“It’s not enough for women to speak out on the issue ‑- for the message to be strong and consistent, women’s voices must be backed up by men’s.”
–Rep. John Conyers, Jr.,
Did you know …
Studies have estimated 3 to 4 million American women are battered each year by their husbands or partners. Nearly 6 million U.S. wives are physically abused by their husbands or boy friends during their marriage. Nationally, a woman is beaten every 15 seconds.
More than one million abused women seek medical help for injuries caused by battering each year.
Sixty-six percent of American women will be beaten at least once during their marriage. 25% of U.S. wives are severely beaten during the course of their marriage.
In one state study (Minnesota), 63,000 women are abused each year. In Minnesota, there were 18 women killed in 1989; 25 women were killed in 1990.
95% of batterers are men. In heterosexual partner abuse, 95% of the time it is the woman who gets hurt.
The F.B.I. estimates that only 10% of domestic assaults are reported.
Battery is the single major cause of injury to women, exceeding street rape, muggings, or auto accident. Some 2,000 to 4,000 women are beaten to death annually.
Half of all battered women will be beaten in their stomachs when they are pregnant.
Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely to batter their female partners as adults than boys raised in nonviolent homes. Of the children who witness domestic abuse, 60% of the boys eventually become batterers.
Sixty-three percent of boys age 11-20 who commit homicide, murder the man who was abusing their mother. In 50% of the time, if the wife (mother) is being physically abused, so are the children.
The above statistics on domestic violence, compiled for the year 1993, were obtained from a website called strengthenoursisters.org
Given the escalation of violence in our society over the last two decades, it is highly probable that these statistics have increased.
Can there be any doubt that domestic violence is a serious problem? That’s why the video clip of John Piper featured in our previous post was so offensive, not just to women but also to men. Let’s take one last look at Piper’s response to the question: What should a wife’s submission to her husband look like if he’s an abuser?
This video was originally featured on the Desiring God website in the “Ask Pastor John” section of the Resource Library; however, it has mysteriously disappeared… We have Hannah Thomas to thank for preserving it on YouTube. Hannah, a fellow blogger, expressed her outrage in a 2009 post which you can read here.
Hannah commented on yesterday’s TWW post and said that only recently did she realize that the video had been removed from the Desiring God website. Why are videos and sermons suddenly being removed by the Calvinista crowd with no explanation? Hmmmm….
I just finished watching CSI-SVU with my husband, and the show’s focus was a case of domestic violence. A wife and her son were being physically assaulted by the husband. As I write this post, I am sick to my stomach that so many victims are suffering in silence. Please go back and read the statistics on domestic violence at the top of the post.
How dare John Piper respond so callously to that question on domestic abuse! “Hee Hee, oh my”! …”group sex” … “verbal unkindness” … “the way she submits is to say ‘Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader…and I would love to do that, it would be sweet if I could enjoy your leadership’ “ … if it’s simply hurting her, then she endures verbal abuse for a season and she endures being SMACKED for one night and then turns to the church …”
What if she doesn’t survive being smacked for one night? Will John Piper be judged as “complicit” in the event of a congregant’s murder at the hands of her husband? After all, she was following her pastor’s advice…
I have been extremely grateful for the MANLY MEN who responded to yesterday’s post. They have spoken out loud and clear against John Piper and his ilk who babble about submission when wives are being abused by their husbands. I would like to honor them by sharing their comments. GUYS, YOU ARE OUR HEROES!!! Ladies, please, please listen to these godly men… They are the ones who have your best interest at heart.
Tom R says:
“Troubling, very troubling. The laugh. Then he quotes how a woman should react when he asks for something bizarre like “group sex”, saying “Honey, I want so much to follow you, but….” GET REAL!!! If a husband asks a wife to do something sinful or stupid, why must she speak to her husband like he’s a god? Group sex?
Then he says she should “endure being smacked once”, and THEN go to the church??? UGH!!!! No, she should not endure being smacked once. Don’t wait for a second time.
Don’t go to the church, ladies. The church leaders are all men, and possibly buddies with the offender. No way, Jose. Do NOT go to the church leaders if you’re being smacked, ladies. Go to the cops first, then go to your family members that will protect you, but whatever you do, do NOT go to the church leaders.”
jack allen says:
“How can a man who supposedly is so dedicated to God’s glory, and esteemed as intellectually superior behave and speak in this bizarre manner? How shameful!”
JACK THERRELL says:
“It is hard for me to be really subjective here. Mainly because my biological father physically abused my mother. I lost respect for him. I, like most pastors, have been involved in distasteful activities where it is difficult to intervene. Irregardless of that, I am always on the side of the women. I’ve been married over 30 yrs. I of course as all men must avow, we are sometimes at a loss for what our mate is thinking or doing. I admit I have done some Baptist “cussing” which is when through frustration U just get up and leave the room slamming the door behind U. Now to my opinion of those with the attitude of John Piper. I think they are in error to think a wife has to obey her husband unless he is asking her to do some abhorrent thing. I am also a little surprised at some of his verbage. If I had consulted my wife about group sex I don’t think she would have tried to reason with me about it not being a good idea. It does make U wonder about all kinds of abuse be it church or domestic life. I remember a few years ago when Southwestern Seminary dismissed an excellent professor. They were bold enough to say they won’t allow a woman to teach a man. I have never pastored a church that didn’t have more faithful women in it than men. And I might add in many instances the women were better educated.”
Don J says:
“It is clear to me that Piper holds his man-made doctrine of gender hierarchy with a HIGHER priority than pastoral care for an abused wife. Let such teachings be banished among believers. Piper needs to repent.”
Muff Potter says:
“you wrote: “…How inclined will a young married woman be to join Bethlehem Baptist Church, knowing that if her husband ever becomes an abuser she will have to endure verbal abuse for a season?…”
If I were a young woman who just watched this guy regurgitate all those mouth fulls of (insert what you feel appropriate here) and then see at the end it’s from a site called desiring god? I wouldn’t want anything to do with his god or his religion.”
Arce says:
“Physical abuse of a spouse is a crime, and Piper’s suggestion is to allow the church to cover up a crime, thereby aiding and abetting the crime after the fact and further, aiding and abetting the crime should the abuse be repeated. I would suggest that the church leadership should be prosecuted if the abuse is repeated.
The biblical standard is mutual submission, with the husband giving up his right to life to his wife (the most extreme form of submission for her welfare). A single act of abuse destroys his submission and therefore renders any obligation of submission on her part null and void.
And the church needs to PREACH it from the pulpit and TEACH it in the classroom and small group meetings. And then LIVE it by helping the woman and her children to get out of the clutches of a violent man, who is by definition dangerous to them. They should help her find and pay for an attorney to get a protective order and a divorce in law from him, since he has already divorced her in fact by destroying the marriage through violence.”
Lydia’s Corner: Deuteronomy 11:1-12:32 Luke 8:22-39 Psalm 70:1-5 Proverbs 12:4
Deb
Piper sounds bizarre when he speaks of how to answer a husband who wants to have group sex. Such a man is mentally unbalanced and is not worthy of the “gee, honey, sweetie pie, how much I wish to submit but I can’t go there.” Bizarre answer.
I would immediately leave the home and seek counseling. Said husband is a sicko and any man who thinks a wife should answer in such a sweet manner is unbalanced or deeply naive. Frankly, I think Piper seems very, very odd in both his response and his removal of this from his website. Obviously he got heat and he shoud say the following.
“To all my beloved honeys and sweeties, I am so, so sorry I ever said such a thing and I will never, ever say such a thing again. I should never have gone there and I really, really want you to know who much I admire you all. I am so, so,so sorry.”
Pingback: Pro Blogger News
Dee,
I guess this is how John Piper’s wife addresses him. I wonder if he was able to “fix” his own marital problems during his leave of absence last year.
Any wife who responds in that way to something as vulgar as group sex is enabling evil. Piper is teaching women to support evil when they should flee from it.
Here’s what I don’t get. Why does anyone even listen to this man? Is he better than the Holy Spirit or the word of God? What makes someone actually plunk down their hard earned money just to hear another fellow human being who is just as broken and bruised as the rest.
Go to God people. By pass the other humans and go to God. He has given you His Holy Spirit. He has given you a gut. Learn to listen to both! Do not fear. Do not listen to the fear mongers who try to tell you that these two gifts from God are not enough.
Do not let men or women be like the priests of the dark ages who insisted that you needed THEM to know the will of God. God was hungering to have His people come directly to HIM. Do you know that when Jesus died on the cross, the very heavy curtain that kept the spirit of God seperate from the people was torn in half? From the top to the bottom in one fell swoop? God was dying (literally) to have fellowship with YOU. He could barely wait to show you how badly He wanted to interact with you with out any mediators.
This is your chance. Trust Him, His spirit, His word and the gut He put inside of you.
Don’t let yourself be abused. Trust that gut that is saying, “I don’t like being hurt. Being controlled and intimidated.” Go get help from someone who is an expert in this field. Not someone as ill trained and ignorant as silly little Piper. Go to the experts. God gave you a brain to think this through and the realization that going to someone without years of training in this field is like going to a butcher to have some surgery done. They may know how to cut flesh and muscle and fat and bones, but if there are people who have more expertise in surgery (like a doctor), I’d highly recommend choosing them over the butcher.
Let me see if I can get this straight. According to Piper, The husband is a “leader” even when he suggests group sex. We are to pretend that God wants him to be a leader over the wife even though he suggests such a heinous sin.
If, as believers, we are to hate evil and flee from it, Piper is suggesting we instead try to “manipulate” evil because the person suggesting the evil is a male.
Whatever happened to rebuke?
“Statistically speaking, it is far more dangerous (for women) to go home than to walk city streets alone at night.”
Nancy Nason-Clark in her book “The Battered Wife: How Christians Confront Family Violence” (1997)
I’m reminded of the little self-imposed sabbatical that Piper began last year (is he back yet?) and fantacizing about his wife smacking him around “for a season.” Is that wrong of me? 😕
Ugh. “fantasizing” 🙁
Under Much Grace [Cindy Kunsman] > John Piper in the Bedroom and Propaganda from the Pulpit: Another Fine Example of the Induction of Cognitive Dissonance
Thanks for the link, Thy Peace. Lydia shared it on the previous post.
Hi, Thy Peace! Your moniker brings a smile to my face. I don’t see it much since Wade changed his blog.
My internet ears were burning, so I came over to see what was going on.
How interesting God’s timing is to me. Jocelyn and I have been talking on and off for many weeks about addressing some of Piper’s problems, noting many of the same things you’re discussing here now.
I agree with so many of the things you’re noting here, but the one thing really creeps me out.
The group sex thing really floors me — why is it not the FIRST example one of asking a woman to sin by lying to older kids or, given the season, cheating on taxes? Under their paradigm of submission, asking a woman to participate in any sin against God is serious abuse of power. Sinning against her kids is, too, something that involves him. Any such sin is abusive. But then, we see that Piper’s concept of what constitutes abuse is rather fluid and ambiguous.
If you consider that Piper might be drawing on experiences while counseling troubled couples in his church, this is still deeply disturbing. If that many people in his congregation struggle with whether or not to submit to group sex, what does that say about the health of his church? That would be the first example he came up with because of how common it is? I don’t think that most married couples in the general population even think about this kind of stuff.
Troubling, troubling. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Maybe Piper had just ended a phone call to his buddy, Mark Driscoll, just before he did that taping of the video? Any way you slice it, I think it comes out pretty odd.
Dee wrote: Piper sounds bizarre when he speaks of how to answer a husband who wants to have group sex. Such a man is mentally unbalanced and is not worthy of the “gee, honey, sweetie pie, how much I wish to submit but I can’t go there.” Bizarre answer.
ROFL.
I would have my hand on my hip and be near an exit (with perhaps the phone, the police #, my purse, the car keys, and/or a means of self-defense in hand), depending on the nature of the request of my dh. My response would be an emphatic and wild: “You want me to ‘what’? Because I think that I’m having some kind of hallucination. You want me to ‘what’?
If the request were group sex, I’d probably be making arrangements to live elsewhere, immediately. Then I’d make an appointment with my counselor. Oy.
I would not say “I can’t go there.” It would probably be more along the lines of telling him where to go!
Cindy K,
Thanks for chiming in about John Piper’s bizarre comment about “group sex”. It is extremely bothersome to me. I don’t like the “TRAJECTORY” of those whom we label as “Calvinstas”. Sorry, couldn’t resist using the latest buzz word… I guess it will get overused, too. Remember “winsome”?
Deb,
I have been wound up in the past about the use of the term “hyper-calvinist,” as Calvinism is Calvinism. If they are misappropriating the principles (which I find to be more academic in nature), they are just not really Calvinists.
But even John R. Rice used the term:
“I believe hyper-Calvinism is not a Bible doctrine but is a perversion by which proud intellectuals who thus may try to excuse themselves from any spiritual accountability for winning souls.”
I found it in a book edited by Michael Meiring called “Preserving Evangelical Unity.”
In the section on Calvinism vs. Arminianism, the particular author who writes the essay on Calvinism even uses the term of “hyper-“. He is Colin Maxwell, a Presby in Ireland.
But even then, the very postmodern and popular folk like Piper who is worshiped like a demi-god from what I’ve seen and Driscoll who really thrive on the use of media to sell books and promote their name — are they the hyper-calvinists? I think Rice definitely scored on the part about proving how intellectual they are, something that I think their following also craves with desperation. Real intellectuals don’t have a thing to prove to anyone. I don’t follow either of these men, but from what I’ve read about their more controversial stuff, they don’t have any interest in the lost. They presume to be more about sanitizing the church so that they follow their correct doctrines. (While they preach a semi-heretical view of the Trinity.)
Calvinista is a good term, I think.
There is a reason that his mind went to there right away. And that reason is troubling and more telling than it seems many people want to believe. He is troubled in this area. Hands down.
And Deb,
I don’t mind your fancy sophistry with “trajectory.” It demonstrates their manipulation of language.
It’s not the trajectory that I’m worried about, it’s their “mark,” their “touchstone,” their “target,” and their “foci.” — Sex, sex, sex, any way you can cram it into any discussion. It can be references to coitus as noted here, or it can be how that evil woman’s nature is at the root cause for nearly every problem by way of their focus on gender.
If you think about it, they’re really giving their power away. How powerful are women, responsible and effective in exacting so much evil — against themselves by provoking abuse, against mankind, the church, society, etc.????
Cindy K said:
“Troubling, troubling. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Maybe Piper had just ended a phone call to his buddy, Mark Driscoll, just before he did that taping of the video? Any way you slice it, I think it comes out pretty odd.”
Cindy,
You may be right about Piper talking with Driscoll just prior to this taping. Cheryl Schatz indicates that this clip was uploaded on the Desiring God website on August 19, 2009. Here’s the link that gives the date:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/08/21/john-piper-on-submission-in-abuse/
Cheryl Schatz’s blog
Just five months before that, John MacArthur posted his “The Rape of Solomon’s Song” series on the Grace to You website. Here is one of the questions MacArthur was asked in that series:
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A399_The-Rape-of-Solomons-Song-Part-4
“Why did you single out Driscoll and connect him with the “sex challenges”? Why call him out publicly? He has already repented of his unguarded speech, and he is being privately discipled by men like John Piper and C. J. Mahaney, who keep him accountable.”
It boggles the mind to imagine what kind of ‘private discipling’ went on between these three men…
Troubled. Broken. Twisted. People need to stop listening to this person.
Stunned,
I just have to ask…
What is REALLY going on at all those Christian conferences?
I am deeply concerned…
It is really, really, really messed up. His reaction would have any professional’s head spinning. He needs serious help. Not SGM help.
Stunned,
I am still troubled that out of all the churches in the Minneapolis area that Piper could have attended during his “leave of absence”, his “normal place of corporate worship” was an SGM church.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/john-pipers-report-on-his-leave-of-absence
“Our normal place of corporate worship has been Sovereign Grace Fellowship, led by Rick Gamache, who used to serve on the Desiring God staff and is one of the best preachers in the Twin Cities.”
Sovereign Grace Fellowship website: http://www.sovgracemn.org/
Here’s how the pastor of that SGM church is connected to Desiring God:
http://www.sovgracemn.org/leadership.php
“Rick Gamache graduated from Bethel Seminary in 1995. Before coming to Sovereign Grace Fellowship, he served as the Director for Theological Support at Desiring God. Along with overseeing the vision, direction, and ministries of the church and leading the staff, his current duties include preaching and teaching, leader training, counseling, and he directly oversees the small group and evangelism/outreach ministries.”
Well, that makes more sense to me, then. I mean, if Piper and his wife had a relationship with this guy, I could understand why they went to his church.
Stunned,
As you can see, the ties are very tight in what I believe is a rather small community of “Calvinistas”. Because of their HUGE internet presence, they “appear” to be a larger group than they really are… I hope our readers are starting to get the picture of what’s really going on here.
I’m just curious, Stunned. If you think this is particularly bad, what do you think it means? Why did Piper go there, verbally?
All I could think was, according to Piper’s friend, Driscoll, any diviant sexual act that a husband might ask of a wife is fair game (AS, OS, s&m aka domestic dicipline…). The only thing that would take it over the top was to invite another person or persons in on the action. Then it would change from ‘legitamate’ husband/wife relations to fornication. At least that’s how it reads to me. They would not consider a husband asking for AS as sin at all, so he has to take it up a notch or two.
Were you thinking something else?
I understand if YOU don’t want to go there and explain further.
BTW, also looking forward to cindy’s radio blog thing. But will have to catch it later since I’ll be on the road Saturday am.
Mara, I’ll try to answer your question. I don’t know if I do a good job or not so I’ll try again later if I don’t do it for ya now.
I ask you what time it is.
You tell me that your dress was blue at 3pm yesterday but right now it is 2:45.
Now, the first part of your answer was tangentially (sp?) related to time and eventually you got there. But the blue dress and the time yesterday was NOT the question I was asking you. It was an illogical choice of words on your part. (I hope you don’t mind me using you in this example.) Now, there is something about a ding dong blue dress that is in your consciousness, your subconsciousness or somehow on your mind. Cause like I said, it is not a logical response to my question though possibly you can see how you may have gotten there.
Basically Piper was asked about how a wife should respond if she is abused. To most Americans, the first thing that would have come to their mind would be a woman who was hit by her husband. There is something extremely troubling that that was not the very first thing Piper addressed. I don’t know what his issues are with sex, but it is clear that he has got them and they are not little. Nor are his issues with the whole man woman thing. And no, I don’t care about what his theology is. To me he is just one more sibling in Christ. His response is terribly troubling as it is NOT a logical, direct response to that question.
He has had plenty of time to say, “The reason that answer came to mind was because I was just talking with someone whose husband abusers her in this manner and I was teaching her that that too was abuse so I was trying to make a point by calling out this kind of abuse before I move on to the next, more commonly thought of abuse.” He hasn’t. (He would not have had to reveal any
one’s identity nor broken any counseling mores in doing so.)
When a person, when anyone gives you an answer that is not logical, it needs to be a red flag. It doesn’t mean there is necessarily something wrong. It could mean that our paradigm is off. But in the case of the question, anyone in this culture would automatically go to a woman like the photo at the top of this page, NOT to a man making a sexual request of his wife. It just isn’t logical. It indicates that there is something off about his thought process. He went straight to sex instead of to a battered woman. Why is that? His thoughts could have gone to a thousand and one other places. It didn’t. It went to sex. When the question would NOT have led anyone without sexual issues there. but THAT is the very place his mind went.
What time is it?
Time to recognize that when a question is answered illogically, there’s a reason for it.
I was only joking about the call to Driscoll, but these guys all do hang together. But they close ranks and circle wagons around a fellow “Cavlinista” who gets to be in the inner circle of big money speakers. Anyone know how much $$$ these guys get for a gig? What do you have to pay to get Piper or Ware or one of the others who’ll do itinerant speaking at your church on a given Sunday? How do you pierce the inner circle barrier? So many questions. Do they get together and plot to take over the world, in the manner of “Pinky and the Brain” as Lewis said to me the other day (www.thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com)?
I don’t know what Stunned thinks about the comment Piper made, but having been married for 21 years, I’ve never thought about group sex for myself or for any of my friends. It’s not anything that has ever occurred to me as something of interest, nor is it discussed with anyone I know. I’m a nurse, and people tend to open up to me about more private matters which I tend to approach from a clinical perspective, and this is not something that is an issue or a desire or anything. My problem with the subject is that if Piper so readily brings this up as the most applicable issue on his mind, holy moley! Doesn’t that mean that he’s thinking about it or just recently thought about it enough to relate it to the matter at hand? Blech!
I thought Paul set a very good example in dealing with disturbing topics related to sex. He communicated his point about general acts and body parts that belonged to the Galatians. And his society was permeated with sex and sexual sin. For heavens sakes, you could go into a temple and sleep with a prostitute as worship. People had household phallus statues and were obsessed with sex. I don’t know how Driscoll justifies his focus on graphic discussions of specific sex acts as acceptable for the pulpit, but he can’t say that Paul didn’t go into detail because the culture was prudish. It was worse than our culture today.
I think that these men are obsessed with sex, be it gender or coitus, preaching that instead of Christ and Him crucified. I think that Piper had to be thinking about group sex on some level if that was the first thing that he could come up with ON A VIDEO.
Unless it is all just a marketing ploy? We little pee ons are talking about him as a result and it buys him attention.
Paul said not to talk about sins done in secret, in terms of the specifics, and I think that it’s prudent to apply this to all sexual sins and the privacy of the marriage chamber. The Talmud also talked about sex, but it never went into detail either. The open and graphic discussion of marital sex is not Judeo-Christian. It is part of the pagan Athenian and Greco-Roman culture. And we’re supposed to be separate from that as Christians, following Paul’s lead.
This is a story of a very submissive woman who lived in an age before liberation and when it was a shame for a woman to leave a husband.
This particular woman had to face domestic violence every Friday night when her husband came home drunk from the pub and would punch her about. After this he would fall into a deep sleep and rise late the next day full of apologies for the bruising that he had given her. Despite being married to such a brute she still loved her husband and knew that it was the drink that had changed his personality. She also knew that it would be difficult for her to leave him due to financial and social reasons. She then hatched a plan. The next Friday night her husband came home late as usual and starting abusing her and then fell asleep as usual. It was then she put her plan into action. She got an old hurley stick ( like a hockey stick) which she had in the house and while her husband lay sleeping she began beat his legs with it until she could beat them no more. The next morning her husband was obviously in extreme pain and black and blue from the waist down. She then looked at her husband in the eye and warned him that if he ever touched her again in a violent manner she would do the same again, and he never did, no matter how drunk he got. He had learned his lesson.
I have to agree with stunned…the “group sex” comment was so far off the mark of the the question that it threw me off.
that is something that even my hardcore athiest cousin would abhor. I was a bit stunned that Piper even thought of it.
And his counsel concerning something so heinous was shocking. he should have told her to run away from the guy and provided her shelter if she needed it. The LAST thing the wife should do is respond by making him think he is her LEADER.
Gee, that is like telling her to go home and submit to Hugh Hefner and making him feel like the big leader.
these men are sick. and I agree with Cindy, in some way, either indirectly using gender roles, authority, etc, it comes back to sex in some way. They are totally eat up with it.
(I once sat through a sermon where the pastor, a serious comp, kept mentioning how often the Puritans had sex. I could not figure out how he knew as he gave no references)
Cindy
“pee ons” funny!
WRT Piper: Our daughter attended a college conference at which Piper was the main speaker, with several sessions where he spoke. She came back with severe doubts about her faith. We suggested she talk to a theologian at the church she attended (a seminary faculty member) who is not a hyper-calvinist, who helped her to see that her prior beliefs were well within the Biblical understanding of many biblically knowledgeable Christians. As a result, I do not trust Piper in any way or degree.
WRT the hyper-Calvinists: Calvin would not recognize the extreme interpretation of his works. More than six years ago, I made the comment that the hyper-Calvinists are focused on sovereignty, and believe that God is sovereign over everything EXCEPT HIS OWN SOVEREIGNTY. Makes Him seem a bit like King Midas. Every good parent, in love, withholds his/her sovereignty over their child so that the child can learn to make good choices. It results in love a lot more than dictating everything in the child’s life. God is surely a better parent to us than even the best earthly parent. The proper focus of the Christian is not God’s sovereignty, but His sacrificial love for us.
CIndy K, exactly.
(I once sat through a sermon where the pastor, a serious comp, kept mentioning how often the Puritans had sex. I could not figure out how he knew as he gave no references)
What? Did they hand out bags to puke in?
Arce,
This is beautiful.
The proper focus of the Christian is not God’s sovereignty, but His sacrificial love for us.
Christ and Him crucified. By grace through faith, the gift that no work can own.
They make God so so small, and because they reduce Him so, they have to try to control everything and work what I really think just amounts to social engineering. What is ironic is the Calvinistas call themselves reformed and claim to be the champions of God’s sovereignty for Him.
As I’ve seen Lydia post elsewhere and in times past, they are blind guides.
Over on the newer “Domestic Violence Resources by Tracy” thread, Hanna Thomas posted this comment. I took the liberty of reposting it over here because it seems so relevant. Piper offers Sympathy, (perhaps empathy), comfort, and sound advice to an adult who has abusive parents that won’t acknowledge the abuse. It is the kind of advice that I think is applicable to all people who have suffered wrongfully, and it echoes something of what David Stoop has to say about honoring parents that have hurt you in the past. Honor is not obedience or resigning from your life to be obedient.
I thought it important to note, because it is difficult to address this issue. No assessment of a person in one area is ever comprehensive, but when you discuss a particular problem area, it can seem like a complete repudiation of the person on all levels. I think that Piper has tunnel vision when it comes to women in defense of his chosen doctrine, but in other areas, he seems to make much more sense. It is an excellent example of how bad doctrine gives way to problems in life when that bad doctrine is applied.
From Hannah Thomas:
Sun, Mar 20 2011 at 09:38 am
I ran across another Piper Video, and he answers the question: How should I deal with parents who don’t acknowledge that they abused me?
There was no – it depends on the type of abuse. There is no basic speeches about somehow putting up with it. There is no crazy diversion over group sex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed46WaTSA7E
This seemed to truly bother the man, and no giggling at all. No sigh and shaking his head at the beginning.
He speaks alot about ‘confusion’. YES its normally – gender confusion. I’m sorry but he is to me.
He speaks to adult children that have escaped abusive family relationships, and tells them how to handle their parents denial. He truly attempts some empathy.
His double standards are what causes confusion. He never showed that empathy to the abused spouse.
The one that is to live with abuse gets talked down to, and the one that escaped get empathy and tears. The only difference? The unbreakable vow I suppose.
He stands for the confusion he speaks so much about. Its not gender confusion.
Its confusion on treatment once you are married. When adult child ‘rightly’ is shown empathy, but a spouse gets a answer that goes down different rabbit trails? He teaches the confusion that speaks about, and it has nothing to do with ‘gender’ the way he teaches it.
The confusion is based in double standards.
abused women hit hard by tough daily life questions need reliable answers they can trust there as needed, given softly ion their level our free SPREAD THE WORD TALK WITH THE LORD program inspires daily talks the rub…abused may need added inspiration from one stronger we ask you to reach out to help those abused our free blog posts offer tips g. hubbard p.o. box 2232 ponte vedra fl 32004 http://talkwiththelord.blogspot.com/