be abused. It is one thing to turn the other cheek, and another thing to stay a victim of repeated abuse when i can be free of it.

  5. brian wrote:

    Mark my words I hope I am wrong but this guy has been off course for some time. Am I the only one that senses this?

    Even doctrine aside he seems very rambling and has trouble making a continuous thought. I get like that when i post here if i am really upset by something like abuse and churches doing nothing against it, but if i was writing an article piece for a magazine/blog/etc i would proofread and think about what i was saying more. Makes me think that it’s age or anger or that the doctrine has gotten him to a point that he can’t think clearly or objectively.

  6. One more comment from me…

    Many women i have spoken too said they stayed in abusive relationships because they didn’t have a ‘biblical’ reason to leave and almost all of them found out later that he had been sleeping around with other women for years. Almost makes me think the abusive controlling manipulation was just so the spouse wouldn’t find out! Also almost all of the men were overly jealous and had accused the wife of adultery also, even though she had done nothing to justify suspicion of that. I had a friend that called that ‘mirroring’ seeing or accusing you of what they were doing.

    (It’s not just men that do this by the way, there are abusive women that do it also.)

  7. sandy c wrote:

    Many women i have spoken too said they stayed in abusive relationships because they didn’t have a ‘biblical’ reason to leave

    This has been holding me back for a long time, because I really honestly wanted (and still do) to do the right thing in God’s eyes. It has taken me literally years to understand that actually God does not want violence in my home, He does not want this for me, and just like my earthly father would stand up for me and protect me from someone trying to hurt me, so does my Heavenly Father.

    So many women (and I don’t mean this in a blaming way) need to understand that whole picture of Scripture, not just those cherry picked verses that “godly” leaders have handed them to ensure they stay in bondage.

  8. I find it really weird that Kassian, who is touted as a very smart and educated woman, can’t see that some of those “bandwagon” ideas might actually be inspired by God. That there might actually be Christians in this movement, praying and begging god for solutions, and then acting on the wisdom He gives them. This kind of polarised thinking is very troubling to me.

    I wonder if she’s seen the #churchtoo hashtag?

  9. The problem i have with pipers clarrifying response is that he first says that it (abuse) may be a crime. Then he says it is in Minnesota then he says
    ” A wife’s submission to the authority of civil law, for Christ’s sake, may, therefore, overrule her submission to a husband’s demand that she endure his injuries. This legitimate recourse to civil protection may be done in a spirit that does not contradict the spirit of love and submission to her husband, for a wife may take this recourse with a heavy and humble heart that longs for her husband’s repentance and the restoration of his nurturing leadership.”
    “May” and later he talks of going to the elders and how they “may” think it warrants calling the police and do so.
    It seems to me that this is a response to his getting called out for his earlier comments that instructed women to endure abuse and nothing more. It is still geared to dealing with abuse in-house first and then the caveat that if the woman is doing so in the right spirit she is permitted to call police.
    I get to the point that i can hardly hear what they are saying because their actions speak so much louder than their lofty legally correct statements that they probably wrote so they didnt get charged for telling women its a sin to call outside authorities. And Mary’s storie about the woman that was abused? Not buying that she actually ever did any of that.
    The other thing piper cleverly did was to post all scriptures but the one- Matt 10:23, thats left for the reader to look up on their own, probably because its so clear about leaving! The rest he uses are ambiguous- well ya might leave ya might stay, ya might have to call police if you have to so ya dont get in trouble for not calling!

    At least they both made some attempt to loosen the chains of D/V victims that Desiring Bondage put on in the first place. Yeah i know i’m over critical, a very dear friend lost her life because of this submit to your husband dont call police thing. She had gone to the church…they said by her submitting more he would change. He did, he got even worse, and she’s dead.

  10. GMFS

    Point 1 of 2: Bronze medal!

    Hurrah for me!

    Point 2 of 2: Being complementary

    Since there are many gifts in the church but one Spirit, it stands to reason that we are all meant to complement one another. It makes eminent sense that men and women are meant to complement one another generally. Lesley and I certainly complement one another, in a number of ways.

    The practical problem with the rise of fundagelical complementarianism, to my mind, is twofold:
     It shoehorns everyone into one of two sweeping stereotypes, lazily cataloguing everyone who doesn’t fit them as rebellious and sinful; no matter who you are and what your gifts, you must/cannot function thus because you are male/female;
     Fundagelical complementarianism, for all its loud misdirection about the importance of women and their “equal value”, always trends in the direction of reducing and infantilising them, “empowering” them to do less than they are capable of doing and “freeing” them to be more constrained than they would otherwise be.

    A broken clock is exactly right twice a day. In the same way, fundagelical complementarianism is bound to suit some people. (I remember reading a comment on another blog, a while ago, from someone – a man, I think – who had embraced heavy shepherding and described it as “liberating”, because it freed him from taking responsibility for his life. Not good.) But for others, it must first bring women down a long way before it can raise them up a little.

  11. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Point 1 of 2: Bronze medal!
    Hurrah for me!

    Well, I was in third place when I started that comment. Unfortunately, I was interrupted by several tasks in between times. On the plus side, the chorizo and red onion is cooked.

  12. brian wrote:

    Mark my words I hope I am wrong but this guy [Mr Piper] has been off course for some time. Am I the only one that senses this?

    Yes, it’s just you.

    We all think he’s a genius.

  13. @ brian:

    Less frivolously, the first part of your comment is just as important: if the followers of these men actually loved them, then they’d show a little less reflexive loyalty. Piperness isn’t just the fault of Mr Piper; it’s as much a product of the people who’ve contributed to the bandwagon.

  14. If the abuser also abuses the children, then some people stay in abusive situations to prevent the 50/50 custody/visitation which is popular with the courts now. Leaving the children alone with the abuser is sometimes seen as lots worse than enduring abuse oneself.

    So what can an abuser do to the kids? Well, physical abuse, sexual abuse, shaming, withholding of approval, trying to turn the children against the other parent, placing them in dangerous situations without adult supervision, exposing them to ‘adult’ behavior which they don’t need to be watching, leaving them unbathed and poorly fed while with the abuser, demanding demeaning behaviors from the children,
    threatening to not take them back to the other parent, choosing one kid for the family scapegoat and being merciless with that kid compared to his/her siblings, and perhaps the worst of all convincing them that the abuser’s values are the best values as opposed to the other parent’s values (aka corrupting their minds), and making them ‘love’ a classic wicked stepmother of which there are some.

    And that is just the stuff that I have heard about. No telling what other kinds of problems there may be.

    May one divorce an abusive spouse? Yes, of course. Is it always the best thing to do? That depends.

  15. Good Lord, Mary! That note to ‘sisters’ is so wrong. Don’t be bitter? Don’t ‘point fingers of blame at men’ who are literally abusing you? Don’t use ‘human wisdom’????

    Wrong. Use your brain, and call em like you see em. If a man is a problem, call him out. Let’s be truthful about these things, and maybe we’ll get better at identifying whatever problematic thought processes, actions and systems promote violence and actually getting rid of them.

  16. Love your Brothers. Respect them. Affirm them.

    Is she talking about the abusive rapey ones???

    Cause no.

  17. Isn’t Kassianmot wrote:

    Mary K is a hypocrite imo.

    Isn’t her admonition to men cited in the OP above a direct contradiction of the proper woman’s role in the complementarian system?

  18. Kate wrote:

    Perhaps if some of the abusive men had been taught to really respect women, we wouldn’t be in this place.

    Yes. Maybe we should be talking about that some more.

  19. sandy c wrote:

    I stayed too long and i never thought it would happen but he hurt one of my kids too.

    I’m sorry.

    I think that sort of thing is common. There was a show on HBO last year where the wife only chose to leave when she realized it was affecting the kids. okrapod is right that there are practical reasons to stay sometimes. I did not understand before I started really studying it that leaving is probably the most dangerous time as well and there are tons of vindictive repercussions to watch out for. I had a friend who left her abusive husband but wouldn’t divorce him until HE filed, because she was still scared of him and thought it would set him off. I didnt’ get it then, but I think I do now.

  20. Mary Kassian is a member of a group of mostly men and a few women who love to push CJ Mahaney. She is just another shill for their pals to show that they really care about abuse. They only care about abuse so long as it is not one of their own. She is writing this on Desiring God. John Piper loooooves CJ Mahaney.

  21. Can We End Violence Against Women by 2030?

    If only that were so. Not going to happen until the eschaton.

  22. I think Mary and others need to stop worrying about whether others are bitter and angry and begin focusing in on the real problem ( abuse). Then the words bitter and angry will become non existent! No were not bitter and angry over the abuse were bitter and angry because people like this drive us there when women, children, and the weak are being abused not just by their abusers but those who justify the abuser and attack those who speak up!!!!

    My word if I hear the word bitter and anger again it will be to soon. I’m so sick of their explanations and puffing up. Sorry but it’s what they do, it’s what they use as their excuse to pound the life out of you with the scripture.

  23. “The group sex remark and enduring being smacked around for one night are bizarre and frightening!”

    Isn’t group sex adultery? Just saying…

    In that case, how is that better than a wife cheating on her husband? Is it better because the man wants it? Help me people, I don’t get Piper (and I probably never will…).

  24. Sam wrote:

    Help me people, I don’t get Piper (and I probably never will…).

    IIRC (cause I’m not listening again) he said you could ‘sweetly’ refuse group sex. But you better be nice about it and yammer on about how he is your head and you really really wish you could submit! Because that is a woman’s calling. yadayada

    Thanks?

  25. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    “The problem is you’re looking for the perfect Piper, which doesn’t exist.

    Even if it did exist, you shouldn’t read it — you’d only ruin it.

    Ronald Cleverbottom”

  26. Oh yes, when I was at my old officially gospel-centered church, and I tried to say that the Mark Driscoll-loving young adults minister hugged a little too closely, touched a little too often, and liked a few too many bikini photos on Facebook (and yes I should have), I’m sure that would have gone very well for me.

  27. @ Sam:

    I once saw a Dr. Phil episode (or something similar) where the husband wanted to see his wife have affairs with other men, because it excited him — needless to say, that was the whole issue they were trying to remedy. But I wonder what Piper would say in that situation. After all, the wife did not want to commit the adultery the husband wanted her to commit, so maybe she was just “rebellious” for wanting to love only him? Or is adultery not as bad as a wife refusing her husband’s commands?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the theologians answered, “Ah, adultery is only a physical sin, but when a wife rebukes her husband it is akin to rebuking God, and is a spiritual sin even worse than pride. Therefore, the lesser of two evils is committing the physical sin.”

    The whole logic seems a little bizarre…. But I wouldn’t put it past them given the “group” comment.

  28. @ okrapod:
    I don’t think people have a clue how widespread this problem is in secular courts. They are NOT better than the church but I long-ago gave up trying to convince people of that. I have even witnessed judges ordering a low income mom to pay for court ordered half family therapy with a court approved therapist. 500 a month And the husband was an emotional abuser— no bruises.. she was supposed to find the money-in her low income. Court ordered or lose the child. It’s also a racket for service providers. One is ordered to therapy and must get a good reference for the judge. Not a great environment for real issues to be worked out if such things worked with deceptive bullies anyway.

  29. Lydia wrote:

    They are NOT better than the church but I long-ago gave up trying to convince people of that.

    I absolutely agree. And that is not just my opinion. Around here there have been a few?-one fairly recently, family court judges thrown off the bench because of some stuff. It is after all an elected position. Elected. Whoever voted for anybody while having all the information they need for good decision making?

    Some of those people have agendas just like so many other people. But this is not new. Had I not championed the idea of the cause of the people against the judiciary on some issues then perhaps my father and I could have been friends-confound it all anyhow.

    A black robe does not make somebody a god any more than a white coat does.

  30. okrapod wrote:

    A black robe does not make somebody a god any more than a white coat does

    . . . or being behind a pulpit does, or having a therapist certificate does.

  31. @ Lydia:

    You have no idea how badly this burns me up!
    It makes me think of Walter E. Kurtz upriver when he said:

    “… I hate them!… I do hate them… those Nabobs…”/i>

  32. I’m seeing some of the similar attitude as Kassian presents in your post now in secular coverage of the sex harassment or sex abuse stories coming out of Hollywood and Washington: the people who are utterly obsessed at how men might be hurt by it all.

    I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this misplaced concern over men.

    The concern usually expressed as men may perhaps be falsely accused, or as, “what about men’s reputations, who will protect the mens??”

    -when women have been pressured, shamed, or intimidated into silence for decades to put up with every thing from groping, unwanted passes, cat calling, to rape from men, even on jobs-

    Just now, women in U.S. culture are being believed and feeling comfortable stepping forward and saying they were a target of sex harassment or abuse-

    But we have all these pearl clutchers (many of them women, amazingly, including but not limited to Mary Kassian) saying,
    “Won’t someone think about the men??? Oh the poor dears, the poor men, won’t someone protect the men and their reputations!!”

    I don’t get how it is that while women are, and have historically been, most usually the targets of sexual harassment or abuse by men, that men are now to be pitied and felt sorry for? I’m not buying that.

  33. sandy c wrote:

    (1)it leads to gender and sexual confusion,
    (2) it makes men not know they have to protect women and have valor, and it makes women not be appreciative of the ‘peculiar’ care a man has for them

    Point 1.
    Complementarianism made me confused about being a girl and woman, because I was a tom boy as a girl.

    I was not the sort of “feminine” that comps say a girl should be.

    (And as I just noted in my last post on my Daisy blog, although my mother raised me to be a traditional girly girl, and I tried hard to be one

    At the same time, my father (who was a traditional, stoic guy) raised my sister and me, just as he did our brother – to act and think like men.

    I mainly chose to try to emulate my mother over much of my life (be sweet, passive, girly girl), but when, at the same time, your dad is raising you to act like a dude (what Piper and Driscoll would consider a biblical man: tough, resilient, out-spoken, etc.), that makes for a confusing upbringing.

    Christianity, or as it’s taught by complementarians, also creates “gender confusion” in its own way, so Piper et. al. can stop pointing fingers of blame at secular culture for this.

    Point 2. I fear his take on that is part of his secular gender stereotypes coloring how he reads the Bible, plus the Bible being taken out of context.
    Any deference men were to show women (as explained in portions of the NT) was due to the fact that in some of the cultures back then, men had all to most of the power, and the biblical writers were asking the men to remember that, and to not “boss” their wives around, not abuse their secular cultural power.

    But guys like Piper run around assuming such passages are recipes saying that for all time all women are meek, mild little things who need big, burly men to protect them.

    Piper is essentially endorsing “Benevolent Sexism,” which can be harmful in its own way, just as a more hostile, “cave man” type of sexism against women can be harmful. Both views tend to view women as being lesser than men.

  34. Daisy wrote:

    I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this misplaced concern over men.

    There are two main concerns I see.

    1 is ‘not all men’, which is true but irrelevant. I remember the gift of fear talking about how women are always trying to be ‘polite’ to their own detriment. He mentioned something like being afraid of a man in public and deciding to avoid a situation that looked like a problem, and he said ‘good men will accept that you are allowed to be cautious about your own safety without being offended’. That stuck with me. (also the thing about not trusting people who don’t take no for an answer, even in innocuous things).

    2 is false accusations, which I do not see being helped by accusing women of lying instead. Is that not the same thing, a false accusation? Statistics show it’s far more likely the accused will be lying in these situations than the accuser, but we still have an investigation before we prosecute people so I don’t see why that’s a problem.

  35. Burwell wrote:

    Am I #42? That would mean a lot to me.

    I think you are 39. And holding 🙂

    Daisy wrote:

    At the same time, my father (who was a traditional, stoic guy) raised my sister and me, just as he did our brother – to act and think like men.

    I don’t like the that any type of thinking is thinking ‘like a man’ or ‘like a woman’. This tends to be a derogatory way of labeling things. There is a wide range of personality types, skills and abilities, etc in women and men and we are ultimately more alike than different. Recognition of that in the church would be more helpful than this focus on the differences.

    Individuals are individuals. Respect and love them for who they are, not who you think they should be.

  36. brian wrote:

    Piper is a very troubled soul and if those that are part of his entourage, who say they love him, cared for him, they would get him help.

    And end their Gravy Train of Fame By Association with The Great One?

  37. Daisy wrote:

    But guys like Piper run around assuming such passages are recipes saying that for all time all women are meek, mild little things who need big, burly men to protect them.

    Big Burly Men like Piper?

  38. Sam wrote:

    “The group sex remark and enduring being smacked around for one night are bizarre and frightening!”

    More like “I SEE Things”, an unwanted peek into the ManaGAWD’s sexual fantasies.

  39. Liz wrote:

    I wonder if she’s seen the #churchtoo hashtag?

    Even if she has, someone like her is too beholden to the Male Headship belief and to Complementarianism to reject it.

    She is going to keep placing loyalty to those doctrinal beliefs over and above the well-being of women.

    That is,unless something else in her life causes her to rethink all her current positions, or to even entertain the thought, “hey, maybe this complementarianism stuff is wrong, and I’ve been reading the Bible wrong about these subjects this whole time.”

    Until or if that happens, she will keep defending complementarianism, because some folks such as her are convinced it’s the only biblical way. In their view, it’s either be complementarian or be a liberal feminist who supports abortion.

    There is no third alternative in their thinking.

  40. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Would you happen to know if that Smartarse guy is going to show up to tell us that if we want a Christianity or church that treats women fairly and equally, that we’re dreaming and looking for that unobtainable perfect church, so we should just shut up already? LOL.

  41. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Fundagelical complementarianism, for all its loud misdirection about the importance of women and their “equal value”, always trends in the direction of reducing and infantilising them, “empowering” them to do less than they are capable of doing and “freeing” them to be more constrained than they would otherwise be.
    A broken clock is exactly right twice a day. In the same way, fundagelical complementarianism is bound to suit some people.

    All of your post was good, but this was perhaps my favorite part.

  42. Avid Reader wrote:

    It’s really hard for the church to make progress in protecting women when John Piper keeps teaching that women have to submit to EVERY man. Even submit to total strangers on the street!
    If anyone doesn’t believe Piper actually said that—here’s the references:
    https://www.amazon.com/review/R2VX1SIIUS1IIM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1433537125

    Interesting, and another example of how complementarians are not on the same page, because Mark Driscoll gave a sermon once (or was it in a blog post, I forget exactly where), where he said that (in his interpretation) that women are called to submit ONLY to their OWN husband but to no other men.

    So Driscoll and Piper at odds there.

    I don’t agree with either guy’s interpretation, but, going by the shallow, wooden, not- taking- stuff- in- context view, Driscoll is ‘more’ correct than Piper (if they’re appealing to the, “I ask a woman to submit to her husband” type verses).

    The Bible simply does not say that all women every where must submit to all men. If Piper supposedly believes in sola scriptura, he’s failed there.

  43. Lea wrote:

    Mary Kassian quote:
    Love your Brothers. Respect them. Affirm them.
    ——-
    Lea replied,
    Is she talking about the abusive rapey ones???
    Cause no.

    I took Mary K. to mean, don’t lump all men together in this recently cultural phenomenon of “MeToo” and “ChurchToo” uprising, hash tagging on Twitter.

    I’m not in the habit of falsely accusing anyone of anything or saying innocent men should be found guilty (certainly not in a court of law), but.

    As I said in a post above, I am having a difficult time mustering up sympathy here, since for eons now, women have largely been the brunt of male-initiated sexism on streets and in jobs, and if the women report it (especially on a job), they get fired, demoted, shamed, asked “what did you do to deserve it,” etc.

    But there is a small back-lash of sorts against all this.

    The backlash I’ve seen mainly comes from conservative women (and I myself am a conservative) on Twitter.

    These particular conservative women are telling all women that being cat-called, groped, or on the receiving end of sexually tinged gross commentary, even on a job, is ‘No Big Deal,’ that only violent rape by strangers really counts.

    They further insist that all women should just ‘Put Up With’ even ‘mild’ forms of sexual harassment, because, for one, hey, that’s what women have done for decades, they had to do it, so the young ones today should learn to just put up with it too.

    This same class of conservative woman on social media is also getting into a “Pity the Poor Men!! Who will protect the Men” mode, actually lamenting that men may now be too afraid to even flirt with women on jobs, gasp.

    My ‘Give An Eff meter’ is running low on fuel over that stuff.

  44. Daisy wrote:

    The backlash I’ve seen mainly comes from conservative women

    I have seen a lot more men complaining than women, personally. YMMV.

    Daisy wrote:

    I took Mary K. to mean, don’t lump all men together in this recently cultural phenomenon of “MeToo” and “ChurchToo” uprising, hash tagging on Twitter.

    I think men are the ones lumping themselves in! Are you in this category who does these bad things? Are you supporting men who are in this category? No? Then people aren’t talking about you. Why is that hard to understand?

    The problem, I think, is that a lot of men think all their friends who have been accused are falsely accused. Statistically, they are probably wrong.

  45. Daisy wrote:

    If Piper supposedly believes in sola scriptura, he’s failed there.

    He says he believes it, but in practice he does not. One can find numerous assertions by him that are not in or supported by the Bible.

  46. FW Rez wrote:

    Isn’t her admonition to men cited in the OP above a direct contradiction of the proper woman’s role in the complementarian system?

    A lot of professional complementarian women speakers do have this odd double standard that they will say women cannot and should not teach (certainly not men), but that “biblical” rule flies right out the window when it comes to ENFORCING their “biblical gender roles” perspective.

    Women teaching is acceptable to complementarians so long as it’s done in service to keeping the gender role status quo and male balance of power intact.

    And cute footnote:
    Kassian would probably tell us her teaching is acceptable and not in violation of complementarianism because she’s under a “male covering” (whether that would be a husband, male church elder, pastor, etc).

  47. Lea wrote:

    I have seen a lot more men complaining than women, personally. YMMV.

    In the worlds I see on Twitter, it’s mainly been conservative women.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if some men are whining about it too – probably the sorts who sit around in ‘Red Pill’ or “MRA” (Men’s Rights) forums on Reddit complaining how life is so unfair to all men, and women have all the advantages in life.

    So far, I mainly have been seeing right wing women who are expressing worry over, “what if innocent men are hurt by this Me Too or Church Too trend.”
    I am by no means a left winger.

    I am right wing myself, but I still get surprised when I see other right wing women who remain blind, apathetic, or impervious to just how pervasive and harmful sexism is.

  48. dee wrote:

    They only care about abuse so long as it is not one of their own.

    Complementarian groups such as Kassian runs around in do claim to care deeply about domestic violence, for one, but when a former complementarian woman, Ruth Tucker, wrote a book about her abuse made possible under comp Male Headship teachings-

    Some of them, such as Tim Challies (and even Kassian herself, if I remember correctly), pushed back and ended up saying in their book reviews about Tucker’s book,
    “Nothing to see here, folks. Complementarianism is never at fault for domestic abuse. And don’t read her book!”

    Complementarians say they care about subjects such as these, but their actions consistently reveal the opposite.

  49. Daisy wrote:

    women who are expressing worry over, “what if innocent men are hurt by this Me Too or Church Too trend.”

    Most women don’t want to see decent men hurt. Sometimes we’ve been socialized in such a way as well (*as mentioned in the gift of fear*)

    But it is necessary to speak the truth to protect other women and children and sometimes men. This is a problem. It’s been a problem for a long time and although in some respects its gotten better, churches with a certain outlook seem intent on turning back the clock. The patriarchal and authoritarian doctrine is part of that. That needs to be exposed.

  50. @ Lea:
    Sorry I meant to say we’ve been socialized to protect men, even over ourselves. Why does ‘stay with him for the sake of his salvation’ work? It’s emotional manipulation.

    We are asked to protect their feelings even. Otherwise Mary wouldn’t be telling women to respect, encourage, pacify, protect men in her little spiel. Affirm them! Why do they need so much of this? Men are simultaneously portrayed as strong and in charge and unemotional, and also as weak, prone to flying off the handle at the slightest lack of ‘respect’, incapable of controlling themselves. This is such nonsense.

  51. Lea wrote:

    IIRC (cause I’m not listening again) he said you could ‘sweetly’ refuse group sex. But you better be nice about it and yammer on about how he is your head and you really really wish you could submit! Because that is a woman’s calling. yadayada

    That sounds accurate.

    My Mom raised me to be big into indirect communication. First I was strongly encouraged by her to never, ever say “No” to anyone.

    But if on some off chance I did feel pushed to say no or disagree, I had to tap dance around it and sprinkle sugar while doing it, all to avoid even possibly offending or hurting the other person’s feelings.

    I no longer have the amount of patience required to pull all that sugar-coating off.

    That’s what Piper is asking women to do – if they MUST turn a man down, it is crucial, he is saying, to sprinkle sugar all over your commentary. It’s so exhausting doing that.

  52. Daisy wrote:

    My Mom raised me to be big into indirect communication.

    Ha, see my mom’s side was very direct. My dad’s side was very polite, and roundabout about things. Very southern. Love em to death, but I remember my grandmother telling me about ‘making your husband think it was his idea’. Although when she was serious about something she put her foot down.

    I apparently got both sides and switch back and forth.

  53. @ Lydia:

    The thing that annoys me, though, is that many Christians hold themselves out, or their church, or Jesus, or whatever other religious thing, out to be perfect, and so much superior to secular anything, whether it’s secular courts, secular therapy, etc.

    I’m not really aware of any Non-Christians who run around claiming that secular courts are 100% perfect and the answer to anything and everything.

    I do occasionally see some people, Christian and Non, who really push secular therapy or medications as being ‘The Greatest Answer Ever.’

    But generally speaking, it’s religious types who promote their church, or prayer, or Jesus, or Bible reading, as being the one and only answer that will work for anyone and everyone no matter what.

    At the same time they promote Jesus or church or Bible reading as the answer to everything, they also totally denounce secular anything as being demonic, worldly, etc.

  54. @ Lea:

    I read the ‘Gift of Fear’ book and remember that point.

    I think it was conservative blogger Matt Walsh who Tweeted or Facebooked something around a week ago about how he was offended how some women are cautious around all, or most, men.

    I don’t make it a habit to follow Walsh.

    Someone in a group I was visiting pasted a screen capture of Walsh’s post, where Walsh screen capped a woman who made some remark, something like, how she’s scared of all men because she doesn’t know which are good and which are rapists, etc.

    Walsh was ridiculing her over that concern, saying something or other about her paranoia was borne of awful, yucky feminism, and if only (he implied) she had conservative values like his, she wouldn’t view all men through a Lens of Suspicion and act so nutty.

    As a conservative woman, I read the exchange and regarding Walsh’s stupid take on it, was like,

    Spoken by someone who’s never had to live the experiences out, of say, for example, of getting on to an elevator in a dimly lit hall way, with some dude who looks shifty, so you must decide whether to get on said elevator, risk being raped….

    Or go against your traditional Christian mother’s June Cleaver up-bringing of you and risk possibly offending the strange man’s feelings by choosing to take the stairs instead.

    Matt Walsh is a man and never had to stop and think on things like that, for the most part.

    So Walsh writes off any woman who mentions stuff like that, as though it’s irrational or derived from Nutty Liberal Feminism.

  55. Lea wrote:

    I don’t like the that any type of thinking is thinking ‘like a man’ or ‘like a woman’. This tends to be a derogatory way of labeling things. There is a wide range of personality types, skills and abilities, etc in women and men and we are ultimately more alike than different. Recognition of that in the church would be more helpful than this focus on the differences.

    I’m speaking from a wider cultural perspective and Christian comp.

    I was taught growing up (and I see this now by secular and Christian conservatives).

    That being out spoken, assertive, bold, are “male” traits, while being sweet, demure, quiet, and docile are “feminine” traits.

    From that vantage, then, I was raised by my mother to have traditional, stereotypical feminine traits, but raised by my father to have traditional, stereotypical masculine traits.

    As I mentioned in one of my recent blog posts (or one still in draft stage), I do not consider boldness or assertiveness or gentleness and sweetness to be either male or female traits – but a lot of other people do divvy them up that way.

  56. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Big Burly Men like Piper?

    LOL, exactly!

    And if you are a woman who happens to be an expert at karate and you’re being mugged by some guy, you must not use your skills, because it might embarrass any ‘Dudley Do-Rights’ who may want to come to your rescue and be the Hero.

  57. Lea wrote:

    The problem, I think, is that a lot of men think all their friends who have been accused are falsely accused. Statistically, they are probably wrong.

    Some of the men who are sexually attacking women may not even perceive of themselves as guilty, or they’re being disingenuous about it.

    I’m referring to the stories here:
    This is what happened when ‘a woman’s rapist loved her ‘Me Too’ status’
    https://www.indy100.com/article/me-too-rape-sexual-assault-social-media-reddit-rapist-liked-facebook-status-8079391

    I find it very hard to believe that any man is so stupid as to not understand what consent is. My gut feeling is they know damn well but don’t want to be held accountable for their actions or feel guilty.

    A few months ago, I also remember seeing a headline about a study go by on social media that said something like,
    ‘X out of Y men surveyed for this study would rape a woman if they believed they could totally get away with it legally.’
    I can’t remember which site that was on.

  58. Daisy wrote:

    I think it was conservative blogger Matt Walsh who Tweeted or Facebooked something around a week ago about how he was offended how some women are cautious around all, or most, men.

    And I’m not cautious of ‘all’ men, really. I evaluate individuals and situations and judge them on a case by case basis. I am cautious with strangers in a dating situation, I wont usually get in a car with them unless we’ve been out a couple times already. But it’s none Matt’s business to be telling people who to be cautious of! That’s exactly the wrong approach.

    There are women who, because of trauma, have overly cautious reactions to men, particular men who resemble, through no fault of their own, someone who has done that person harm. But I go with De Becker on this, men should be understanding and sympathetic in these situations and realize that it is truly not about them.

    Instead, I’ve been reading places like r/incels where the ‘men’ there
    1. seem to take any reference to someone being ‘creepy’ as about looks (when it’s really about safety)
    2. actively attempt to scare women for daring to be scared of them? I had an incident once when I was younger where someone chased me around in a van when I was walking home in the dark and relaying it to a coworker later he said he was ‘probably just trying to scare me’. I dismissed it at first, but now I’m wondering if there is some subset of men who actively run around trying to scare women? Is that a thing! ugh.

  59. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    He says he believes it, but in practice he does not. One can find numerous assertions by him that are not in or supported by the Bible.

    I think Tim F. did a post along those lines not too long ago.

    Found it:
    No Mr. Piper, the passages do not indicate an inherently female gladness to be honored with protection.

    A.K.A.
    “The Negative Doctrine of Biblical Manhood”
    https://timfall.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/the-negative-doctrine-of-biblical-manhood/amp/

  60. Daisy wrote:

    I find it very hard to believe that any man is so stupid as to not understand what consent is. My gut feeling is they know damn well but don’t want to be held accountable for their actions or feel guilty.

    I also have no patience for the idea that men don’t understand what consent is. They are like Mr. Collins, refusing to believe Lizzy’s clearly spoken ‘no’.

    I have read some studies that say men tend to overestimate a woman’s interest and women underestimate a man’s interest, so it might be tied up in that…

  61. Daisy wrote:

    No Mr. Piper, the passages do not indicate an inherently female gladness to be honored with protection.

    Piper and others (Doug Wilson is particularly bad) speak of this as if men will protect women from themselves and we should be glad of it. It’s like the mob. If you don’t act right or wear the right clothes, we will attack. If you do, or pay us off, or be ‘sweet’, we won’t.

    No wonder these churches are a mess.

  62. Lea wrote:

    Sorry I meant to say we’ve been socialized to protect men, even over ourselves. Why does ‘stay with him for the sake of his salvation’ work? It’s emotional manipulation.
    We are asked to protect their feelings even. Otherwise Mary wouldn’t be telling women to respect, encourage, pacify, protect men in her little spiel. Affirm them! Why do they need so much of this? Men are simultaneously portrayed as strong and in charge and unemotional, and also as weak, prone to flying off the handle at the slightest lack of ‘respect’, incapable of controlling themselves. This is such nonsense

    Agreed.

  63. Avid Reader wrote:

    It’s really hard for the church to make progress in protecting women when John Piper keeps teaching that women have to submit to EVERY man. Even submit to total strangers on the street!

    Great point! If i am at the mall with my kids and there is a man there punching people and yelling at them, would God expect me to stay there? Wouldnt God expect me to pick up my kids and flee??? I think God expects me to protect my children from being a witness to violence (as much as possible in the world) and to not keep them in situations that are dangerous to them.
    If we stop suspending our intelligence as wife submission churches keep teaching us to we might realise that they are telling us to endure things as wives that we would never be told to endure in any other situation.
    If piper was assaulted by a stranger every day on his way to work, would he not call the police- its not required by law to report if someone assaults you on the street. Would he keep going to work every day and let the person hit him? When the guy hit him would he encourage the assaulter to keep following God?

  64. Daisy wrote:

    I find it very hard to believe that any man is so stupid as to not understand what consent is. My gut feeling is they know damn well but don’t want to be held accountable for their actions or feel guilty.

    i.e. “If caught, Play Dumb”?

  65. okrapod wrote:

    If the abuser also abuses the children, then some people stay in abusive situations to prevent the 50/50 custody/visitation which is popular with the courts now. Leaving the children alone with the abuser is sometimes seen as lots worse than enduring abuse oneself.

    Tragic and true point.

  66. Lea wrote:

    I dismissed it at first, but now I’m wondering if there is some subset of men who actively run around trying to scare women? Is that a thing?

    Probably.
    Either a REALLY clueless attempt at a prank and/or a subset of Stupid People Tricks.

  67. Lea wrote:

    I don’t like the that any type of thinking is thinking ‘like a man’ or ‘like a woman’. This tends to be a derogatory way of labeling things.

    I dont think it was meant as derogitory. I am of a generation where women stayed home with the children, or if single could hold a job as secretary or librarian, There were definate ‘man things and woman things and ways of thinking. It was cultural not only complimenterian churches. I still remember the shock in our town when a divorced woman had the audacity to get a job in a ‘mans’ field of work.

  68. Daisy wrote:

    Until or if that happens, she will keep defending complementarianism, because some folks such as her are convinced it’s the only biblical way. In their view, it’s either be complementarian or be a liberal feminist who supports abortion.

    There is no third alternative in their thinking.

    Exactly! That shows up in all their writing- ‘anything but what we think is rabid feminism !’

  69. @ Lea:

    “I remember my grandmother telling me about ‘making your husband think it was his idea’. ”
    +++++++++++++++++

    ha. i don’t even have to take that step.

    “Why don’t we do x, y, & z with some a, b, & c?”–me

    “…………Tell ya what: let’s take x, y, and z and do it with a, b, & c?”–my dearly beloved

  70. @ Lea:

    “respect, encourage, pacify, protect men in her little spiel. Affirm them! Why do they need so much of this? Men are simultaneously portrayed as strong and in charge and unemotional, and also as weak, prone to flying off the handle at the slightest lack of ‘respect’, incapable of controlling themselves. This is such nonsense.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    i’m very curious — men, what do you think of this? how do you feel about being portrayed like this?

  71. Daisy wrote:

    I took Mary K. to mean, don’t lump all men together in this recently cultural phenomenon of “MeToo” and “ChurchToo” uprising, hash tagging on Twitter.

    Since it was part of her response to what to do about abused women i take it (and her admonition to men) as directions to abused women and abusive men.

  72. “Can We End Violence Against Women by 2030?”

    Oh, dear God, I wish we could! But, can we end evil by 2030?

    Any theology – no matter how you spin it – that subordinates another human being is not a good thing; it is a bad thing – it is a form of “violence” IMO. The only thing worse than the eternal subordination of women is the eternal subordination of the Son … both of which are great errors of the New Calvinist movement.

  73. I was thinking about Marys story about her ‘friend’ the domestic violence victim, it reads just like something someone who has never been around victims might write.
    Stereotype injuries- black eyes and sunglasses.

    Most misogynist abusers hurt where it wont publicly show, especially church going misogynists
    Stereotype abuser- he gets drunk at the bar and beats wife when gets home.
    Most church attending abusers dont go to the public bar and get drunk and go home. They dont want to be seen by members of their church drunk in public. Alot of misogynistic church going men dont drink at all, and dont need alcohol to beat women and children. They may use substances afterwards to assauge their guilt however.
    Mary states that the police were called the next time Sandra contacted her. In that instance the spouse had knocked over the china cabinet, broke a chair and went to a bar. perhaps its different in marys world but in my experience the police would assertain if the victim was injured or struck and if the answer was no, they would say ‘why are you still there? We can’t arrest a man for breaking his own furniture, get a protection order lady.’

    It is very important to call police when you are harmed in domestic violence and it is serious to have been threatened but threats are not usually enough to have police respond. If you cant leave because the abuser is there definately call police, they will make sure you get out safely.
    I get upset with stereotypical advice like hers because often women actually going through it are trying to assess when to call for help or when to leave. Often women think that since they never got a black eye its not that serious, or since he apologized and doesnt go get drunk at the bar everynight he’s not that bad so i should stay and help him become a better man or christian.

  74. Mitch Randall, executive director-elect of the Baptist Center for Ethics, denounced “complementarianism” — the view that God creates men and women for different and complementary roles — as “theological malpractice”

    Exactly! There is something inherently immoral about always opting for the interpretation of the Bible that demands oppressing another group (e.g. women, LGBTQ, “church discipline”, etc., etc.). And, to top that, they call it “Christian”. No wonder ‘Christianity’ is losing whatever moral authority it had.

  75. elastigirl wrote:

    “respect, encourage, pacify, protect men in her little spiel. Affirm them! Why do they need so much of this? Men are simultaneously portrayed as strong and in charge and unemotional, and also as weak, prone to flying off the handle at the slightest lack of ‘respect’, incapable of controlling themselves. This is such nonsense.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    i’m very curious — men, what do you think of this? how do you feel about being portrayed like this?

    Let’s see…
    “Strong, in charge, flying off the handle at the slightest lack of ‘respect”, incapable of controlling themselves…”

    I’m not a Wahabi in Talibanistan!

  76. sandy c wrote:

    If piper was assaulted by a stranger every day on his way to work, would he not call the police- its not required by law to report if someone assaults you on the street. Would he keep going to work every day and let the person hit him? When the guy hit him would he e

    Well now, Minnesota is quite a drive for me, but if any of y’all would be willing to post my bail ……….

  77. Max wrote:

    “Can We End Violence Against Women by 2030?”
    Oh, dear God, I wish we could! But, can we end evil by 2030?
    Any theology – no matter how you spin it – that subordinates another human being is not a good thing; it is a bad thing – it is a form of “violence” IMO. The only thing worse than the eternal subordination of women is the eternal subordination of the Son … both of which are great errors of the New Calvinist movement.

    I don’t believe that all violence against women will ever totally end, just as violence in general will never totally end. But, if the majority of women would make a stand ………. speak out, as many are doing now ……….. fight back – literally – kicks in groins, punches, mace, pepper spray,……… police, lawyers …….. whatever ………
    I think if a lot of abusers were convinced that they more than likely would have pay in some way for their actions, violence against women would be greatly reduced.

  78. dee wrote:

    Mary Kassian is a member of a group of mostly men and a few women who love to push CJ Mahaney. She is just another shill for their pals to show that they really care about abuse. They only care about abuse so long as it is not one of their own. She is writing this on Desiring God. John Piper loooooves CJ Mahaney.

    Kind of reminds me of how Mark Driscoll loved church discipline until he faced it….

  79. Daisy wrote:

    If Piper supposedly believes in sola scriptura, he’s failed there.

    One of the things I greatly appreciate about Piper is how easy he makes it to find examples of his inconsistencies and false teaching. For example, here is his “Ask Pastor John” episode from today: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/to-whom-did-jesus-pay-our-ransom. First, notice how many time he writes “I think” or “it seems.” How can he state this while at the same time teaching “sola scriptura”? Second, look at some of his statements, such as “He has offended the glory of God. He has besmirched and dishonored the glory of God.” That “truth” is not only not in the verse he cites, it is nowhere in the Bible. Here’s another: “I would say that what was paid was the repair of God’s dishonor.” Where does the Bible directly state this? This is a medieval invention of Anslem of Canterbury that is not found in the Bible. Piper is a false teacher. I don’t know why so many people cling to his every word. Or am I wrong?

  80. elastigirl wrote:

    i’m very curious — men, what do you think of this? how do you feel about being portrayed like this?

    If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. I suspect this type of teaching a way for weak men to entrap not-weak mean – to shame them into submission to this sick agenda. It’s all about power and control.

  81. @ FW Rez:
    FW Rez wrote:

    Isn’t her admonition to men cited in the OP above a direct contradiction of the proper woman’s role in the complementarian system?

    Exactly!!

  82. @ Daisy:
    Since I am not in church much anymore, this doesn’t annoy me as much as it used to. . I guess I just smh and move on.

    What people will say is that the “court decided”. And unless you can afford a slick well known to court attorney, you are stuck. Nothing voluntary about it! Ouch.

  83. Hey, my angel emoji did not transfer. Imagine it mischievously inserted after first sentence. Ha.

  84. @ Nancy2 (aka Kevlar):
    Agreed. Because abused women are rising to proclaim “enough is enough”, a bunch of Hollywood movers & shakers, politicians, business leaders, and, yes, even pastors are shaking in their boots right now waiting for the next boot to drop.

  85. @ Lydia:
    Although that is all good (as well as teaching women how to watch for each other as we did when I was In college) I think part of the problem is that predators will still go after the one who is less protected for whatever reason.

    Just as the informal gossip network misses people who need a warning, not everyone will be taught or in a position to protect themselves. I was pretty cautious but I’ve still been caught in vulnerable situations. It only takes one time.

  86. Just clarifying my comment about john piper being assaulted- i in no way support violence against anyone, my comment was to point out that his directives to married women who are being abused are things he would never submit to himself. He wouldnt (prayerfully) suffer someone to abuse himself on a daily basis and not call authorities and not leave a dangerous situation, it is horrific that he tells women to.

  87. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    I think if a lot of abusers were convinced that they more than likely would have pay in some way for their actions, violence against women would be greatly reduced.

    Especially if the church stopped being such a great place for abusers to hide, multiply, and get promoted!

  88. I was reading the #churchToo thread on twitter the other day and noticed several male pastors were posting alot to let people know that one of the women that started the thread was a lesbian. Doesnt it really show those mens hearts when they dont comment on any of the hundreds of tragic women and men that were abused but instead attack whoever thought up the idea? Does it matter who first posted? One posted that its purpose was to destroy the church. Hey buddy, shaming and disbelieving victims and covering up abusers already almost totally destroyed the church, if you want to finish it totally then go ahead and publicly tell women to shut up about what happened to them.

  89. Dee said: “Even before Dee and I launched this blog, we sometimes discussed how domineering and even abusive men are easily drawn to a religious system in which they are elevated by church leadership and tasked with being ‘in charge’ of their household. This can be a recipe for disaster!”

    That is why i wrote my comment about Mary Kissels stereotyping of abusers. When church leaders only see abusers as men that get drunk in bars and go home and abuse their families, they never see the misogynist in the suit that they just promoted to leadership in their church. Their victims have even more trouble trying to get help because every one sees their abuser as someone who would never do that. We cant end violence against women but surely enough voices exposing it in churches can at least make churches back into ‘sanctuaries’ for abused people.

  90. I expressed my exasperation about piper and how he didnt go far enough in my opinion and how i doubt he has changed his actual church practices but i think its also important to say that he did make a decent (although rambeling) statement that i hope complimentarians at least listen to:

    “One of the criticisms of my answer has been that I did not mention the recourse that a wife has to law enforcement for protection. So let me clarify with seven biblical observations. “But recourse to civil authorities may be the right thing for an abused wife to do. Threatening or intentionally inflicting bodily harm against a spouse (or other family members) is a misdemeanor in Minnesota, punishable by fines, short-term imprisonment, or both. Which means that a husband who threatens and intentionally injures his wife is not only breaking God’s moral law, but also the state’s civil law. In expecting his wife to quietly accept his threats and injuries, he is asking her to participate in his breaking of both God’s moral law and the state’s civil law.

    God himself has put law enforcement officers in place for the protection of the innocent. “If you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). A wife’s submission to the authority of civil law, for Christ’s sake, may, therefore, overrule her submission to a husband’s demand that she endure his injuries.
    4. The church should not harbor an abusive man or woman whom the civil authorities would punish if they knew what the church knows. We are called to mercy. “Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). But there are times when mercy to one demands justice for another. This is often the case with criminal abuse. Moreover, there are many ways to show mercy toward a guilty person who must pay fines or go to jail. We are seldom in a position where the choice is simply mercy or no mercy.” https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/clarifying-words-on-wife-abuse

  91. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    First, notice how many time he writes “I think” or “it seems.” How can he state this while at the same time teaching “sola scriptura”?

    <stuck_record_alert>
    By definition, no preacher believes in sola scriptura.
    </stuck_record_alert>

    AWWBA, God is often quoted out of context – indeed, a big proportion of the discussion here in Wartburg addresses the misquoting of God to prop up unjust church laws by which people are enslaved. But oddly enough, there’s a single quote from the devil that I’ve also often heard taken out of context. It is this: “did God really say…?. The implication being that it’s ultimately always the devil who wants us to question whether God said anything.

    There are a great many things that God did not really say. (To paraphrase Jeremiah 19 – did God really say to burn our children as sacrifices to Baal? Er – no.) If only more of the church would realise we are quite free to question whether God said something. Luke describes the Bereans as noble because they searched the scriptures daily, not because they re-read somebody’s out-of-context proof-texts.

  92. @ Lea:
    I don’t have any answers beyond doing what we have control over, individually. That is where I was coming from.

  93. sandy c wrote:

    He wouldnt (prayerfully) suffer someone to abuse himself on a daily basis and not call authorities and not leave a dangerous situation, it is horrific that he tells women to.

    None of these men would. Everything they tell women is a lie.
    Lydia wrote:

    I don’t have any answers beyond doing what we have control over, individually.

    I don’t have the answers either, but I think it’s important to think about *why* predators choose the people they do. They purposefully go after people who cannot or will not fight back, or will not be believed. And as far as physical safety, people who don’t have cars, don’t have the money to live in a ‘better’ neighborhood, people who have to work shifts for whatever reason…they are vulnerable due to factors mostly beyond their control. This is also true of children.

  94. sandy c wrote:

    A wife’s submission to the authority of civil law, for Christ’s sake, may, therefore, overrule her submission to a husband’s demand that she endure his injuries.

    Can I just say how much I hate this idea that women are supposed to spend their whole lives sitting around deciding who on this sliding scale list they need to submit to rather than every making their own decisions?

    Pass.

  95. One potential indicator of ADHD:

     You think: I must look up X and cross the room to the Mac. By the time you’ve cmd+tab’d to Safari, you’ve no idea what you were going to look up.

    This alone is not indicative of ADHD, btw. You’d experience this symptom, not occasionally, but persistently and frequently. You’d also experience a large number of independent, but related, symptoms too.

    #NotEveryoneHasADHDactually

    Anyway.

    Er – sorry, what was the question?

  96. I wonder how Mary and others would respond to this story that I read on another website. A Swedish woman was gang raped, and no one came to her defense. No one opened their door to her afterwards; even a train conductor refused to help. She had to go to a police station by herself.

    Lord, have mercy on her.

  97. Lea wrote:

    I don’t have the answers either, but I think it’s important to think about *why* predators choose the people they do. They purposefully go after people who cannot or will not fight back, or will not be believed.

    EASY PREY.

    And where easy prey gathers, the Predators Will Swarm.
    (Hollywood, business, churches…)

  98. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    EASY PREY.

    Exactly. And it’s easy to be conscious of the fact that one wrong turn, one day, can put you in this category.

    And that even if you do all the right things, you can still end up in a bad situation. For instance, someone tried to break into my house when I was home alone. That’s not something I can control.

    I am all for doing what you can, but you cannot protect yourself from every potential situation. No one can. So what can we do, other than that, to stop this? Education of how these people work is helpful. Taking women seriously would also be nice. And teaching, society wide, respect for others as people, women and men and children.

  99. @ Lea:
    Could not agree more. Legal system and society do gooders seem to be less concerned with poor decent hardworking people who follow the rules than others. I deal with what you describe almost daily. No one cares. It’s demoralizing.

  100. Lea wrote (quoting sandy c):

    sandy c wrote:

    A wife’s submission to the authority of civil law, for Christ’s sake, may, therefore, overrule her submission to a husband’s demand that she endure his injuries.

    Can I just say how much I hate this idea that women are supposed to spend their whole lives sitting around deciding who on this sliding scale list they need to submit to rather than every making their own decisions?

    I hate it too. It reminds me a great deal of folk who tithed their mint, dill and cumin, and neglected justice and the love of God. That, and the people who took offence at the idea of Jesus healing a person on the sabbath, because it violated a procedure that, to them, was more important than the person for whom God became Human.

    If [generic] you need to find some textual bible-law before you’ll deliver the oppressed, then scripture has not equipped [generic] you for every good work.

  101. elastigirl wrote:

    i’m very curious — men, what do you think of this? how do you feel about being portrayed like this?

    I think it’s absurd regardless of gender. If you (generic you) cannot find your own affirmation of what you are, what you’re good at, and what you’re not good at, there ain’t nobody gonna’ give it to you with formulaic constructs.

    Kassian is only using today’s headlines about violence and sexual malfeasance toward women as a spin to bolster the whole of Complementarianism and say that ‘we were right all along”.

  102. Lea wrote:

    The problem, I think, is that a lot of men think all their friends who have been accused are falsely accused. Statistically, they are probably wrong.

    And yet, we do know that false accusations happen. Some of them have been high profile.

  103. elastigirl wrote:

    i’m very curious — men, what do you think of this? how do you feel about being portrayed like this?

    Of being portrayed like some schizophrenic child with delusions of grandeur?

    No, thanks. I’m weird enough already.

  104. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    If [generic] you need to find some textual bible-law before you’ll deliver the oppressed, then scripture has not equipped [generic] you for every good work.

    This does seem to be part of it. I suppose skipping to things like ‘loving your neighbor’ and the golden rule would be considered too ‘liberal’? Or none of that applies in this hierarchical world, because your pain doesn’t matter unless someone you ‘submit’ to decides it does. Is that it?
    Robert M wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    The problem, I think, is that a lot of men think all their friends who have been accused are falsely accused. Statistically, they are probably wrong.

    And yet, we do know that false accusations happen.

    Robert, you have managed to miss my point entirely.

  105. @ Lea:
    SO well stated! Good men have nothing to fear. Plenty of women like me have hard evidence so I am clearly not making false accusations. Critical thinking skills have left the building apparently. I have abuser’s own words recorded and written admitting his actions.(Plus so much more including pastor recorded lying, slandering me, and breaking pastoral confidentiality.) Chairman of elders is recorded stating that he didn’t want to know and refusing the offered recording. Pastor and elders refuse to even look at the evidence. So bizarre and discouraging.

  106. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    “He has offended the glory of God. He has besmirched and dishonored the glory of God.”

    I sincerely doubt that He who created reality itself with that kind of power is easily besmirched and dishonored.

    Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    “I would say that what was paid was the repair of God’s dishonor.” Where does the Bible directly state this? This is a medieval invention of Anselm of Canterbury that is not found in the Bible.

    Ever noticed how closely PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) parallels a Muslim ‘honor killing’?

  107. Muff Potter wrote:

    Kassian is only using today’s headlines about violence and sexual malfeasance toward women as a spin to bolster the whole of Complementarianism and say that ‘we were right all along”.

    As much as the current exposure of predators in Hollywood shows the moral system there is wrong headed, their being wrong does not make their critics right.

  108. elastigirl wrote:

    i’m very curious — men, what do you think of this? how do you feel about being portrayed like this?

    I’d ask a similar question the other direction. Women are told to be strong yet on the university here they set up “safe spaces” when someone speaks about something that may offend them. The idiocy of that and the one you refer to makes my head spin.

  109. Lea wrote:

    And that even if you do all the right things, you can still end up in a bad situation. For instance, someone tried to break into my house when I was home alone. That’s not something I can control.

    Two large dogs and a ,357 can be quite helpful in a situation like that, and I speak from experience. When my husband was deployed to Iraq, a druggie that lived down the road broke into our garage while I was asleep. The dogs woke me up …….. The would-be burglar didn’t care whether I was a man or a woman.

  110. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    If [generic] you need to find some textual bible-law before you’ll deliver the oppressed, then scripture has not equipped [generic] you for every good work.

    True.

  111. I think if you have never been physically abused by your husband that you should keep your mouth shut about domestic violence and let the sisterhood take over…meaning the survivors.

  112. Thersites wrote:

    As much as the current exposure of predators in Hollywood shows the moral system there is wrong headed, their being wrong does not make their critics right.

    Exposure of predators is going on everywhere, as far as I can tell. It’s not just a Hollywood thing. It’s happening in government and churches, private business. At the moment, it appears that Hollywood and media businesses are dealing with it in a different fashion than churches and government entities.

  113. Abigail wrote:

    I think if you have never been physically abused by your husband that you should keep your mouth shut about domestic violence and let the sisterhood take over…meaning the survivors.

    But abusers are very scared of other men who become very angry when they hear of abuse of women/children. And that is a good thing. Abusers are basically cowards who don’t think they are picking on their equals. They only abuse those for whom they can get by with it.

  114. Thersites wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    i’m very curious — men, what do you think of this? how do you feel about being portrayed like this?

    I’d ask a similar question the other direction. Women are told to be strong yet on the university here they set up “safe spaces” when someone speaks about something that may offend them. The idiocy of that and the one you refer to makes my head spin.

    The insane world of group identity. Collectivism.

  115. Muff Potter wrote:

    Ever noticed how closely PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) parallels a Muslim ‘honor killing’?

    Sheesh. Glad someone had the nerve to say that besides me. :o)

  116. @ Drborah:
    You go, girl. Oh how I wish people could get very good counsel on these things before they go public. These places are NOT going to change. They might make cosmetic and “legal” changes but frankly, if they did not know better before, its a fools game to trust their so called repentance in either the abuse or protecting the abusers. The best we can do sometimes is make it public but it’s important to have your ducks in a row, first. The worst thing about being a victim is the victimization. It takes a strong constitution to go in for that. Because they will.

  117. Drborah wrote:

    Chairman of elders is recorded stating that he didn’t want to know and refusing the offered recording. Pastor and elders refuse to even look at the evidence. So bizarre and discouraging.

    Pathetic of them.

    I’m torn because in a sense I don’t think people like that are worth bothering with. They have made up their minds already. But it’s good to bring them the truth and make them act. At least then you know they are not acting out of ignorance, but making a conscious choice.

  118. Thersites wrote:

    Women are told to be strong yet on the university here they set up “safe spaces” when someone speaks about something that may offend them.

    College students have brains that aren’t even done cooking. I do not consider that the same analogy at all. Pastors are speaking of grown men, often with families and children. They are *teaching* children and adults this mush and it’s nonsense.

  119. Max wrote:

    Because abused women are rising to proclaim “enough is enough”, a bunch of Hollywood movers & shakers, politicians, business leaders, and, yes, even pastors are shaking in their boots right now waiting for the next boot to drop.

    Matt Lauer made the list today. Who’s next?

  120. Max wrote:

    Who’s next?

    That’s why they are scared. Because there is *so* much.

    Also, remember that ‘boys club’ thing with AnnCurry? By seeing only the men who are taken down, we miss all the women who were driven out by this behavior along the way. I’m hoping for better in the future.

  121. Daisy wrote:

    This same class of conservative woman on social media is also getting into a “Pity the Poor Men!! Who will protect the Men” mode, actually lamenting that men may now be too afraid to even flirt with women on jobs, gasp.

    On the job flirting is a big no no in today’s work environment. A young woman told me that in her office both men and women have a “poker” face. The work environment has become stifling due to fear about saying something or doing something which someone might find offensive for which the company can look bad and be sued.

  122. Abigail wrote:

    I think if you have never been physically abused by your husband that you should keep your mouth shut about domestic violence and let the sisterhood take over…meaning the survivors.

    No offense, but I have to vehemently disagree. I have never been physically abused by my husband, but my brother and I watched our dad abuse our mom for many years (multiple bloody noses and black eyes, he even tried to run her down with the truck once)…….. until my brother and I were grown and she finally had the courage to stand up for herself. When I told the truth during the divorce proceedings, my dad grabbed me around the throat and threatened to strangle me to death.
    I’m not going to keep my mouth shut.

    I love my dad. In many respects, he is a great guy. But, he was an abusive jacka** for years, and he knows it! He blamed my mom for everything that went wrong. Oh, but he put on a good act for the outside world, as I believe many abusers do.

  123. Anna A wrote:

    A Swedish woman was gang raped, and no one came to her defense. No one opened their door to her afterwards; even a train conductor refused to help. She had to go to a police station by herself.

    I imagine Mary Kassian would reply that the Swedes are a postmodern and postChristian nation. I would say that the neighbors were probably responding in a a rational though remarkably immoral way, given the modern Politically Correct reality of what may not be spoken. Certain things May Not Be Spoken in the Complementarian Church, and certain things May Not Be Spoken in the Politically Correct Secular Church. Both sets of orthodoxies are rigorously enforced. Women are not protected in either, ironically enough, though both claim to protect women while both being blinded by their ideology to the insanity.

  124. kin wrote:

    Just curious as to what the minimum requirement is to constitute a false teacher in your book? I appreciate your insight.

    Since Ken F sometimes gets confused with Ken G, I’ll provide my insight. 1John4:2 and 2John1:7 have the test for identifying a false teacher.

  125. Twitter comment:
    Sierra White️
    Sierra White️
    @iSierraNichole
    I hate that whenever I tell someone I’m a Christian I feel like I need to explain myself and say “but I’m not a jerk and I don’t hate homosexuals, or women who’ve had abortions, or submit to male headship”.

  126. @ elastigirl:

    As a man familiar with CBMW doublespeak, it means here’s another suspicion you can make of other men at your church who aren’t properly “submissive to authority” like you are.

  127. Lea wrote:

    Can I just say how much I hate this idea that women are supposed to spend their whole lives sitting around deciding who on this sliding scale list they need to submit to rather than every making their own decisions?

    Pass.

    Absolutely! Its like a man and a woman are in a burning building: the man sees fire and runs outside to safety. The woman, before she can flee must first stop and think of what the pastor said she should do in such a situation, then call her husband to see if its ok, change her clothing really quickly if she is wearing the wrong type of outfit so she doesnt get blamed for not wearing fire-resistant clothing when she gets outside.

  128. @ Lea:
    Not that long ago that age was storming the beaches of Normandy and building airplanes. We seem to be producing a more fragile crop these days.

  129. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I don’t have the answers either, but I think it’s important to think about *why* predators choose the people they do. They purposefully go after people who cannot or will not fight back, or will not be believed.

    EASY PREY.

    And where easy prey gathers, the Predators Will Swarm.
    (Hollywood, business, churches…)

    And the bible says to support the weak. Exciting wonderful on the move churches and church planters and calvinists ignore the weak or vulnerable because…

  130. Lydia wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Not that long ago that age was storming the beaches of Normandy and building airplanes. We seem to be producing a more fragile crop these days.

    I could say a lot about this, and we’d probably agree more than disagree. However, I really dislike that as a comparison to the comment I made. Apples and oranges. We aren’t talking generically about ‘women’ or ‘men’ when we are talking about college students. It’s a bunch of still fairly young people living in a bubble. Put most of those people in a situation where they had to storm beaches, and I truly think they would learn quickly and step up. Some would crumble, but some crumbled in WWII as well. And WWI. Rough times. People who have never experienced these things have no ability to compare.

    And it’s hardly everyone on campus. There are the loud people, always. The rest are mostly going to class, partying, working, etc.

  131. Drborah wrote:

    Pastor and elders refuse to even look at the evidence. So bizarre and discouraging.

    “For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” John 12:43 also Jesus confronted people on this issue in John chapt 5.

    I am so sorry you had to go through this 🙁

  132. Lea wrote:

    I suppose skipping to things like ‘loving your neighbor’ and the golden rule would be considered too ‘liberal’? Or none of that applies in this hierarchical world, because your pain doesn’t matter unless someone you ‘submit’ to decides it does. Is that it?

    I came across a great quote a while back; it went something like this. When law is paramount, rules matter more than people and Christians will sacrifice people in order to uphold the rules. When love is paramount people matter more than rules and Christians will break the rules in order to protect people. I think that in the hierarchical world, the only thing that matters to God is that everybody be kept in their place, so that God’s workshop can be tidy.

    It’s as though Jesus came to do no more than plug a few leaks in the Law, so that whereas previously it was impossible to live a life Lawfully enough to earn righteousness, it is no longer so.

  133. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote (quoting a pastor who presumably might pick a peck of pickled pepper):

    “He has offended the glory of God. He has besmirched and dishonored the glory of God.”

    Why on all earth this God character can’t just drop it and move on is quite beyond me. How long is He going to stay angry and bitter? Doesn’t he realise how sinful his unforgiveness is? I’ve already apologised, and I no longer give a shihave moved on. “My” sin is his problem now.

  134. Bridget wrote:

    At the moment, it appears that Hollywood and media businesses are dealing with it in a different fashion than churches and government entities.

    And that is the most telling part and that is exactly how complimenterian calvinist churches are destroying themselves. Or rather being exposed as what they always were and now people in the -world or in the church- have a clear view of it. They have no excuse even though they are rushing about trying to twist up some scriptural justification that says God told us to be like this!! And maybe its why Jesus often said ‘woe unto thee’ to hypocrites

  135. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Obviously, this was meant to be ironic. But if you go through that paragraph and replace “God” with anyone who’s been targeted by a sexual predator, and “me” with the predator, you get exactly what @ sandy c is talking about.

  136. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I came across a great quote a while back; it went something like this. When law is paramount, rules matter more than people and Christians will sacrifice people in order to uphold the rules. When love is paramount people matter more than rules and Christians will break the rules in order to protect people. I think that in the hierarchical world, the only thing that matters to God is that everybody be kept in their place, so that God’s workshop can be tidy.

    Love this!

  137. Saw this on twitter:
    Twitter comment:
    Sierra White️
    Sierra White️
    @iSierraNichole
    I hate that whenever I tell someone I’m a Christian I feel like I need to explain myself and say “but I’m not a jerk and I don’t hate homosexuals, or women who’ve had abortions, or submit to male headship”.

    I would add i dont hate people of other races or religions or sexes or politics or occupations….
    Who exactly is giving Christianity a bad rep? Its certainly not abuse survivors!

  138. Muff Potter wrote:

    Ever noticed how closely PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) parallels a Muslim ‘honor killing’?

    Sometimes I feel like I have an “uncanny grasp of the obvious.” But usually a bit late. I had never made that connection before. But now that you mentioned it the connection is obvious. I will use this.

  139. kin wrote:

    Just curious as to what the minimum requirement is to constitute a false teacher in your book? I appreciate your insight.

    I might have been too careless with that label. I believe Piper teaches many false things, but not everything he teaches is false and I don’t believe is is purposefully trying to deceive. Rather, I believe that he is deceived and he is leading others into the same deception. But probably not with evil intent.

    Here are some areas where I belive he is teaching falsehoods:
    1) Calvinism. Based on all I have studied, I believe Calvinism is a false gospel that starts with a very wrong view of God. While I believe that one can be a real Christian as a Calvinist, I believe Calvinism does much more harm than good, and that Calvinists are saved in spite of, not because of, their Calvinism.
    2) Gender roles. I find no support from the Bible or church history for his extreme views on gender roles. His abusive views on women seem to flow from this.
    3) Eternal Subordination of the Son. This is an ancient heresy (one of the beliefs that got Origen labeled as a heretic).
    4) Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This theory was invented by Calvin and has only ever been believed by a very small minority of Christians. It has no biblical or historical foundation, and paints what I believe is an heretical picture of the Trinity.
    5) Inconsistency. He teaches mutually exclusive ideas, sometimes within the same article/sermon, but hides it behinds flowery and incomprehensible language.
    6) He makes up up stuff that has no biblical or historical precedent. The article I cited above is just one example.

    I could go on, but this is probably enough. My views probably come across as way too negative and opinionated. As I have been trying to recover from this form of Christiany I have been blessed by the early creeds and early church writings (and modern theologians who draw from these sources). I hope this answers your question.

  140. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Why on all earth this God character can’t just drop it and move on is quite beyond me.

    Isn’t it ironic that people who expect this of us don’t expect it of god. As if we have to meet a higher standard than god.

  141. Ken G wrote:

    kin wrote:

    Just curious as to what the minimum requirement is to constitute a false teacher in your book? I appreciate your insight.

    Since Ken F sometimes gets confused with Ken G, I’ll provide my insight. 1John4:2 and 2John1:7 have the test for identifying a false teacher.

    Thanks for the reply. I actually shifted our of goofball gear and am aware of F and G. 🙂

    So, since Piper acknowledges Jesus has come in the flesh he wouldn’t get your label of false teacher. That does seem very like a very bare bones approach.

  142. Kin wrote:

    Would u consider him as having a false gospel?

    This is a very difficult question to answer well. But I suppose I owe an answer since I already stepped in it. The problem is he has written SO many contradictory statements about the gospel. I can piece together from his writings some very orthodox and beautiful views of God and man. But I can also piece together very heretical views. So who is the real John Piper? He has both a true gospel and a false gospel. One false gospel is how he gloats in his belief in double pre-destination. “Gospel” means good news. But his views on election are very bad news for the non-elect. If the good news becomes bad news, is it a false gospel (= false good news)? His extreme inconsistency and apparent inability to have a private thought makes this a difficult question. I have loved ones who have suffered greatly under his teaching. Is that good news? My wife says his theology is crazy-making because his viewpoint changes like a weathervane in a storm. I suspect his issue is more of a personality disorder. If he has true friends they are failing him badly right now – they should screen his writings.

  143. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    The problem is he has written SO many contradictory statements about the gospel. I can piece together from his writings some very orthodox and beautiful views of God and man. But I can also piece together very heretical views. So who is the real John Piper? He has both a true gospel and a false gospel. One false gospel is how he gloats in his belief in double pre-destination. “Gospel” means good news. But his views on election are very bad news for the non-elect

    Thanks. In this short vid about what Piper thinks the gospel is he mentions nothing about predestination nor election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3psJWtT68WE

    Are you implying those issues need to be part and parcel of the gospel message in order to be legit?

  144. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    but hides it behinds flowery and incomprehensible language.

    Phewww! At first I thought i was just not bright enough to understand him, recently i have been reading some of his stuff that i can only classify as ‘artful dodging’

  145. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    My wife says his theology is crazy-making because his viewpoint changes like a weathervane in a storm

    My daughter and her friends call it ‘mindfckery’

  146. sandy c wrote:

    At first I thought i was just not bright enough to understand him,

    Rather, you are bright enough to not understand him.

  147. kin wrote:

    Thanks. In this short vid about what Piper thinks the gospel is he mentions nothing about predestination nor election.

    I think the biggest issue is that if i open a church and at the onset state absolutely correctly the gospel but then teach the members twisted doctrine and change even that occassionally, it really doesnt matter what i said in the beginning. Even racist hate groups usually claim they are following the bible. Jesus said you can tell them by their fruits, and wisdom is justified by her children. That is why it is more important to see what the results of the preaching is doing. Is it bringing peace, love, longsuffering, joy, goodness, faith, meekness, temperence, gentleness?

  148. kin wrote:

    Are you implying those issues need to be part and parcel of the gospel message in order to be legit?

    I wish you would ask easier questions. 🙂 It really gets down to the question of what is the gospel. Is it “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”? Or is it “For God so hated the world, that He killed His only begotten Son, that only the chosen elect shall not perish, but have eternal life.”? Piper preaches the true gospel, but also mixes it with a lot of bad news that ends up grossly twisting it. Here is what his site says about his view on double-predestination: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist

  149. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Rather, you are bright enough to not understand him.

    Hehehe i cant even claim that but ‘the Lord delivered them with a might outstretched hand’ and some unbrainwashing lol

  150. @ Ken G:
    Seems that we’ve had an outbreak of men in high places who can’t keep their pants on. They are finding out there there is a high price to pay for low livin’.

  151. sandy c wrote:

    That is why it is more important to see what the results of the preaching is doing. Is it bringing peace, love, longsuffering, joy, goodness, faith, meekness, temperence, gentleness?

    Agreed.

    @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    As always – thanks man!

  152. @ Lea:
    I should have linked to Thersites concerning safe places. And I totally disagree with you which I hope is ok to say so. . We have a serious immaturity entitlement problem that sends mixed messages about being “vulnerable/fragile but treat me with respect like I am strong”. Very confused young people.

    I am not feeling “safe” so will bow out of thread. 🙂 Nite.

  153. Lydia wrote:

    I am not feeling “safe” so will bow out of thread. Nite.

    Nite Lyds. Muff will carry on. He don’t give a rat’s a.., er ah rip, who he offends.

  154. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    4) Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This theory was invented by Calvin and has only ever been believed by a very small minority of Christians. It has no biblical or historical foundation, and paints what I believe is an heretical picture of the Trinity.

    Man o’ Manischewitz have they got some clobber verses for you.
    And, no soup for you!

  155. Kin wrote:

    So, since Piper acknowledges Jesus has come in the flesh he wouldn’t get your label of false teacher. That does seem very like a very bare bones approach.

    I believe 2 Peter 2 gives some additional guidance regarding the characteristics of a false teacher, but it’s very difficult (perhaps even impossible) to apply that guidance and be 100% certain that a pastor is or is not a false teacher. Therefore, the bare bones approach can be considered an initial pass or fail type of screening. After that initial screening test, if an individual doesn’t feel comfortable with the teaching of a pastor or a particular denomination there’s reasonable probability that it could be false. The best approach then would be not to attend rather than trying to attach a false label because other Christians may be of different opinion.

  156. Lydia wrote:

    We have a serious immaturity entitlement problem

    I definitely agree about entitlement. I’m not sure that’s the same as wanting to be safe.

    I mostly think safe spaces are stupid, my point was mainly that the two issues (idiots in college, and what is being taught systematically in churches regarding grown men) are not really analogous.

  157. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

    How am I to resolve the apparent contradiction here except to say that Paul imposed complementarianism as an act of his own naked human authority? He even says “I do not permit”…. almost as if to clarify that this is his opinion, not God’s.

    My problem with Paul and therefore complementarianism is that Paul is known to editorialize in what would otherwise be scripture, making it difficult to tell when he was speaking for himself and when he was speaking for God. Just because he sometimes lets us know when he is editorializing doesn’t mean he always managed to sufficiently warn us.

    Complimentarianism is based on Paul’s personal opinion of how a 1st century church should be run. It contradicts unqualified revelation on the equality of all believers and, while Paul may have been able to square that circle in his own time, the knowledge of how he did so is lost, and we best throw the whole thing out in favor of the equality which is indeed the truth revealed to us by Jesus.

  158. hoodaticus wrote:

    Complimentarianism is based on Paul’s personal opinion of how a 1st century church should be run.

    “That which I am speaking, I am not speaking as the Lord would …” (2 Cor. 11:17)

    It is true that Paul sometimes threw out his own opinion about things.

  159. Max wrote:

    “That which I am speaking, I am not speaking as the Lord would …” (2 Cor. 11:17)
    It is true that Paul sometimes threw out his own opinion about things.

    That’s why you have to keep your eyes peeled with him. All Pauline complementarianism is prefaced with prepositions like “I desire” and “I do not permit”. We are probably missing many linguistic cues as to whether he is speaking authoritatively or merely persuasively, queues that the Koine-speaking population of 1st century Asia Minor would have picked up on.

  160. Also note that Jewish law consisted of the unchanging Torah and then the evolving Midrash that was promulgated by religious authorities. When Paul spoke as the LORD it cannot be amended or questioned, but when he spoke on his own authority he was writing Midrash, and the Midrash is meant to be changed by subsequent generations as part of the evolution of the faith.

  161. hoodaticus wrote:

    We are probably missing many linguistic cues as to whether he is speaking authoritatively or merely persuasively

    Indeed. However, we should not let this distract us from the holy inspiration of the Word of God. We simply need to read Scripture carefully and differentiate what is Paul’s opinion about things in the context of the first church and what is God’s word.

  162. I really don’t get Piper’s popularity. To me he just comes off as weird and creepy in so many ways.

    To the substance of what he says, it’s dangerous nonsense. Same with Kassian. As a theologian and former ss teacher, I have always made the point that if a guy is abusive toward his wife, he has already (probably long ago) broken the marriage vow. There isn’t anything to hold together at that point until he changes. Do whatever it takes to keep yourself safe. Submission is off the table and should never have been on it.

  163. Lea wrote:

    I do not consider that the same analogy at all.

    At all? There may be differences in age as you point out but I found the coddling of the supposedly strong was quite similar. Infantalizing adults whether they be grown men with families or grown adults studying on campus the age difference should not be a major factor. My point was not to negate the idiocy of treating men as helpless but to point out that there appears to be multiple strains of such defective thinking in our culture right now. Per chance some are confused whether to put on the mantle of strength or that of victim-hood.

  164. @ Max:

    He was talking about what he said he was doing at that moment-foolishly boasting. He spelled out what specifically he meant by that statement. I don’t see any way to take that particular comment and expand it into some general suspicions of Paul in other circumstances.

  165. @ Thersites:

    Yep. The neurological process of brain maturation has not changed since the more recent preceding generations of people. What has changed is what society tolerates and rewards in people.

  166. Max wrote:

    Indeed. However, we should not let this distract us from the holy inspiration of the Word of God. We simply need to read Scripture carefully and differentiate what is Paul’s opinion about things in the context of the first church and what is God’s word.

    Yep. Thee can be approaches to scripture as a whole which are poor reasoning based on extrapolation of some idea beyond its apparent original intent, and conversely an erroneous approach which narrowly limits some idea when no actual evidence of its intended limitation is stated in scripture.

  167. @ okrapod:
    Agreed. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) … it’s man’s interpretation of it that gets us into trouble.

  168. okrapod wrote:

    There can be approaches to scripture as a whole which are poor reasoning based on extrapolation of some idea beyond its apparent original intent, and conversely an erroneous approach which narrowly limits some idea when no actual evidence of its intended limitation is stated in scripture.

    No doubt about it. Much of my problem with New Calvinism is that the new reformers distort certain passages of Paul’s epistles to make them fit their theological grid, without filtering them through the words of Jesus. If you read Paul first, you might read Jesus wrong … but if you read Jesus first (the Gospels), the writings of Paul come into perspective.

  169. Thersites wrote:

    There may be differences in age as you point out but I found the coddling of the supposedly strong was quite similar.

    It’s not just coddling, but saying an entire sex should be under the thumb of the coddled sex. THAT is missing from your scenario. And it’s sort of important, since we are not just talking about dumb ideas (which there are a lot of, as always!) but dumb ideas that lead directly to systems where women are hurt.

  170. Can We End Violence Against Women by 2030?

    That headline reminds me of a bumper sticker going around my grade school in the late Sixties:

    PEACE BY 1980 –
    With or Without People

  171. Lea wrote:

    It’s not just coddling, but saying an entire sex should be under the thumb of the coddled sex.

    His Majesty, the Baby?

  172. Thersites wrote:

    Per chance some are confused whether to put on the mantle of strength or that of victim-hood.

    Victim-hood.
    Right now that’s the top of the food chain.

  173. Lydia wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Not that long ago that age was storming the beaches of Normandy and building airplanes. We seem to be producing a more fragile crop these days.

    “In 1944, 18-year-old Americans were charging up Omaha Beach into machine-gun fire. In 2016, 18-year-old Americans are demanding and getting “safe spaces” so their Precious Feelings Don’t Get Hurt.”

    No wonder ISIS and North Korea KNOW they’re going to win…

  174. Divorce Minister wrote:

    Kind of reminds me of how Mark Driscoll loved church discipline until he faced it….

    Like enforcers for every Third World Dictator, he LOOOOOVED a good Fight as long as he was fighting someone unable to fight back.

  175. Thersites wrote:

    My point was not to negate the idiocy of treating men as helpless but to point out that there appears to be multiple strains of such defective thinking in our culture right now. Per chance some are confused whether to put on the mantle of strength or that of victim-hood.

    The problem i have seen with this kind of thinking is that it uses dangerous generalizations and that the ones deciding who is ‘playing victim’ are usually arrogant self centered people that care nothing for real victims. They often use sayings like ‘i had it hard but i just worked harder, these people are lazy freeloaders!’

    I saw a cartoon yesterday of Jesus multiplying the fish and bread and handing a basket to peter to pass out to the crowds. Peter says “i cant feed these people! It will take away their incentive to work!”

  176. @ sandy c:
    This also reminds me that, i believe it was 2014, Gov Walker got into legal trouble over mandating drug testing for welfare recipients. He got in trouble because he had transferred his drug testing company into his wife’s name shortly before he was elected.
    Nationally they found that a very small amount of welfare recepients tested positive for drugs of any kind and most states dropped testing because it was more costly than the very few people abusing the system were costing. However his campaign against those ‘lazy, drug using, free loaders’ just added to the stereotype that people are just playing victim.
    That thought is hugely rampant these days and as more people are finding they cant afford to buy or rent or support their families on a full time job income, and those that lost homes during the banking scandal (banks got bailed out, homeowners didnt) are rising up in indignation, while rich people still slander their motives and behavior.
    Reminds me of the priest and levite justifying why they didnt have to stop and help the injured Samaritan.

  177. Lea wrote:

    It’s not just coddling, but saying an entire sex should be under the thumb of the coddled sex. THAT is missing from your scenario. And it’s sort of important, since we are not just talking about dumb ideas (which there are a lot of, as always!) but dumb ideas that lead directly to systems where women are hurt.

    Yes!

  178. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Like enforcers for every Third World Dictator, he LOOOOOVED a good Fight as long as he was fighting someone unable to fight back.

    Yes, and here its in church and outside of church. The perceived enemy is women, children, elderly, disabled, and poor people that dont have technical skills, people of other races, that are the supposed ruiners of the economy and country.

  179. Thersites wrote:

    Per chance some are confused whether to put on the mantle of strength or that of victim-hood.

    I hope you havent ignored that when some people do put on their “mantle of strength” in peaceful protest and bended knee, that they are catagorized as violent extremists and ruiners of society.

  180. sandy c wrote:

    that they are catagorized as violent extremists and ruiners of society.

    Really? I try to stay clear of such partisanship, who said this?

  181. That Piper video always gives me the creeps. As far as Mary’s article, what stands out is:

    “Yes we need to expose the deeds of darkness and speak out against violence against women. But we must never forget that when it comes to sin, all of us could cite the hastag #MeToo.”

    Mary should have stopped at the end of her first sentence. Nothing drives me crazier than Christians who think that their sin is just as bad as that other sin that is really bad.

  182. Yeah i know i’m over critical, a very dear friend lost her life because of this submit to your husband dont call police thing. She had gone to the church…they said by her submitting more he would change. He did, he got even worse, and she’s dead.

    Sandy- did your friend who was killed by her husband attend Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist Church?

  183. @ hoodaticus:

    ” When Paul spoke as the LORD it cannot be amended or questioned, but when he spoke on his own authority he was writing Midrash, and the Midrash is meant to be changed by subsequent generations as part of the evolution of the faith.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    “spoke as the Lord”…. that’s quite a claim. how can there even be a litmus test for such a thing?

    i believe people can be inspired to speak things that are at least glistening with God. But to speak as God? hmmmmmm….. i take it ALL with a big salt shaker. i’m certain i’m healthier and more balanced that way.

  184. elastigirl wrote:

    “spoke as the Lord”…. that’s quite a claim. how can there even be a litmus test for such a thing?

    i believe people can be inspired to speak things that are at least glistening with God. But to speak as God? hmmmmmm….. i take it ALL with a big salt shaker. i’m certain i’m healthier and more balanced that way.

    My sentiments too elastigirl, my sentiments too.
    Erasmus thought pretty much the same when he contended with Luther:

    “Sacred Scripture is of course the basic authority for everything; yet I sometimes
    run across ancient sayings or pagan writings — even the poets — so purely and reverently and admirably expressed that I can’t help believing their author’s hearts were moved by some divine power. And perhaps the spirit of Christ is more widespread than we understand, and the company of the saints includes many not in our calendar.”

    From: “The Godly Feast” written in 1522.

  185. Lea wrote:

    We are asked to protect their feelings even. Otherwise Mary wouldn’t be telling women to respect, encourage, pacify, protect men in her little spiel. Affirm them! Why do they need so much of this? Men are simultaneously portrayed as strong and in charge and unemotional, and also as weak, prone to flying off the handle at the slightest lack of ‘respect’, incapable of controlling themselves. This is such nonsense.

    I just quoted someone named Darlene on this thread on this, and made a blog post on my Daisy blog about it.

    How complementarianism sets up contradictory gender norm expectations… or, they tell you to do X if you are a woman, but when you do X, they criticize you for doing X.

    But I also mention (in that post) how strange it is that complementarians paint all men as being emotional or sexual weaklings (need constant affirmation from women, cannot control libido), yet comps want to make this entire group of people into leaders, or say only they get to lead?

    Why would anyone want to put a group of folks who are that emotionally needy or sexually weak into power positions and tell women they must submit to them? (Rhetorical question.)

  186. Bridget wrote:

    At the moment, it appears that Hollywood and media businesses are dealing with it in a different fashion than churches and government entities.

    Some news outlets are getting on the ball and quickly firing journalists with credible allegations and/or numerous allegations against them.

    Hollywood has gotten a little better with this too, at least lately, though it took 50 billion women coming out against Weinstein and Cosby for anything to happen.

    Churches and Congress are another story. They don’t want to give anyone the boot, or are very reluctant to do so.

  187. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Victim-hood.
    Right now that’s the top of the food chain.

    I can’t recall if I’ve already published it on my blog yet, or if it’s still in draft status (unpublished), but.

    And I say this as a right winger who’s not fond of liberal identity politics and wanting to embrace victim-hood as a permanent i.d., but, however.

    I’m also disturbed to see whenever a conservative writes off any and all concerns or criticisms women may have about sexism in society by saying that such women are just wanting to “play victim,” because that is trendy with the left wing now.

    I don’t think that all complaints or concerns, are all borne of playing Victim.

    Some of the complaints I’ve seen women raise about sexism are legitimate, but at times, these concerns get written off by other right wingers as nothing but more Liberal Victimhood Games, which is a shame.

  188. Kathi wrote:

    Mary Kassian said:

    “Yes we need to expose the deeds of darkness and speak out against violence against women. But we must never forget that when it comes to sin, all of us could cite the hastag #MeToo.”

    — Kathi’s reply:
    Mary should have stopped at the end of her first sentence. Nothing drives me crazier than Christians who think that their sin is just as bad as that other sin that is really bad.

    Another thing is that the ‘Me Too’ tag exists specifically to bring attention to women being sexually harassed (or even raped) by men in places of employment, and Kassian is wanting to turn the whole thing into a “Generic Sin” type situation.

    Of course everyone has sinned.

    But not all of us have, or will, rape someone else on a job or anywhere else, or sexually harass them or expose ourselves.

  189. Daisy wrote:

    Some of the complaints I’ve seen women raise about sexism are legitimate, but at times, these concerns get written off by other right wingers as nothing but more Liberal Victimhood Games, which is a shame.

    But there are enough Professionally Offended Victims out there to discredit the real victims.

Leave a Reply

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