I am sorry, but I just do not get the impression that folks like Piper really care about the victims. I know that mind sound harsh, but his language and the language of other ministers sounds more theoretical than practical when it comes to many types of abuse.

Church should be a place of safety, but too many leaders seem to be concerned about themselves.

What a shame!

Piper and his ilk post articles on what every church ‘should’ do against domestic violence…but fail to heed to their own standards. Classic case of hypocritical pharisees.

Talking the talk isn’t enough to fool critics, they need to walk the walk too. Except that doing so would violate all the patriarchal material in their bodies (I mean, can you imagine asking a wife to STAND UP FOR HERSELF against her husband? Oh the HORROR! How “UNBIBLICAL”!).

Anne, The problem is that Piper teaches divorce is ALWAYS wrong. The male is ALWAYS to be considered as the “head”, no matter what he does.

When you have that dynamic at work, the victim means very little to the problem except to manipulate to fit the above paradigm.

The real problem we have is that anyone actually listens to Piper and thinks he teaches truth.

“‘Staying sweet’ will not help him in the slightest. ”

Have you read bios of women who have escaped MOrmonism, too? This was a constant refrain from men in Mormonism to their wives (sometimes plural wives).

I have long maintained that much I read over at CBMW (before they rebranded) sounded just like Mormonism. Down to women will submit to men in heaven. Yep, they even speculated on that in one article. They teach a phallic symbol Christianity that is immersed in sex and dominance. It is actually very pagan.

When I read Piper’s comments a few days ago I couldn’t help but wonder how you were going to parse his every word looking for any hint of anything possibly “confusing” or “misleading” about what he said. You guys are predictable, I’ll give you that. The statistics are interesting, considering Calvanistas are most certainly conservative protestants, and active conservative protestants have the lowest (albeit still horrifying) percentage.

Anon 1: But doesn’t the Bible say that a man who doesn’t provide for his family (and an abuser provides jack-squat) has denied the faith? How can an abusive husband be a ‘spiritual head’ when the ‘spiritual’ part is no longer part of the Body? It’s like crowning the Chinese President as England’s next king – he’s not in the royal bloodline, therefore he’s disqualified from the running. Likewise, an abusive husband is the head of nothing (and if there’s strife, no believer should be ‘yoked’ to an unbeliever anyway).

“When I read Piper’s comments a few days ago I couldn’t help but wonder how you were going to parse his every word looking for any hint of anything possibly “confusing” or “misleading” about what he said.”

Joey, Piper uses flowery language. If you strip away all the flowery language he uses, he is more obvious. He seems to resonate with those who like that sort of flowery passion. Piper has to be parsed because he never answers anything directly,

Perhaps you could interpret for Piper”

“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.”

How does one who is being abused do this? Perhaps Piper can be more exacting about contradicting the “spirit of love and submission” to her husband? Perhaps Piper or an elder would decide for her if she is in the right “spirit”?

Words mean things so tell us what Piper’s words mean. It is hard to tell since he is so flowery and never really gives an application. And who gets to decide if the person being banged about is in the right spirit? He does not tell us.

And what if the abuser is a professing believer? What then?

How accurate do you consider the above statistics? I would think that churches that regularly denigrate women would have the highest rates of domestic abuse not the the lowest. I guess who is being asked and how often are they lying would be the next questions.

Beakerj,

Nothing Piper said could legitimately be construed as not putting the victim first.

The desire to put the victims first here at TWW is admirable.

And I am not sure how you would know whether I hang on Piper’s every word or not, or how I treat my wife. In fact, you have no idea.

For the record, I have read 1 Piper book (on imputation), which I loved, and I have heard him preach 4 or 5 times total (once or twice online I think as well). I also frequent the Desiring God blog once a week. Considering the amount of material he has put out, I would hardly call it hanging on his every word.

Whether you generally disagree with someone on most things or not, parsing their words to death is not beneficial, as it usually leads to making them mean something they didn’t intend.

“Whether you generally disagree with someone on most things or not, parsing their words to death is not beneficial, as it usually leads to making them mean something they didn’t intend.”

Joey, Piper makes his living as a mass communicator in ministry. In fact, he is a clever communicator because many guys like you do not see the problem with what he said or has said in the past. Perhaps the flowery adjectives and adverbs blinded you. :o)

If you cannot see the problems for the abused in his statement, no amount of cut and paste and explanations will help.

“Guys like Piper do not know the character of God.”

I agree. Their focus has been solely on His Sovereignty as they define it.

Anne,

That is actually opposite of what he was saying. He was specifically dispelling the idea that the complentarian framework doesn’t leave room for a wife to turn her husband over to authorities. He was stating it in such a way as to show it was not an act of usurpation, but can be the loving (though sad) thing to do.

It has nothing to do with the abusers ego.

Speaking as someone who knows more than I want to about DV, Piper’s words sicken me, because they still put the emotional burden for getting the relationship ‘right’ on the victim. these guys just do not get that there is nothing the victim does, or no attitude they may have in their heart, that ever EVER justifies a physical attack. No, she can only have recourse to help if she first gets her own heart ‘right’. Personally, I think ‘I want him to stop hitting me’ is a pretty good motive. I have often likened this Piperesque approach to abuse to someone slapping your face and then blaming the nerve endings for feeling the pain.

The complicated, round-about way that he addresses the issue also tells me that he still doesn’t get it. Simple justice doesn’t demand complicated theologising. If your theology leaves you in a place where it’s the victim who has to take responsibility for the problem, rather than the abuser, then that looks to me like a glaring red light that says that something’s wrong with your theology. Seriously, would Jesus address an abused spouse like that?

@ Joey:
Okay, so perhaps he was presenting the idea that complementarianism allows for civil intervention. Fair enough. I still think he is naive to suggest that a wife should do it with the expectation of her husband restoring a ‘nurturing’ headship. Yes, he believes divorce is unacceptable. The facts however, show that it is the best course of action.

Re. the statistics, it looks like the key word is reported abuse.

Of course the people in the most “conservative” churches are going to be in the lowest percentile, because speaking out is considered evil, unsubmissive, disloyal and all of that.

As for Piper’s language, “Bible-saturated”?!!! Oh c’mon, dude, it’s not maple syrup, and we’re not intended to be all-absorbing pancakes! Sheesh!!!

Tag on my last post: I meant to include emotional and physical (non-sexual) abuse as well.

Well Happy Christmas to TWW. After a day of peace and quiet, the bugles are blowing again – Calvinista says something sensible, but let’s criticise him anyway. And while we’re at let’s dispute the stats, conjure up reasons for thinking the big Cs are worse than they are.
I’ve said before that I don’t share your experience. I can’t empathize but could sympathise, but you give no reason why I should ever want to. You are stuck in your little silos firing off your rockets at your imagined targets. And all the while Eagle talks dirty.

And please bear in mind that while you parse poor Mr Piper to death, there is one watching who said that not a jot or a tittle will pass (from the law) until all is fulfilled. You may just find yourselves being given the once over by the Chief Grammarian and you might be found a comma short of a full stop.

Saturnalian Greetings
Gavin

Gavin, Seems you own one of the Piper decoder rings. So, what did he mean to communicate?

Was it:

That you can report abuse to the authorities if your spirit is humble and heart right and you do it only with thoughts of reconcilation and restoring the abuser to his rightful headship?

(hmmm. Sounds like putting the burden on the abused to me but then what do I know? It seems to me the abused is in an impossible situation according to the religious authorities like Piper. Who will tell her/him their heart is humble and in the right place?)

I personally agree with Jeff Crippen who wrote

“Divorce is the watershed issue for me in this subject of abuse. As long as anyone (such as Piper) still insists that an abuse victim cannot divorce the abuser, then I part company with them. We removed all John Piper books and resources from our church library two years ago. His penchant for walking on the edge theologically finally became enough for us.

You can read between the lines in what Piper says here, and do so quite accurately when you realize that he teaches that divorce for any reason is NEVER permitted by God. For all of his talk of calling the police and of all of these godly people in the church stepping up to protect the victim, the bottom line is that Piper will tell a victim that they cannot divorce the abuser, and therefore you can count on the fact that practically, Piper will prefer that the police not be called, that the victim not testify against the abuser, and that the thing would be handled “in house” in the church. Did you notice his emphasis, by the way, on PHYSICAL abuse. You can bet that for Piper, verbal and emotional and spiritual abuse really are not that big of a deal.

Preachers/authors/theologians like Piper really disgust me. Their arrogance is overwhelming. If that sounds too harsh of a charge against J.P., then just consider this: Piper knows full well that Christians, including Christian leaders, are not in agreement on this matter of the reasons for divorce. Piper’s own church board is in disagreement as to his position! Knowing this, Piper STILL pushes ahead with all of this preaching and book-writing and shoves this no-divorce-for-any-reason down the throats of all of us. ”
http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/john-pipers-clarifying-words-on-wife-abuse-are-they-helpful/#comment-10593

There is another side to this. When you call police for DV and go to court, the judge can decide there has to be a physical separation for a period of time depending on the situation. that gives the pharisees no opporunity to manage and manipulate the situation without going against court orders. If one is not permitted to divorce what would be the point of calling the authorities. I can already see the futility for an abused person who lives in Piper’s bubble. And then one gets into a situation where one calls the police but does not go ahead with charges because of this faulty teaching and then when it gets really dangerous, they have little credibility even with the authorities. then the woman looks like a bad parent for allowing her children if there are any to live in such an environment.

I used to volunteer in an abuse/rape center and saw this all the time. the pastors came to tell the women their husband is sorry and to come home where she belongs. If she did not, then she was the unforgiving, callous one. All he had to say was “sorry”.

Guess what, Gavin, the law HAS been fulfilled in Christ. I am personally thankful for that.

I mean that last bit the other way round – victims feel their welfare comes a very distant second to their welfare, if at all. The underlying idea is that going to the Police is not the ideal spiritual solution to being assaulted,it’s much more reluctant than that, & that victims don’t really deserve the protection of law because they’re also sinners.

Dee – Great article. As we have done a number of times, I have piggy-backed on this topic today, too.

My slant is the timing and the power of bloggers and voices of readers. You can be sure the SGM lawsuit case, the recent barrage of articles by Gospel Coalition members coinciding with the UN-sponsored International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, these pastors have no choice but to address the issue. They refuse to discuss CJ or SGM by name, but they are dancing around in an attempt to clean up their act. I just hope that in addition to cleaning up their image, they actually take care of women who are violated.

Oh, and did you notice, he failed to apologize? How many women suffered one more night of violence because “John Piper told me to.” Blech.

I don’t know if what I am going to say makes sense but I’ll give it a try. I can’t remember why I started looking at concubinage in the Bible but I have tried to find everything I could on it. A concubine wasn’t a mistress but a wife of lesser status. She didn’t have a dowery, in fact might have been “sold” by her family. She didn’t have a ketubbah (marriage contract) which would spell out her rights and obligations. She likely didn’t have a betrothal ceremony or marriage ceremony. She might have been a servant, slave or prisoner of war. If another man had sex with her he was committing adultery and causing her to commit adultery. Yet, if a man did sleep with a concubine he might or might not be punished. If she left her husband her family would have to come up with the redemption price. This is probably why the Levite’s father-in-law was being so nice and trying to keep the son-in-law there while he convinced his daughter to go home with him (Judges 19-20).

Because the concubine didn’t have a marriage contract spelling out her rights her husband didn’t need to divorce her. He could just send her away as Abraham did with Hagar. Also, if the husband was not fulfilling the rights of wife then she could divorce him but a concubine had no such right. While The Law spells out that the husband must provide her with food, clothing, housing and sex, she didn’t have any say in how the household was run and her children inherited at the father’s whim. If her child was to provide the wife with an heir because she was barren then the boy would inherit as the wife’s child. A wife had joint say in how the household was run and her children had automatic inheritance rights.

That brings me to the whole issue of complementarianism. I believe that it lowers the wife to the status of concubine. Calvinistas generally want to make use of the law when it is to their advantage but ignore what is inconvenient. The laws concerning a wife’s rights are one of the inconvenient things they choose to ignore. Then they go on and on about submission, headship, order of creation, etc.

The things that Piper and others say about abuse is because they choose to ignore what the Bible says about the rights of a wife. This puts a wife on the same level as a concubine with few rights and many obligations.

@ Joey:

“He was stating it in such a way as to show it was not an act of usurpation, but can be the loving (though sad) thing to do.”

By stating it this way in the first place, Piper implies that there is a possibility that a wife, being abused, could usurp her husbands authority by seeking help and safety. This is absurd! The fact is that the abuser is the one who has broken their marriage covenant with God and their spouse. The abused person is not at fault for what the abuser chooses to do. The abused should seek help and it isn’t “sad” that they do this. It is wise, healthy, and loving for a Christian to flee evil — is it not? What’s sad” is the abuse itself, not someone respecting themselves enough to stop being abused.

I’ve heard numerous people say they have great respect for John Piper. I can’t for the life of me understand this.

This man colors the tone of the gospel by his attitude toward women. He changes the way Jesus views women by his interpretations. He misunderstands Paul’s focus on liberty and equality and worst of all, he negatively influences the way men and women perceive themselves.

For someone who allegedly is a “scholar” of the Bible, these erroneous teachings and attitudes are inexcusable.

” What if, instead of a heavy heart, she senses hope for a bright future because of the help in seeking civil recourse? Are these not legitimate reasons to seek legitimate civil recourse?
”

SM, the things you mention are not in Piper’s doctrinal perview. His theology is such that the victim is also a sinner by virtue of existing. There are no degrees of sin in the Reformed tradition. She is just as big a totally depraved sinner as the abuser. All sins are equal. That is why it is so easy for them to make her response a matter of sin sniffing.The abuser is just being his natural sinning self and since she is also a sinner they are equal when it comes to sin but not equal when it comes to sin status. God has ordained the male abuser as her superior. She has to find a way to submit no matter what. There are different rules for women in both the Reformed and non Reformed tradition. it is just that the REformed tradition makes her an equal sinner to the abuser.

Muff – I seriously doubt that Piper has anything like the RC sacramental view of marriage.

and you know… I have to wonder if, in his mind, it doesn’t come down to being a matter of contract law? You know, the woman agrees to submit, so she’s stuck no matter what, and the man gets to lord it over his wife and kids (however he pleases).

I will keel over if Piper *ever* preaches a sermon on “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” in the context of Marriage – without twisting the text 6 ways from Sunday, that is!

elastigirl, I agree, because i think that sort of obsessive approach to the Bible demonstrates a particular mindset and a particular hermeneutic as well. To approach the Bible that way is fear-based, not grace-based, because if you overlook a sentence somewhere you might get it wrong. At heart it’s Pharisaical, remember what Jesus had to say about people who worried about tithing their herbs but forgot about the big picture stuff like justice and mercy.

In fact, I think that’s part of Piper’s problem. He’s held it so close to his eyes for so long that he’s lost sight of the big stuff like justice and protection for the abused, and made this little detail of marital submission into the main game. He can’t see the wood, just the details of the bark on one particular tree, and not the healthiest one either.

The only thing I ever want to be saturated in is Jesus’ love (definitely not spinach, I don’t want to look like Popeye)

nor me! I have facebook friends who call him “My Hero” WHY????
(and in this case I’m talking about middle-aged Australian women)

Anyways, I’m off to the city to have a boat ride on Sydney Harbour. I don’t intend to get saturated there, either!

elastigirl, I must disagree that one can be too saturated with the Bible, especially those who identify as pastors and/or teachers. It’s their chosen ministry and that entails a keen, thorough knowledge and understanding of scripture. Just as physicians, engineers, and other careers require continual education to effectively perform their skills, pastors need to study in ernest to rightly handle the Word of God. It provides direction, strength, edification, and maturity as well as protection from wolves in sheeps clothing when interpreted correctly and presented to the sheep for whom they are to care for.

The problem comes when they study with an agenda thereby doing a disservice to their intended ministry and those they serve.

The man doesn’t need to clarify he needs to repent!

Sadly, all he does is confuse things even more. First, he tells her to take a smack one night – or verbal unkindness for a season. Now he states she needs to come early before anything happens. Okay then.

Notice he leaves that damning out there with NO clarification. As if NOT calling the police was the only HUGE note of error he mentioned. The man is a coward. I

f you read between the lines – he still wants them to come to the church first.

Oops! Missed the full link! http://watchtheshepherd.blogspot.com/2012/10/we-cant-ignore-domestic-violence.html

My husband took me to see the movie Lincoln tonight. I don’t know how historically accurate it was but it sure had a lot of parallels to the protection of women in it’s focus on the passage of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. Interestingly, one major objection to it was that it would pave the way for women’s suffrage, a horrid idea to so many of them. I cannot even imagine.

Virginia, I saw Lincoln yesterday and noticed that same objection to the passage of the amendment. The passage at the end brought tears to my eyes.

According to this review, it was very accurate historically.
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/790411_Movie-review—Lincoln–can-change-lives-and-minds.html

@ Joey:
Note: The study that Piper references discusses the REPORTED rates of domestic abuse. This is an important distinction, as it could reveal that women from liberal denominations are more likely to speak out about domestic abuse (not outside the realm of possibility given the rhetoric about women submitting to abuse “for a season” within certain Calvinista circles). The data merely shows that victims of domestic abuse in more liberal congregations are speaking out more, not that members of liberal congregations are more likely to engage in abuse.

Of Lincoln, I would say we need more real men like him who will stand and fight for justice for the oppressed rather than for political popularity and expediency and oraerving their own power. For Lincoln, there was an absolute urgency to get this bill passed, not for his generation alone but for the millions of potential slaves yet to be born. And considering that domestic violence IS generational, it is all the more urgent for us now to stem the tide and empower the weak to at least rise on their own behalfs (and their children’s) with our support.

Anon 1 wrote:

It is scary how many young men hang on his every word and how many young pastors try to emulate him. I am surrounded by them at ground zero.

Piperjugend? (As opposed to Driscolljugend or Calvinjugend?)

Joey, Piper uses flowery language. If you strip away all the flowery language he uses, he is more obvious. He seems to resonate with those who like that sort of flowery passion. Piper has to be parsed because he never answers anything directly.

Kind of like a lawyer? Or someone from a culture where Blood Feud and Avenging Any Slight Real or Imagined is the definition of Honor?

You know Christianity is making it hard for seekers and skeptics. Now in trying to figure out what you believe you also have to worry about what you could get sucked into. And you have to avoid the cults.

Amend that to evangelical/charismatic Christianity and you’ve got it. Not that other segments of the church don’t have problems – they do! – but Eagle, I think what you’re talking about is especially applicable to these kinds of churches; not so much in some other circles.

“Will I see the day when these “big dogs” actually recall their products instead of pruning them?” – Heather

No – never! They have invented a doctrine of subordination that ensures that their egos are inviolable. Recalling their “products” would be wounding to their egos and would compromise their power-base and that would be sacrilege. Denying ourselves, picking up our crosses and following Jesus is for the rest of us plebs – not for these men.

“And all the while Eagle talks dirty.” – Gavin White

I personally think there is integrity in Eagle’s words that is lacking in John Piper’s waffling.

A clarification on something from “several years ago” ???
Piper gives that as a justification to just re-say everything again. There’s nothing new here from the first time around.

Thank you, Dee! I am honored!

I’m delurking for a moment to encourage any homeschoolers out there to sign up for Virginia’s “Hope Chest” newsletter. I wish I’d had resources like hers and “That Mom’s” blog when I was still a homeschooling mom. Back then, at least in my circles, we rarely discussed topics like domestic violence and spiritual abuse. I guess we lived in a safe little bubble, or at least we thought we did. The internet has really changed things.

“Amend that to evangelical/charismatic Christianity and you’ve got it. Not that other segments of the church don’t have problems – they do! – but Eagle, I think what you’re talking about is especially applicable to these kinds of churches; not so much in some other circles.”

Sheesh. Are you forgetting the Catholic priest pedophile problem were they just moved them around instead of dealing with it for decades? Where even Bishops of cities had to leave becasue they knew and ignored it for YEARS?

You might want to talk to my friend from SNAP. How did such evil become so institutionalized for so long? She will tell you.

Dear Numo and Dee

The ‘point’ is to emphasize the fact that once rescue and recovery have been accomplished, it becomes detrimental to a person’s well-being if they continually relive their experience every time someone posts an entry about the abuse they are/were suffering. You get stuck in your own traumatic experience and you may even regress. Getting on with your life is a better antidote than fighting the bogeyman every minute of the day.

Secondly, who or what is Christmas glog? I hope you weren’t trying to insinuate that alcohol was involved somewhere in what I wrote? The truth is I have been following an Eastern orthodox series of contemplations on how Christ sets you free, after celebrating a Roman Catholic carol service and Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve.

Thirdly, if you don’t like Piper, don’t read him. Find something more edifying.
In other words look away now.

Finally, rather than trying to second guess what the man means or putting words into his mouth, the following is his definitive view on divorce and remarriage, written over 25 years ago, long before you invented the term Calvinista! ( And for the record I read my first and only Piper book earlier this year and I am not a fan).

Note (added May 5, 1989): Readers of this paper should be sure to consult the official position paper of the Council of Deacons of Bethlehem Baptist Church entitled, A Statement on Divorce and Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church . That document, dated May 2, 1989, represents the position on divorce and remarriage that will guide the church in matters of membership and discipline. The paper you hold in your hands is NOT the official church position on divorce and remarriage. It is my own understanding of the Scriptures and therefore the guidelines for my own life and teaching and ministerial involvement in weddings. But I intend to respect the official statement (having written the first draft myself) as our guide in matters of membership and discipline. I make this paper available so that the basis for certain statements in the official paper can be readily obtained.

Background and Introduction

All of my adult life, until I was faced with the necessity of dealing with divorce and remarriage in the pastoral context, I held the prevailing Protestant view that remarriage after divorce was Biblically sanctioned in cases where divorce had resulted from desertion or persistent adultery. Only when I was compelled, some years ago, in teaching through the gospel of Luke, to deal with Jesus’ absolute statement in Luke 16:18 did I begin to question that inherited position.

I felt an immense burden in having to teach our congregation what the revealed will of God is in this matter of divorce and remarriage. I was not unaware that among my people there were those who had been divorced and remarried, and those who had been divorced and remained unmarried, and those who were in the process of divorce or contemplating it as a possibility. I knew that this was not an academic exercise, but would immediately affect many people very deeply.

I was also aware of the horrendous statistics in our own country, as well as other Western countries, concerning the number of marriages that were ending in divorce, and the numbers of people who were forming second marriages and third marriages. In my study of Ephesians 5 I had become increasingly persuaded that there is a deep and profound significance to the union of husband and wife in “one flesh” as a parable of the relationship between Christ and his church.

All of these things conspired to create a sense of solemnity and seriousness as I weighed the meaning and the implication of the Biblical texts on divorce and remarriage. The upshot of that crucial experience was the discovery of what I believe is a New Testament prohibition of all remarriage except in the case where a spouse has died. I do not claim to have seen or said the last word on this issue, nor am I above correction, should I prove to be wrong. I am aware that men more godly than I have taken different views. Nevertheless, every person and church must teach and live according to the dictates of its own conscience informed by a serious study of Scripture.

Therefore this paper is an attempt to state my own understanding of the issues and their foundation in Scripture. It serves, then, as a Biblical rationale for why I feel constrained to make the decisions I do with regard to whose marriages I will perform and what sort of church discipline seems appropriate in regard to divorce and remarriage.

If I were to give exhaustive expositions of each relevant text the paper would become a very large book. Therefore, what I plan to do is to give brief explanations of each of the crucial texts with some key exegetical arguments. There will be, no doubt, many questions that can be raised and I hope to be able to learn from those questions, and do my best to answer them in the discussion that will surround this paper.

It seems that the most efficient way to approach the issue is to simply give a list of reasons, based on Biblical texts, why I believe that the New Testament prohibits all remarriage except where a spouse has died. So what follows is a list of such arguments.

Eleven Reasons Why I Believe All Remarriage After Divorce Is Prohibited While Both Spouses Are Alive

1. Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.

Luke 16:18: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

1.1 This verse shows that Jesus does not recognize divorce as terminating a marriage in God’s sight. The reason a second marriage is called adultery is because the first one is considered to still be valid. So Jesus is taking a stand against the Jewish culture in which all divorce was considered to carry with it the right of remarriage.

1.2 The second half of the verse shows that not merely the divorcing man is guilty of adultery when he remarries, but also any man who marries a divorced woman.

1.3 Since there are no exceptions mentioned in the verse, and since Jesus is clearly rejecting the common cultural conception of divorce as including the right of remarriage, the first readers of this gospel would have been hard-put to argue for any exceptions on the basis that Jesus shared the cultural assumption that divorce for unfaithfulness or desertion freed a spouse for remarriage.

2. Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the husband or the wife who does the divorcing.

Mark 10:11-12: And he said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’

2.1 This text repeats the first half of Luke 16:18 but goes farther and says that not only the man who divorces, but also a woman who divorces, and then remarries is committing adultery.

2.2 As in Luke 16:18, there are no exceptions mentioned to this rule.

3. Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-8 teach that Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ justification of divorce from Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted the purpose of God in creation that no human being separate what God has joined together.

Mark 10:2-9: And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ 4 And they said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.’ 5 But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’

Matthew 19:3-9: And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”

3.1 In both Matthew and Mark the Pharisees come to Jesus and test him by asking him whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. They evidently have in mind the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1 which simply describes divorce as a fact rather than giving any legislation in favor of it. They wonder how Jesus will take a position with regard to this passage.

3.2 Jesus’ answer is, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Mt. 19:8).

3.3 But then Jesus criticizes the Pharisees’ failure to recognize in the books of Moses God’s deepest and original intention for marriage. So he quotes two passages from Genesis. “God made them male and female. …For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Genesis 1:27; 2:24).

3.4 From these passages in Genesis Jesus concludes, “So they are no longer two, but one.” And then he makes his climaxing statement, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

3.5 The implication is that Jesus rejects the Pharisees’ use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the standard of marriage for his disciples to God’s original intention in creation. He says that none of us should try to undo the “one-flesh” relationship which God has united.

3.6 Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause (“except for unchastity”) mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, (“let no man put asunder”) especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage. More on this below.

4. Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.

Matthew 5:32: But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

4.1 Jesus assumes that in most situations in that culture a wife who has been put away by a husband will be drawn into a second marriage. Nevertheless, in spite of these pressures, he calls this second marriage adultery.

4.2 The remarkable thing about the first half of this verse is that it plainly says that the remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away is nevertheless adultery: “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her (the innocent wife who has not been unchaste) an adulteress.” This is a clear statement, it seems to me, that remarriage is wrong not merely when a person is guilty in the process of divorce, but also when a person is innocent. In other words, Jesus’ opposition to remarriage seems to be based on the unbreakableness of the marriage bond by anything but death.

4.3 I will save my explanation of the exception clause (“Except on the ground of unchastity”) for later in the paper, but for now, it may suffice to say that on the traditional interpretation of the clause, it may simply mean that a man makes his wife an adulteress except in the case where she has made herself one.

4.4 I would assume that since an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries, therefore a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. If one argues that this guilty woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, just because the guilty woman’s adultery has broken the “one flesh” relationship, then one is put in the awkward position of saying to an innocent divorced woman, “If you now commit adultery it will be lawful for you to remarry.” This seems wrong for at least two reasons.

4.41 It seems to elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital union and disunion.

4.42 If sexual union with another breaks the marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say that an innocently divorced wife can’t remarry (as Jesus does say) assumes that her divorcing husband is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another. This is a very unlikely assumption. More likely is that Jesus does assume some of these divorcing husbands will have sexual relations with another woman, but still the wives they have divorced may not remarry. Therefore, adultery does not nullify the “one-flesh” relationship of marriage and both the innocent and guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 5:32.

5. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who divorces should not remarry.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11: To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

5.1 When Paul says that this charge is not his but the Lord’s, I think he means that he is aware of a specific saying from the historical Jesus which addressed this issue. As a matter of fact, these verses look very much like Mark 10:11-12, because both the wife and the husband are addressed. Also, remarriage seems to be excluded by verse ll the same way it is excluded in Mark 10:11-12.

5.2 Paul seems to be aware that separation will be inevitable in certain cases. Perhaps he has in mind a situation of unrepentant adultery, or desertion, or brutality. But in such a case he says that the person who feels constrained to separate should not seek remarriage but remain single. And he reinforces the authority of this statement by saying he has a word from the Lord. Thus Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’ sayings is that remarriage should not be pursued.

5.3 As in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 and Matthew 5:32, this text does not explicitly entertain the possibility of any exceptions to the prohibition of remarriage.

6. 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.

1 Corinthians 7:39: A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7:1-3, Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during his life? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning her husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

6.1 Both of these passages (1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2) say explicitly that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. No exceptions are explicitly mentioned that would suggest she could be free from her husband to remarry on any other basis.

7. Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ’s disciples to sustain them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of Christ.

Matthew 19:10-12: The disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.’ 11 But he said to them, ‘Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

7.1 Just preceding this passage in Matthew 19:9 Jesus prohibited all remarriage after divorce. (I will deal with the meaning of “except for immorality” below.) This seemed like an intolerable prohibition to Jesus’ disciples: If you close off every possibility of remarriage, then you make marriage so risky that it would be better not to marry, since you might be “trapped” to live as a single person to the rest of your life or you may be “trapped” in a bad marriage.

7.2 Jesus does not deny the tremendous difficulty of his command. Instead, he says in verse ll, that the enablement to fulfill the command not to remarry is a divine gift to his disciples. Verse 12 is an argument that such a life is indeed possible because there are people who for the sake of the kingdom, as well as lower reasons, have dedicated themselves to live a life of singleness.

7.3 Jesus is not saying that some of his disciples have the ability to obey his command not to remarry and some don’t. He is saying that the mark of a disciple is that they receive a gift of continence while non-disciples don’t. The evidence for this is l) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 13:11, 12) the parallel between Matthew 19:12 and 13:9,43; 11:15, and 3) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 19:26.

8. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that the “one-flesh” relationship established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or even by remarriage.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

8.1 The remarkable thing about these four verses is that, while divorce is taken for granted, nevertheless the woman who is divorced becomes “defiled” by her remarriage (verse 4). It may well be that when the Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was legitimate he based his negative answer not only on God’s intention expressed in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, but also on the implication of Deuteronomy 24:4 that remarriage after divorce defiles a person. In other words, there were ample clues in the Mosaic law that the divorce concession was on the basis of the hardness of man’s heart and really did not make divorce and remarriage legitimate.

8.2 The prohibition of a wife returning to her first husband even after her second husband dies (because it is an abomination) suggests very strongly that today no second marriage should be broken up in order to restore a first one (for Heth and Wenham’s explanation of this see Jesus and Divorce, page 110).

9. 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she is free to remarry. It means that the Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it.

1 Corinthians 7:15: If the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

9.1 There are several reasons why the phrase “is not bound” should not be construed to mean “is free to remarry.”

9.11 Marriage is an ordinance of creation binding on all of God’s human creatures, irrespective of their faith or lack of faith.

9.12 The word used for “bound” (douloo) in verse 15 is not the same word used in verse 39 where Paul says, “A wife is bound (deo) to her husband as long as he lives.” Paul consistently uses deo when speaking of the legal aspect of being bound to one marriage partner (Romans 7:2; l Corinthians 7:39), or to one’s betrothed (l Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers to a deserted spouse not being bound in l Corinthians 7:15, he chooses a different word (douloo) which we would expect him to do if he were not giving a deserted spouse the same freedom to remarry that he gives to a spouse whose partner has died (verse 39).

9.13 The last phrase of verse 15 (“God has called us to peace”) supports verse 15 best if Paul is saying that a deserted partner is not “bound to make war” on the deserting unbeliever to get him or her to stay. It seems to me that the peace God has called us to is the peace of marital harmony. Therefore, if the unbelieving partner insists on departing, then the believing partner is not bound to live in perpetual conflict with the unbelieving spouse, but is free and innocent in letting him or her go.

9.14 This interpretation also preserves a closer harmony to the intention of verses 10-11, where an inevitable separation does not result in the right of remarriage.

9.15 Verse 16 (“For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?) is an argument that you can’t know, and so should not make the hope of saving them a ground for fighting to make them stay. This supports the understanding of verse 15 as a focus on not being enslaved to stay together, rather than not being enslaved to say single.

9.16 Paul did not see the single life as a life of slavery and so would not have called the necessity of staying single a state of being enslaved.

10. 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin.

10.1 Recently some people have argued that this passage deals with divorced people because in verse 27 Paul asks, “Are you free (literally: loosed) from a wife?” Some have assumed that he means, “Are you divorced?” Thus he would be saying in verse 28 that it is not sin when divorced people remarry. There are several reasons why this interpretation is most unlikely.

10.11 Verse 25 signals that Paul is beginning a new section and dealing with a new issue. He says, “Now concerning the virgins (ton parthenon) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.” He has already dealt with the problem of divorced people in verses 10-16. Now he takes up a new issue about those who are not yet married, and he signals this by saying, “Now concerning the virgins.” Therefore, it is very unlikely that the people referred to in verses 27 and 28 are divorced.

10.12 A flat statement that it is not sin for divorced people to be remarried (verse 28) would contradict verse ll, where he said that a woman who has separated from her husband should remain single.

10.13 Verse 36 is surely describing the same situation in view in verses 27 and 28, but clearly refers to a couple that is not yet married. “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.” This is the same as verse 28 where Paul says, “But if you marry, you do not sin.”

10.14 The reference in verse 27 to being bound to a “wife” may be misleading because it may suggest that the man is already married. But in Greek the word for wife is simply “woman” and may refer to a man’s betrothed as well as his spouse. The context dictates that the reference is to a man’s betrothed virgin, not to his spouse. So “being bound” and “being loosed” have reference to whether a person is betrothed or not.

10.15 It is significant that the verb Paul uses for “loosed” (luo) or “free” is not a word that he uses for divorce. Paul’s words for divorce are chorizo (verses 10,11,15; cf. Matthew 19:6) and aphienai (verses 11,12,13).

11. The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.

Matthew 19:9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

11.1 Several years ago I taught our congregation in two evening services concerning my understanding of this verse and argued that “except for immorality” did not refer to adultery but to premarital sexual fornication which a man or a woman discovers in the betrothed partner. Since that time I have discovered other people who hold this view and who have given it a much more scholarly exposition than I did. I have also discovered numerous other ways of understanding this verse which also exclude the legitimacy of remarriage. Several of these are summed up in William Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (Nelson: 1984).

11.2 Here I will simply give a brief summary of my own view of Matthew 19:9 and how I came to it.

I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus’ denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.

Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew’s exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia (“except for immorality”) instead of the word moicheia which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. The question nags at me why Matthew would not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant.

Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneiais in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication or incest (l Corinthians 5:1) rather than adultery?

A. Isaksson agrees with this view of porneia and sums up his research much like this on pages 134-5 of Marriage and Ministry:

Thus we cannot get away from the fact that the distinction between what was to be regarded as porneia and what was to be regarded as moicheia was very strictly maintained in pre-Christian Jewish literature and in the N.T. Porneia may, of course, denote different forms of forbidden sexual relations, but we can find no unequivocal examples of the use of this word to denote a wife’s adultery. Under these circumstances we can hardly assume that this word means adultery in the clauses in Matthew. The logia on divorce are worded as a paragraph of the law, intended to be obeyed by the members of the Church. Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that in a text of this nature the writer would not have maintained a clear distinction between what was unchastity and what was adultery: moicheia and not porneia was used to describe the wife’s adultery. From the philological point of view there are accordingly very strong arguments against this interpretation of the clauses as permitting divorce in the case in which the wife was guilty of adultery.

The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other words, since they don’t accept the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of this act. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew’s record of Jesus’ birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.

In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today. In verse 19 Joseph resolves “to divorce” Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication.

Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19 needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by Jesus) and yet to allow for “divorces” like the one Joseph contemplated toward his betrothed whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia). Therefore, Matthew includes the exception clause in particular to exonerate Joseph, but also in general to show that the kind of “divorce” that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication is not included in Jesus’ absolute prohibition.

A common objection to this interpretation is that both in Matthew 19:3-8 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to is marriage not betrothal. The point is pressed that “except for fornication” is irrelevant to the context of marriage.

My answer is that this irrelevancy is just the point Matthew wants to make. We may take it for granted that the breakup of an engaged couple over fornication is not an evil “divorce” and does not prohibit remarriage. But we cannot assume that Matthew’s readers would take this for granted.

Even in Matthew 5:32, where it seems pointless for us to exclude “the case of fornication” (since we can’t see how a betrothed virgin could be “made an adulteress” in any case), it may not be pointless for Matthew’s readers. For that matter, it may not be pointless for any readers: if Jesus had said, “Every man who divorces his woman makes her an adulteress,” a reader could legitimately ask: “Then was Joseph about to make Mary an adulteress?” We may say this question is not reasonable since we think you can’t make unmarried women adulteresses. But it certainly is not meaningless or, perhaps for some readers, pointless, for Matthew to make explicit the obvious exclusion of the case of fornication during betrothal.

This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages:

It does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke and the whole range of New Testament teaching set forth above in sections 1-10, including Matthew’s own absolute teaching in 19:3-8
It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew’s exception clause instead of moicheia
It squares with Matthew’s own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19
It fits the demands of Matthew’s wider context concerning Joseph’s contemplated divorce.
Since I first wrote this exposition of Matthew 19:9 I have discovered a chapter on this view in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce and a scholarly defense of it by A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (1965).

Conclusions and Applications

In the New Testament the question about remarriage after divorce is not determined by:

The guilt or innocence of either spouse,
Nor by whether either spouse is a believer or not,
Nor by whether the divorce happened before or after either spouse’s conversion,
Nor by the ease or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth,
Nor by whether there is adultery or desertion involved,
Nor by the on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart,
Nor by the cultural permissiveness of the surrounding society.
Rather it is determined by the fact that:

Marriage is a “one-flesh” relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13),
Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30).
Those who are already remarried:

Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness
Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)
Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God’s eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God’s will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.
©2012 Desiring God Foundation. Used by Permission.

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. ©2012 Desiring God Foundation. Website: desiringGod.org

Gavin

Gavin, Instone Brewer is a scholar who has refuted much of what Piper teaches. Piper responded to him much like he did with NT Wright because both were getting too much attention. Piper is not nice and does not even debate fairly.

What bothers you is that we talk about this stuff at all and point out problems with the charlatans. Spiritual abuse tactic is to tell people to “move on”. People who are uncomfortable with what is coming out or being debated are always telling people to move on. They would rather not know. Fine.

What is funny is you don’t even take your own advice. Stop reading here if bothers you. At least you can comment here and your comment is posted which is a lot more than you can say for the charlatans.

Anon1:

You said the following to Gavin:”What is funny is you don’t even take your own advice. Stop reading here if bothers you. At least you can comment here and your comment is posted which is a lot more than you can say for the charlatans.”

Gavin, he’s got you there and BTW the last time I checked you are not the author of this blog so you do not get to choose the topics.

Take your own advice and move on. I bet you do not like it when you read –Take your own advice and move on.

Gavin –

It would be kind of you, in the future, to post links to excessively long articles that you wish to reference. Posting entire articles in a comment section of a blog seems rude, unless it is your own blog. Then, again, maybe this is just my personal annoyance.

Full Disclosure: I have been helped much in my Christian walk by the ministry of John Piper. That being said, I am curious, for those who say they are “not fans” of his, which of his core teachings are objectionable to you?

As for his sermons on tornadoes and bridge collapses…there is a Q and A panel from a few years back from a conference on the sovereignty of God, where he talks about the death of his mother in a bus accident in Israel. I am paraphrasing, but, he basically said that a God who could not control debris flying around a bus and fatally injuring his mother, was not a God that he could worship.

Why is it ok if God uses cancer or heart failure to take the life of a 95 year old, but it is not ok if He uses a bridge collapse, a tornado, or a bus accident to take the life of a younger person? Did He not create that life, and is it not His to decide when, where, and how it will end?

Mot,

Why do you find it cold? I find it immensely comforting. The God who has the hairs on my head numbered brought me into this world, and He will bring me out safely into His presence when it is time.

Did Paul not say “To live is Christ, to die is gain”?

Sad:

I’m glad you find it comforting. But as I said before I find it cold. I’m not going to debate this with you. Good day.

Bridget,

Please show me where Piper says that God does evil? It is not in His character, in fact it is the very antithesis of His character. God abhors evil and paid a great personal price to atone for the evil that men do. That is the “kind of God” He is.

And as to your last statement, I would respectfully point you to Hebrews 9:27.

@ Anne:

wow, say it like it is!! Oh yeah!!

Sad –

If God is sovereign in the way Piper claims him to be, then He is sovereign over the good and the evil that affects our lives. I believe that God can know the time of our death without being the initiator of it. Read Piper’s public statements. View the Vimeo statement he made about abuse. You asked why people feel the way they do about Piper. I gave you an answer. You don’t seem to like the answer. Now you want to “prove” something about Piper. It is difficult to communicate with someone who wants to debate that a person’s “solicited reasons” are wrong.

On the other hand, I agree with you that God is not the author of evil 🙂 I will check into the Hebrews passage.

Bridget,

I asked what people found objectionable about Piper’s core teachings, I did not ask why people do not like him. One is objective, the other subjective. I’m not trying to “prove” anything about Piper, I’m trying to get at some theological differences that people have with him. And if I am asking for chapter and verse…well…are not Christians people of the Book?

” it becomes detrimental to a person’s well-being if they continually relive their experience every time someone posts an entry about the abuse they are/were suffering. You get stuck in your own traumatic experience and you may even regress. Getting on with your life is a better antidote than fighting the bogeyman every minute of the day”.

I disagree. PTSD is a delayed response to emotional trauma. Thinking of the war vets, they did not have time to process what they had experienced and it got put on the back burner. What helps PTSD vets IS rehashing what the experienced, emotionally responding, and then they can move on.

Gavin:

You said to me:”Mot

No-one has got me, Mot. Not Even The Charlatans (is this the Word of the Week?) And, no, my few posts on their websites have always been received graciously. So much so that it reminds me of the warmth with which I’ve been received here. Therefore, I would like to respectfully decline your request to move on as I don’t think it’s your blog either. I will do so (reluctantly) however, if a higher power asks me to.”

I really was not asking you to move on, because I recognize this is not my blog, something I do not think you realize.

Your tone today is way over the line and would get you banned from most blogs.

You might want to meditate on that word RESPECTFUL!

@ Sad:

Heb. 9:27 referenced Gen. 3:19 which is the consequence of Adam disobeying God. That is the first reference to death in Scripture. Like I said, “it doesn’t appear that it was God’s purpose that man should die (or decay) at all according to Genesis.” Maybe I needed to say before Adam

This Kipling poem came to mind while I was reading this post and the comments…

“If”

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling
 

“There is a time for mourning and a time to move on. In my opinion, you are encouraging people to stay stuck rather than to be thankful for what God has done by opening their eyes to the false and bad teaching they were once under.”

A time to move on? What version of Scripture are those words found in?

“Moving on” is a human invention, not God’s. God’s desire is for healing, and that can take place in many ways, in a few weeks or perhaps years. Who are you to dictate how slowly or quickly people should heal after being wounded? You have “moved on” from your hurts, good for you! I’m genuinely happy for you. However, you should not use your healing as a weapon against others, “Why are you still STUCK?”

Some people may never ‘get over’ the hurts that have been inflicted on them in this life. That is why we need our Saviour, who came to heal our hurts and bind up our wounds. Some scars will never heal on Earth. I have scars that can’t be healed while I live… I look forward with hope to the time when I will have no more tears. Until then, I am limping along.

Julie Anne has helped many people in their path to healing with her blog, speaking out against abuse and evil. What have you done to help others, besides tsk tsking them for not being “over it” yet?

Searching: I think many people think that rehashing is staying stuck. I disagree. We all rehash important emotional events. Why is it that 70-year old great-grandmas can recount in great detail the births of each of their children as if it happened yesterday? Do you know of a woman who cannot recount her birth story in great detail? Even if she had general anesthesia and had a c-section and wasn’t physically “present” for the birth? It’s because it was a heightened emotional experience.

The same thing happens with negative experiences. We can recall them, but there is a difference between recalling them and wallowing in them. I use my experiences to share with others who can identify with them and that helps them to see they are not alone. I’m not stuck. I use my stories and post the stories of others for a purpose – – to help them in their process.

The comment “a time to mourn and a time to move on” struck a nerve, so I had to look up the actual ‘a time for everything’ verses in the Bible.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

A Time for Everything

There is a time for everything,

and a season for every activity under heaven:

a time to be born and a time to die,

a time to plant and a time to uproot,

a time to kill and a time to heal,

a time to tear down and a time to build,

a time to weep and a time to laugh,

a time to mourn and a time to dance,

a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,

a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

a time to search and a time to give up,

a time to keep and a time to throw away,

a time to tear and a time to mend,

a time to be silent and a time to speak,

a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peace.

Notice that there are no specific guidelines given for how much time is allotted to mourning.

Gavin:

You said to me:”Mot

And you presume to speak for everyone, just as you presumed it was your blog. Irenic is not a word in your vocabulary,it would seem.”

Dude, chill out. I know it is not my blog, it is you who seems to not know it is not your blog.

Irenic, that sounds like something bad and no I do not make it a habit of using that word when I speak.

If you were not so serious with all the BS you are throwing at everybody today you might pass as a comedian.

But you seem to want to be the (devil’s advocate) here and yes yes and yes I am using hyperbole.

Edit: should have said “much of the evangelical/charismatic world” rather than implying that *all* of it is stuck behind walls of its own making, as that’s untrue.

Nevertheless…

dee wrote:

Virginia

Did you know that is some of these complementarian patriarchal circles they do not believe a woman should vote? Instead, she should go with her husband and give him her ballot to fill out.

Now I’ve heard everything!

“People of the book” comes from Islam – Christians and Jews are often referred to as “People of the Book” in the Muslim world.

Probably not the best reference for this, but here goes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book

@ anonymous:

Yeah, I’ve heard of this about women not voting, but the version I’ve heard is that she doesn’t vote at all, which makes absolutely no sense when every vote counts. Either way, blech!

”’The ‘point’ is to emphasize the fact that once rescue and recovery have been accomplished, it becomes detrimental to a person’s well-being if they continually relive their experience every time someone posts an entry about the abuse they are/were suffering. You get stuck in your own traumatic experience and you may even regress. Getting on with your life is a better antidote than fighting the bogeyman every minute of the day.”’

Actually I have to disagree here. It takes a long while to recover, and talking about it can help you heal. It’s very validating to hear things that ring true to you that others tend to minimize or attempt to invalidate. Minimizing and invalidation of experiences is very common sadly. You seem to feel that a magically day comes when you are finally done with it. It doesn’t happen that way. Facing that bogeyman of the past helps more than you seem to be aware of. Victims are trying mend themselves on a mindset that allowed them to survive within an abusive relationship, and now are working on a new one without the abusive dynamic. It’s easier said than done, and at times can take a lifetime to achieve. Never limit these times due to a personal discomfort, and opinion. It didn’t just take weeks or months to break your sense of self down while within an abusive relationship, and its will take a long time to undo the damage.

Some victims maybe triggered by certain things due to circumstances they have not totally dealt with in the past. That is not regression. It’s an opportunity for another way to heal. Recently, I was in a restaurant having breakfast with a friend. There was a man at another table that triggered me very badly. His words and body language very familiar to me. I was shaking like a leaf, and I waited until the wife and child went into the bathroom. I followed, and left a business card with help contact information for domestic violence on the counter. She knew it was there due to my body languange – not words. The rest is up to her. Everyone around that table KNEW what was going on, and I decided I would be brave enough to vocalize it as it happened. He would stare at me, and I refused to look away. I wouldn’t allow him to intimate me that way. Yes, it is a tool they use. When it came time to leave? I had to walk past their table, and I noticed that men within the restaurant decided to follow me. They knew he wouldn’t start anything with them there. I can’t tell you how much that validated me, and finally people started to complain about his treatment of others at the table. That experience made me grow – not regress. I had to learn to walk past my fear in too many ways to count. I prayed for him and his family in the car before we left. Its strange how things can happen in life that make memories flood back to you, and you MUST face them!

By the way – the ‘every minute of the day’ part? lol seriously? That’s not even possible, and the exgarration doesn’t help you points here. I realize our culture tends to have us explain things in all or nothing terms, but still….

Abuse doesn’t always consume people’s entire life. There maybe a period when dealing with the healing of the more ugly parts that it seems like this. Its not a lifestyle after that. Strong opinions on the matter? Yep, and they have every right to them.

There are plenty of people that have survived abuse, and are able to speak of this without bitterness in their hearts. There are also too many people that feel even speaking of it brings up things that need to stay buried. That’s not healthy, and its not right. To me it means people are uncomfortable with victim’s backgrounds and experiences – and just want them to hush due to it. Their discomfort is the true detriment. They have a opportunity to learn, and possibly encourage. Their own discomfort needs to dealt with as well, but not at the expense of the victim. People speak of experiences, and others get validated or new victims realize what has been happening in their life is indeed abuse. I have to wonder if that isn’t the one of the hardest times in life. Its a very hard thing to acknowledge. I remember years ago me waffling back and forth telling myself it is abuse – then I was making to much of it. Back and forth I went. Finally, I had to join the club that no one wants to be a member of.

One of the biggest issues I have with Piper’s viewpoint is that he seems to feel any man that calls themselves a Christian is readily equipped with leadership, and all that jazz. The abusive male he speaks of does NOT love his own body, and is not able to love and nourish others due to this debit. Its sad when you think about it. His ‘nurturing leadership’ was never present, and yet Piper speaks as if it was when he claims it needs to be restored. He states that God commands men to be (insert many of his theories), and assumes it is a given. God wouldn’t need to ‘command’ it if it was a given, and yet that is how he approaches things. Piper starts at a point that some people are not capable of being, and he just assumes they are..and Piper moves on. What is happening to this family is more than a bad day here! This family has major issues, and Piper isn’t even able to acknowledge the surface common sense stuff yet. In other words, he is on a shaking foundation. His arrogance wont’ allow him to admit his error, and he feels he only needs to clarify. He listed 7 biblical justications on his view to pander to his followers. He can speak softly, and with a flowery flow. The fact of the matter is the poor man wouldn’t know humility for himself if it up and bit him on the nose.

@ Hannah Thomas:
So well said, Hannah.

Dee – LOLZ!!! Great stories!

I emphasized the positive meaning because there are so many misconceptions about other faiths, very much including Islam…

“It’s not that I don’t like what I read here it’s just that I think you are giving a one-sided view and I am seeking to balance things out.”

Gavin, I am trying to understand this concept of “balance” as it relates to the blog post and this blog. From my understanding, Piper has a pulpit, written tons of books, speaks to thousands at all sorts of conferences even in other countries, has his sermons online including tons of articles and so on. In none of these places is there a “balance” to his teachings. Does this concern you, too?

But you are concerned that there be balance on this blog post? Am I understanding you correctly?

Forgive me if this has already been said – I haven’t had the internet/landline for the last four days (compliments of AT&T) and I haven’t read any of the comments.

“I know this may seem a bit in your face but it does not take a ‘gospel’ Christian, a rocket scientist or a theologian at the most correct Reformed-based seminary to know that the police should be involved when someone is getting whacked around.”

And yet many Christians and theologians will insist on keeping the authorities as far away as possible from sticky/criminal situations. Case in point, SGM.

“He also said the man must be disciplined by the church.”

This is true, of course, but he also MUST be disciplined by the authorities. He has committed a CRIME (need me to say that again more slowly? C-R-I-M-E) known under the law as “battery” which carries penalties. USE THEM. They’re there for a reason.

(Know what else is a C-R-I-M-E? Sexual contact with people under 16. But here I go climbing on the statutory rape/age of consent hobby horse again.)

If you respond to this comment, know that I may not see it so you might not get a reply in a timely manner.

I look forward to your review of the book about abuse.

I have been an elder in my church for 20 years. We, and our pastoral staff, take a firm line on stuff like this – call the police, period!

We also don’t do any counseling other than praying with people who want us to pray for them. Our pastoral staff does counseling on a very minor level. Any situation that involves anything close to needing professional advice – long term depression, addiction issues, etc. gets referred out to pychologists and psychiatrists. We are blessed in our community to have some really godly PhD/MDs in psychiatry, and we refer people out quickly so that they can get the best treatment possible.

But I don’t know what happens among the membership where some damage could occur. It may be more likely that a woman who is abused may confide in a friend first, and if that person has bought into the “don’t tell the police, don’t go to outsiders” theory, that would be a problem spot. Still, I would think that person would refer them to the pastoral staff or the elders, in which case, the lid would be blown off, the police would be called and they would be referred out.

But the main point here is that there may be people suffering in the pews who are afraid to come out. That’s why I want to read the book, or at least your review.

The culture of the church needs to be such that people would feel safe if they come out and not shunned.

I look forward to your review of the book.

Sad wrote:

Mot,
Why do you find it cold? I find it immensely comforting. The God who has the hairs on my head numbered brought me into this world, and He will bring me out safely into His presence when it is time.
Did Paul not say “To live is Christ, to die is gain”?

I actually don’t think the Bible teaches that each death is caused by God. Murder is a sin, the victims are it’s consequence, that is not God, rather it is Satan. There is little comfort in the evils of this world, however we were given dominion over this earth, and using out abilities, we as humans can lessen the impact of death, or play fatalistic games and act like there is nothing we can do.

One of my biggest peeves about Calvinism is its fatalistic view. I lived in S. Asia for a year, and what kept the accident rates in the mountain passes at record high levels? The fatalistic worldview, the “oh well, nothing we could do, that was just their fate” vs. the western world’s strong stance against drunk driving, making roads and vehicles safer, etc.

No, people don’t get killed by God, many times they get killed by human stupidity.

Jesus didn’t not call us to become excuse makers, or fake “I find great comfort that God is in charge” as millions die around the world from preventable causes. God gave us a commission, spread his love, and gave us brains to figure out how to go and do loving things. When something goes wrong, we should mourn, and allow that failure to drive us to a better solution. Not wallow in a gnostic/pagan-like fatalism.

Sorry to digress in subject matter here but I couldn’t get this answer out of my head after Joey said this yesterday: “And I am not sure how you would know whether I hang on Piper’s every word or not, or how I treat my wife. In fact, you have no idea.”

Joey, if you agree with the so called complementarian doctrine for marriage then the at the very best idea anyone can have of how you treat your wife is that you treat her as a suboordinate to yourself. Since I believe that the Bible actually teaches equality over hierarchy in marriage, any over/under treatment is abuse in my ideas.

…in the same way one responds to food poisoning.

Dee, your story made me howl with laughter…I come from a catholic family & they all have an awesome sense of humour. I love Dave already.

I’ve thought about this post a lot today & I’m so pleased that people have pointed out that the reporting of domestic violence should be predicated on the crime of the perpetrator, & the safety of the victim, not the attitude of the victim. I think some of those who make pronouncements about the victims’ attitude are a) premature, that’s not the first thing to focus on here, if ever & b) shallow, entirely misunderstanding the potential psychological devastation of a DV victim who may be bsrely

sacrificially love her…& so on…I think to lampoon some of those would help others see their subtext…

Please excuse weird posting, my phone is being non-submissive & making its own decisions!

Yup! Look away, Eagle, look away!!

I reckon that swipe would also be aimed at the rest of us feminine commenters as well? Tsk!

Gavin, that was a truly lovely quote. Really inspiring, and I mean that.

But please answer my question above.

And tell me how your quote will prevent men from abusing their wives and churches from letting this pass? Until the church really awakens to the scourge of domestic violence, and until suffering women are empowered to escape abuse, we will not look away or move on.

Yes, let’s come out of the shadows – by shining Christ’s light right into the heart of darkness.

Eagle-

Did you see my earlier comment to you?

@ Eagle:

I am in an E-Free too, it is so sad to see this once broad and non-divisive church rewrite their statement of faith to be more divisive, more Calvinist leaning. Each E-Free church is free to choose what they want to sign on to, in my area all are complementarian to the point of not letting a seminary student preach because she was female. Most are so Calvinist-leaning some think they should leave the denomination. If anything, the Calvinistas did a better job infiltrating the non-baptist denominations and turning them Calvinista. Our pastor did it slowly, over about 5 years.

“HOW THE (doo-diddly) DID SOVEREIGN GRACE MATERIAL GET PUSHED IN AN EVANGELCIAL FREE CHRUCH?!?

Eagle, in my prior 25-year association with the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) I found that it is a lot like a sponge. (As in yellow thing you clean stuff with, not cake).

EFCA churches can be dry and traditional, or dripping wet, saturated by grace. They can smell a bit bad as they have been sitting in some muck for a while, or they can be effective at the job Jesus gave them to do. Some of them soak in all manner of bits of crud from the corners of Christianity, and some of them are real good at smearing that muck over the huddled sheep.

While the basic tenants of the EFCA association are good, a lot is left to the individual church to figure out. So any one church can be filled to the brim with Calvinistas drinking at the well of the Truly Reformed. Or just have a few of them working up to domination.

EFCA churches are entirely capable of all kinds of malarkey when it comes to spiritual abuse.

But they are also capable of being wonderful, caring (the good kind) churches.

I know both.

Wait a minute, I thought only women were allowed to be nurturing?

@ Bridget:

Eagle –

It’s at the link above.

And here’s a catholic priest in Italy blaming women for bringing domestic violence ‘on themselves’: http://www.smh.com.au/world/women-bring-violence-on-themselves-priest-20121228-2bybu.html

“”How often do we see girls and mature women going around scantily dressed and in provocative clothes?” Piero Corsi said in a Christmas message posted on the door of his church in the small town of San Terenzio in northwest Italy.
“They provoke the worst instincts, which end in violence or sexual abuse. They should search their consciences and ask: did we bring this on ourselves?” it read.”

Arlo Bates – a novelist and newspaperman. An American.

‘Tis a novel that’s being quoted.

Hmm…

“Ashe was amazed at their cleverness and their shallow reasoning; at the ease and naturalness at which they played this game of intellectual gymnastics, and at the apparent failure to pierce to anything like depth.”

Not like old Wayne ’83 church functions graded according to their level of importance, authority, influence and monetary value’ Grudem, or John ‘There are feminine feels and masculine feels and women need men’s feels to fly around the church above them, and it’s almost impossible to clearly explain what I mean by that without using 10,000 gospel-sodden adjectives but I swear it’s so obviously, clearly in the Bible’ Piper.

All of it’s mental masturbation. Excuse those who respond in kind. 🙂

“Simply” hurting her. “Simply”… Does that line bother anyone else? The abuser is simply hurting her. Notice the most important issue to Piper at that point is not caring for the victim, and not the abuser’s sins i.e. the actual sins. The real concern is whether or not the wife’s Lord and Master Husband, who gets a free pass for at least one more night, is “requiring” her to sin.

Hmmm…regarding Piper’s video….what stood out the most for me amid the usual religious bs, was what form of abuse he chose to use to illustrate when a wife could (winsomely and politely and demurely, of course) tell her husband ‘no.’ And he chose for this ‘group sex?’ Really? Because THAT is what so many abusers demand?

First, I think that most abusive husbands are not into group sex. They don’t want to risk the exposure (pardon the pun) of the wife to someone else who might actually tell her what’s really going on.

But, for the sake of argument, if a husband is demanding that his wife participate in group sex, then the marriage covenant (even by their standards) has already been broken. And there are much bigger problems in that house than whether the wife submissively declines to submit.

And honestly, in the whole spectrum of DV, he chooses that as an illustration? His bubble must be pretty warped.

@ Sad:
Q: “which of his (Piper’s) core teachings are objectionable to you?”
A: “Christian Hedonism” Precisely in the same choking, thorny category as “Christian Anxiety” or “Christian Riches” Luke 8:14 and Piper’s number 1 distinctive core teaching.

As I see it, except for not understanding the dynamics of abuse, he is also not answering the real question.
What should a woman do in cases of abuse? (Real question: What could she do to end the abuse, under the complementarian mindset of Piper?
His “answer:”
1) Listen to Jesus first and from that to others.
(My comment: That will not end abuse.)
2) Do not feel your only recourse is the police, as that would be a failure of the church.
(My comment: She is told to go to the church. Now the question becomes: How should the church end the abuse? If the earth stands on the back of a giant turtle, what does the turtle stand on?
And some churches do fail in being a recourse. Telling her she should not regard the police as the only source of help is sometimes telling her to believe falsehood, as they are that in many cases.)
3) Going to the police may be right, but make sure of the attitude you have when doing it.
(My comment: You did not say when it is right to go to them, only imply that it is wrong when the victim’s attitude is not right.)
4) The church should not harbor an abuser.
(My comment: This is only what the church should not do, not what they should do.)
5) They should go to the church first, and the Christians should decide how to deal with it.
(My comment: This contains no answer as to what the church should do to end the abuse.)
6) Fleeing and staying could both be done in a right attitude.
(My comment: This still does not say how to end the abuse.)
7) It is the job of the church to help.
(My comment: And what should they do to help?)

Jeanette, As to your horrid story, something you said resonated with me and my experience with other victims. The one thing I have noticed is the isolation. You see it in abusive fmailies and churches when it finally comes out.telling folks to move on is just another isolation tactic.

The internet has been a huge help to many. One of the reasons sites like this are so important is for people to discuss what got them involved with certain groups, etc.

Why should we not analyze all teaching and behavior of the celebrities or controlling leaders? Why shouldn’t we encourage people to test all things? Discuss what to look for? Yes, even parse their very public teaching line by line if need be? After all, they are marketing their words.

I think one reason why people despise victims is it makes them uncomfortable. They like their movements and groups and take it personal when others have had very bad experiences. They don’t want to admit they might have made a bad choice or were easily influenced. Telling people to move on is their way of protecting themselves.

Anon 1…yes. This is a fairly standard abusers tactic – isolation. And you’re right, the ‘move on’ mantra does have that effect.

Something I think very few people who have not dealt with abuse – either in their own life or in helping others – understand is the fact that it requires strength for the victim to go against the training they received that says “oh, it’s not that big of a deal” or “that’s not really abuse”. Plus, especially with children, the mind will automatically minimize things just for the sake of survival. When a child (or an adult) is in a situation from which there is no perceived escape or avenue of assistance, if they do not mentally minimize what they are experiencing, they will go mad.

After years of both this defense mechanism and being taught this by the abusers – and the church – it takes a lot of mental effort to say out loud, “I was abused.” It took me a long time to be able to articulate the word ‘molested’ and ‘incest’ is still very difficult. And I gave a very brief synopsis in my previous comment and still, I have trouble seeing it objectively enough to acknowledge that it was really that bad. But it was. Really that bad…a babysitter with a movie camera….an 18 year old neighbor with a Polaroid.

And I know why it is still hard to objectively see it as that bad. When I catch glimpses of the reality of how bad it was….I start to break inside. This is something that will just take time – in little pieces, and may take the rest of my life.

And the phrases “move on” and “Just get over it” and “wallowing” really do still trigger the anger because they were used so much to keep me silent for so long…..

Eagle, thanks! If I ever do make it back east, I would love to have coffee with you. It has taken a little time for me to realize that anger is the appropriate and normal response to abuse – or at least my story. It still surprises me, though….in a good way.

Eagle – thanks again. You made me laugh with “If they are a reformed clown who hang onto every word of Driscoll or Piper…I’ll actually enjoy it! 😛 It can be my version of “Agnostic Hedonism” 😛 “

Jeanette – I am so sorry. Really, I don’t know what to say (wish I could make it all stop hurting), though this is for sure:

You have NO need to apologize for speaking out.

Janette, I am more and more concerned for what I see as the hard heartedness of Christendom. There is almost this idea that God decreed it so shut up and move on. Just to give you a totally unrelated example that happened recently. An horrible thing happened to someone we know. At a Christmas gathering, one person gave a speech about how blessed his family was by God that nothing like this thing had ever happened to them. How blessed they have been in every area of their life, etc.

I was appalled. This person is not a Calvinist but there it was…the decreetal God. “He must like me more”sort of God. There but for grace of God, go I, sort of attitude. So, God has special grace for them for some reason.

Why is it that Christianscannot just grieve, mourn and listen? Why can’t they just reach out and say, this is horrible and unjust. At least why not ever mention that such things are the work of satan… or when the horrible thing is done by humans that they are actually doing the will of satan?

I just do not get it.

Jeannette, typed words on a screen are little and ephemeral, but consider these measly typed words what I can do to reach out, offer comfort, offer anger, offer sorrow, offer silence, offer screams, offer any little thing I can to acknowledge how awful what happened to you was, and how much more worthy, more special, more valuable you are than all of those who hurt you over so many years considered you to be.

Anon 1 wrote:

Janette, I am more and more concerned for what I see as the hard heartedness of Christendom. There is almost this idea that God decreed it so shut up and move on. Just to give you a totally unrelated example that happened recently. An horrible thing happened to someone we know. At a Christmas gathering, one person gave a speech about how blessed his family was by God that nothing like this thing had ever happened to them. How blessed they have been in every area of their life, etc.
I was appalled. This person is not a Calvinist but there it was…the decreetal God. “He must like me more”sort of God. There but for grace of God, go I, sort of attitude. So, God has special grace for them for some reason.
Why is it that Christianscannot just grieve, mourn and listen? Why can’t they just reach out and say, this is horrible and unjust…
I just do not get it.

*Great* comment, Anon 1… though I think that the “Move along, nothing here to see” attitude is – has historically been – prevalent in US society, so it’s no surprise that we see it in churches.

I think it is very hard for most of us to be able to express grief, or perhaps more important, to be allowed (by others) to express grief and pain. Our pull yourself up by your bootstraps thinking is (imo) a big part of the problem, because a huge part of that is not allowing others to see one’s emotions – which also comes out as not allowing others to express their emotions to you [plural “you” there]. Our culture seems to equate emotions with weakness – so it’s become socially unacceptable in much US Anglo culture to express grief and pain.

I saw a real difference re. this with the parents of some of the Jewish kids in my ‘hood when growing up, as the parents were 2nd generation and had been raised in homes where expression of emotions (both positive and negative) was more the norm than in my own Anglo-German family. I’ve also seen this among Arab, Puerto Rican and Brazilian immigrant culture here (and, back when, in many Italian families in my home town) – it seems as if most of us aren’t raised with the social skills to deal with expressions of emotional pain and grief, whereas in many other counties/cultures, there’s much more of an acceptance of the expression of emotion.

We get uncomfortable, avert our eyes and hastily change the subject… if only we could see that so much support isn’t a matter of “saying the right thing” so much as it is simply being there – listening, saying “I care,” letting someone cry and being willing to just sit with them while they do – giving a hug, taking someone’s hand and giving it a squeeze; all the small and subtle things that show thatwe really do care.

I’m thinking of my mom’s grief… how she feels that she has to apologize for crying about what hurts (my adult brother’s death). There’s just no need for self-recrimination, and the best I can do (it seems) is to tell her that it’s good to cry and that I love her.

It’s awfully late and I’m rambling – at any rate, I hope these thoughts are helpful to someone besides me.

“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.”

How can anybody look at this and take seriously a husband’s demand that a wife endure his injuries at all? If he demands such a thing, stop right there. All bets are off.

If you put this sentence into a circle, and Christianity as revealed in the NT into another circle, to make a Venn diagram, the circles would not even touch.

Eagle- I have a long history with my local efree church. The things you are stumbling onto are exactly what happened at my former church. Fire the the long term Arminian pastor and bring in a semi- retired Calvinist pastor while sending a relative of one of the elders to TEDS on the churches dime. Guess what? He magically returns young, restless and reformed.

Before that our church hired a creepy guy who looked like Ed Rooney from Ferris Bullers day off for the childrens ministry pastor. Shock of all shocks he has a problem groping all of the female volunteers. Several angry husbands approach the leadership and they support the pastor and dont believe the women’s complaints. They finally fire the schmuck when he admitted to having feeling for a woman other than his wife in front of his ministry team. Conveniently my wife never told me about any of this until he was long gone so I wouldn’t have confronted him myself since she was a volunteer that endured his crap. He just moved on to another church and did the same thing again.

Needless to say that church is fertile ground for agnosticism among those of us who think for ourselves. They can have their garbage theology and their poor attempt in making The Gospel Coalition their Vatican.

@ Jeannette Altes:

I’m so sad that you had to go through this, Jeannette. Wish I could give you a big hug! I pray that God will continue to help you through the healing process and somehow bring good from ashes.

I lost my ability to look at the world with wide eyed wonder and innocence at the age of 2 1/2. Think about that. Please. Then tell me again to “move one”.

Jeannette,

I want to be clear that when I say that people should “move on” I am talking about people who were in a church with bad teaching, believed it, let it affect their Christian walk, and now seem to want to spend the rest of their lives wallowing in self-pity while at the same time refusing to take any personal responsibility in regards to the many admonitions in Scripture about being careful to whom you listen.

I am NOT talking about a defenseless baby on whom unspeakable horrors are perpetrated. I would never presume to tell such a person how long their healing process should take.

Please let us not confuse criminal child abuse with spiritual abuse. I understand that you have suffered both and that the lines crossed a bit because of the churches you were forced into as a child….but they are two very different issues.

So sorry that you had to endure this, and so thankful for you that you still pursue a relationship with Christ.

” Anon 1 likes to guess intentions but in fact it is just a way of deriding the opposition. So you don’t need to do it.
”

Hee Hee. I don’t know why I bother but perhaps it will help others to see a bigger picture of what is happening.

I never have to guess intentions. They are right in front of you both in word and action. This post with Piper’s words are a perfect example.

I come from the other side of the fence so I have a different view. I used to be one of them and I know the playbook. And they are all more alike than different when you strip away certain accroutements. The foundational thinking is the same: We are doing great things for God therefore whatever we have to do grow and maintain this ministry we wil do…for God.

The people ONLY matter as far as they support the ministry and are good followers.

It is hard for folks to understand this. They really do believe the stage personas projected. They believe all the flowery words and agree it would be a sin to request to view a budget of what they are supporting and promoting.

What folks have yet to really grasp and they will disagree with me vehemetly is that success in ministry is a huge sin trap. EVeryone thinks they know someone who has been able to handle it.

One problem is our definition of ministry success. It looks nothing like what we see modeled in the NT. We only have a few historical writings of what happened to the Apostles. The celebs I have known would last 5 seconds in the type of trials the Apostles faced. Not to mention it would not be very appealing without the adoring fans and followers.

They rarely start out doing this for money. That is not the motivator for most. The motivation for most is influence over others thinking their “influence” is godly. From there the problems really start.

We are all guilty of helping to perpetuate this problem of the celebrity Christian leader. It is time to stop wringing our hands hoping they will see the light and care for actual people in the pews and start warning folks away. Without followers, they cannot operate.

Anon1:

When the so called Conservative Resurgence or what I and others refer to as the TAKEOVER was taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention a favorite phrase of the “victors” to the ones they were destroying or destroyed was –move on.” A most UN-Christian attitude. But since they were not on the receiving in they could care less.

Anon 1

You’ve just done it again. Sanctimonious nonsense.

Mot

If you don’t know the difference between “moving on” in the current context and what you described in the SBC, you should become Anon 1’s pen pal.

Sad said: I am not saying “move on” as in pretend it never happened. I believe when we’ve been wronged we have to take it first to the Lord, then to the offending party, and then leave it in the Lord’s hands. To continue to mull the offense over and over and over seems to me to be pretty fruitless. I want to dwell on what God is teaching me today…not on how someone hurt me yesterday.

Sad: Based on the words you have said in this thread, I do not believe you have an accurate understanding of spiritual abuse at all. Spiritual abuse can affect someone to the core of their belief system in how they perceive God, how they perceive themselves in relationship to God and others. I read literally hundreds and hundreds of comments on news stories about my case from people who now claim they are atheist due to spiritual abuse. That’s how those people “moved along”. No one helped them. I don’t see that you really want to understand. It seems you have your mind made up. I find that truly “Sad”.

@ dee:

Dee, continuing on the theme of wound healing for a moment, I have celiac disease. Every time I ingest gluten (it takes less than 1/8 teaspoon), my intestines are damaged and it takes about 9 months for them to heal. That is assuming I do not ingest any amount of gluten in that 9 months. If I keep ingesting minute amounts of gluten, my intestines never heal and my symptoms never go away. My body is destroyed by something that looks so healthy. Healing on a physical and emotional level takes so much time and the symptoms do not disappear overnight. You learn to create barriers that keep you from enduring any more pain, whether that is only eating at specific restaurants or avoiding the original source of the pain in the form of a church or abuser. But the symptoms are still there and nobody can tell you how long healing will take. I do not dwell on my suffering prior to diagnosis but when I share my story with the world, people recognize similarities and start seeking help for their problems. If I kept my story to myself all in the name of “moving on”, there are quite a few people in my life who would not know that what they were going through was not normal. It is imperative that we keep sharing our stories so that no person in this world suffers alone.

@ Julie Anne:

Julie Anne,

I think I do understand that there are false teachers, and that they hurt people. What I do not understand, and you’ve never been able to explain it thoroughly to me, is why someone would stay at a church for months or even years when there is extra-biblical nonsense coming from the pulpit. I cite your former pastor saying that men cannot wear pink and that women should not wear dark colors. Were I in a church service and heard this, there would be a twister and a dust cloud that would be me heading to the car as fast as my feet would move, never to look back.

One of the major problems I have with spiritual abuse blogs is that I see little mention of the fact that Jesus is the Author and Perfecter of our faith. It is His purpose to refine us, and if that means being humbled because we blindly followed a false teacher for a season, then it seems to me to be missing the point to continue to vilify the false teacher when we should be spending our time and energy begging God to not let it happen to us again.

Anon 1 wrote:

Julie Anne, A big part of healing for many is simply for believers around them to admit: What was done to you was wrong. It was unjust and not of Christ.

If I had heard more people say something like that, instead of telling me to “move on” after suffering abuse, I may not be a borderline agnostic right now.

Most of the “christians” in my life spent more time justifying the abusers than actually saying that what they did to me was wrong. Everyone was so eager to dole out forgiveness and mercy to the ones who wronged me, no one seemed to care that I was wounded, scared, and living in fear every day. After all, the abusers said those magic words “I’m sorry” that are supposed to make everything better, right? Right?

What I took away from all Piper has said is that his number one priority is to maintain male superiority (i.e. “complementarianism”), caring about and for the wife and getting the law involved are strictly secondary issues.

Gavin:

You play too many games for me. Have a good life! Bye!

@ Julie Anne:

Sorry Julie Anne, I believe you are wrong when you liken spiritual abuse and its aftermath to other forms of abuse. Scripture is replete with warnings and admonitions likening the Christian life to warfare….we cannot let down our guard for a minute.

There does really and truly exist an enemy of our souls and I imagine there are few things he likes more than pastors who pass off their own agenda as the Word of God effectively lulling people into complacency thinking that they are safe and sound because they obey an ever-changing list of rules.

“Please let us not confuse criminal child abuse with spiritual abuse.”

Sad, sometimes the lines are not so clear, and sometimes it takes a long time to sort it out.
Two examples:
1. I clearly remember the day that my father, a word faith believer, would not allow my mother to take my 3 year old baby brother to the doctor for an ear infection because we couldn’t afford it so God was going to heal him if we all had enough faith while we prayed for him. I was 12, I had faith so I thought, but while my screaming baby brother’s ear drum broke, my dad just blamed the rest of us for not having faith as he supposedly did.

2. I knew a young lady who could not hear any scripture because her father quoted scripture to her while molesting her. He was a pastor. Spiritual abuse and physical abuse will forever be intertwined for her.

Sad,

No doubt there is an enemy of our souls.

Why do you discount spiritual abuse? My only guess is you have never experienced it. And are in the habit of overspiritualizing things, from a covenient & impersonal distance.

You obviously have no idea how offensive, hard-hearted, and cold-blooded you come across.

Sad wrote:

@ Is it not clear to you that a “pastor” who would do that may very likely not even be a Christian? This is precisely my point….just because there is a cross on the roof and a man in the pulpit…does not mean that any given body is truly a part of the Body of Christ.

Now I’m curious… if you have such a gift for discernment, and can spot a false teacher from a mile away, why aren’t you doing something practical to battle the wolves (like starting a blog) instead of berating those who have been deceived and manipulated by those false teachers?

You are rubbing salt into wounds, not doing anything helpful for anyone.

@ Searching:

Where did I berate them? I believe I encouraged them to beg God to not let it happen again.

Sad, it’s not clear to the victim, that’s the whole issue.

Maybe you are in denial yourself, before I received counseling I sounded like you, albeit before the internet so only those closest to me got my unloving just move on judgements, all the while as I was self medicating while not realizing it. Of course I can’t judge your soul but I know where I was with God at the time, and someone could have surmised that due to my lack of empathy that “isn’t it clear that I might not be Christian at all????”

@ Eagle:

Eagle- Google air capital of America and you find my locale. I am sure your superior sleuthing skills will lead you to pay dirt.

I’m in the crew that thinks that sad = Jimmy = Seneca Griggs.

I’m with numo. Has Jimmy gotten under the wire so to speak, and back inside the compound?

“God in His infinite wisdom has chosen to use human beings as His agents, along with the Holy Spirit, to spread the Gospel, the good news of creation, fall, and redemption. Knowing that the “bad guys” don’t always look the part, He infused His word with wisdom on identifying fellow believers. The inner workings of the Holy Spirit..(in response to our flinging ourselves at Christ’s feet and grasping the hem of his garment) will guide us as we try to discern good fruit from rotten fruit.”

Sad, I resonate with a lot of what you are saying concerning the endgame here. Here is where I think you miss a big part of it: We are to live like Christ here and now. It is not just about spreading the Good News. It is about a life that communicates Christ. That is a huge witness for our time. I realize many will try to define what that lifve looks like but we have it described for us and it is not glamorous. It is not about buildings, programs, conferences, etc. In fact, it can look quite mundane. I think the church has made a mistake with evangelism because what are we evangelizing if we do not love our own?

But you are also leaving out crucial steps. For example, in your quote above how does that relate to children raised in Christian but abusive homes? What is their “Christian” normal? Only when they are of an age to understand and some wise adult tells them this is not of Christ. It is evil. And even then, it can take years to process that. Problem is, there are few adults who will say that at all.

For those of us raised in excellent loving homes we, like many young, got caught up in movements. Had I not been raised in ahome that focused on the priesthood, soul competency and being a Berean, I would probably still be promoting the charlatans. But it was not my “normal” and after looking the other way for a while I gave up a lot to walk away from it. I don’t deserve any medals for that at all. The fact that I was part of the problem still grieves me today.

You have never seen evil until you go to a celebrity Christian ( in a big or small pond) and ask how in the world they can do something that is so obviously not of Christ. Prepare to have your sanity questioned and all stops pulled out to ruin you. That is how seriously they take their position. And I happen to know of this sort of thing happening in several well known venues because I was in a position to know. Trust me, there is never proof.

That is why when I read SGM wikileaks I had flashbacks. I saw this sort of thing all the time. It is fake and cheesy and the norm in many Christian venues of leadership. Some of the celebs people literally idolize are some of the most shallow inexperienced in life people you have ever met.

What is missing from your endgame? The steps. The process of figuring out what happened (because none of us come out looking good when the stories are told. Victims can look really stupid after the fact) The best piece I have read on this is here:
http://spiritualtyranny.com/the-event-of-an-sgm-life

That isone reason so few will tell their stories for so long. Another piece is processing what it was about ourselves that was taken in along with so many others. And I happen to agree with your view and will say the absolute #1 reason we are taken in is b ecause we really do not know Jesus Christ. We think we do. But if we read the Gospels over and over for years and focus on Christ…What he did,what he did not do, etc, we can spot a charlatan a lot quicker. In fact, most of them start looking like charlatans. But keep in mind, the guy on the stage works hard at the image and manages it like a Hollywood star does. People believe what they see on the stage. The persona he works hard to project. And many of the pew sitters are kept are arms length. Everything is managed.

I wish I had a dollar for every person who told me “Oh ____is so humble”. Really? They had never been in the inner sanctum with _____ when he was turning purple from rage because someone dared to diss him.

Most spiritual abuse is kept under wraps. Satan does not show up carrying a cup of poison and a pitchfork. He is charming and handsome or cool and hip. Remember what he told Eve: Surely God did not say that?

It is all done with clever deception. People may not even figure out what happened to them for years. And because of he deception few believe them if they do talk but most don’t because it is negative and gossip. And of course, rarely can they prove anything.

It really is a great gig for the evil ones. You get this position, build a following and make the rules of the game for everyone in the Name of Jesus.

What you are seeing on this blog are people who are healing. They get it. They are where they should be. Around those who are brave enough to say”: That is wrong. It is not of Christ, I don’t care who it is.

Right and wrong, good and evil are pretty simple when we do not allow others to define it for us who have a vested interest in the outcome for themselves. The NT warns us, you are right. Now, this is the place to make that case.

There is a reason the book is called the SUBTLE power of spiritual abuse. Sorry so long guys.

dee wrote:

That is why we are here-our efforts are focused on the victims. I am so sorry that you were around such people.

That is why I’m here… it’s obvious that you and many of the commenters here, actually care! This place is an oasis.

Dee
In what sense do you mean non-partisan?

I try to be fair and honest in my assessment of my own and others’ views.

Gavin

Jesus is that in me which holds me steady and calm in the midst of confusion. Jesus is that in me which undergirds my efforts and strengthens my will. Jesus is that in me which says ‘Keep on. Take one step more’. Jesus is that in me which speaks through me in words that convey feelings of peace, trust and understanding. Jesus is that in me which banishes fear. Jesus is that in me which rises triumphant out of every trial. Jesus is that in me which never accepts defeat. I can do all things though Christ which strengthens me.(Philokalia).

Who is your Jesus and what does He do for you?

God bless
Gavin

Hester, I have some family members who went to work with and study under Piper about 10 years ago. They were young and it was after college. Tney came back totally different people. It was chilling. Totally brainwashed and their long time believing family did not know the ‘true Gospel” according to them. They came back disdainful of their now ignorant family. Including their parents who spent a ton on their excellent education and paid their room and board while being indoctrinated in Minn.

Doctrine over people.

That was my first real experience with Piperism. We did visit up there and I came away thinking it was very cultish. He is revered to a degree I find unhealthy.

@ Sad:

“One of the major problems I have with spiritual abuse blogs is that I see little mention of the fact that Jesus is the Author and Perfecter of our faith. It is His purpose to refine us, and if that means being humbled because we blindly followed a false teacher for a season, then it seems to me to be missing the point to continue to vilify the false teacher when we should be spending our time and energy begging God to not let it happen to us again.”

And this is one of the major problems I (even as an outsider) have with your attitude, Sad. It sounds a lot like, “Shoot the wounded, blame the victim”.

[Or do you think there are no such things as “victims”? Quite a few of the Neo-Calvinists seem to think that way. (“We are all sinners, no one is truly innocent, therefore there are no ‘victims'”.) I’d hate to imagine you truly think this way, but I’m starting to suspect that from your words.]

When you say that Julie Anne (or anyone else) “blindly followed a false teacher”, it sounds as though you’re blaming her for her suffering. Why? Because she’s an adult? Or a Christian? Or an adult Christian? Or because she trusted someone she ought to have been able to trust? Is that why she must “take responsibility” for her pain? Is that why she mustn’t speak out about her experience, or call out Chuck O’Neal (who shows no sign of changing), or seek to warn others against him and leaders like him? What you say is exactly what abusive people of all stripes love to hear — that part of the blame lies with their victims. That way the abusers don’t have to swallow all the blame — and don’t have to change.

If, as you say, you’ve never suffered spiritual abuse, I don’t see how you see feel qualified to lecture those who have. (I know I’m not qualified.) If you want to comment on this subject, and not sound hopelessly arrogant, follow Julie Anne’s advice. Read about this subject. Read about it from those who’ve suffered it, and from those who’ve researched it. Reading the Bible is not enough for us — unless we only want to be piously ignorant.

Sad said: “I want to be clear that when I say that people should “move on” I am talking about people who were in a church with bad teaching, believed it, let it affect their Christian walk, and now seem to want to spend the rest of their lives wallowing in self-pity while at the same time refusing to take any personal responsibility in regards to the many admonitions in Scripture about being careful to whom you listen.”
and
“It is offensive to point people to Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of their faith, rather than to applaud a collective effort to obfuscate the fact that we are responsible for who it is that we allow to teach us God’s word?”
and
“Knowing that the “bad guys” don’t always look the part, He infused His word with wisdom on identifying fellow believers. The inner workings of the Holy Spirit..(in response to our flinging ourselves at Christ’s feet and grasping the hem of his garment) will guide us as we try to discern good fruit from rotten fruit.”

Okay. Are you suggesting that if you get pulled into a spiritually abusive church/situation, especially as an adult, it is because you did not read the Bible and seek God diligently enough to avoid being deceived? Here’s the thing. By that logic, it means that if you do it well enough, you will never be deceived and hurt. If someone is in the place where they believe that they can never be deceived because of their diligence in seeking the Lord, that person is in a VERY dangerous place. The easiest person to deceive is the one who believes they cannot be deceived.

There is another side to these statements that I don’t think you recognize. They suggest that all those who have been spiritually abused did NOT seek God before or during the abuse. This is another way of saying, “If you are abused, it is your own fault for not seeing it coming.” It’s is also an extremely arrogant assumption. How do you know what the level of communication with God and reading of the Bible the abused have engaged in? During the time that I was involved in the cult, I read the Bible daily, had read it through from cover to cover in that 7 year period at least 6 times in various translations. I also studied it and was (to my now embarrassment) writing my own commentaries. My ‘heart’ was to find God – know Him more deeply and get lost in Him. I sought Him. That’s where I was when I started going to that church and where I was the whole time I was there.

And to suggest that because I talk about it and warn people means I am ungrateful to God for walking me through and out of there is again, presumptuous. I am very grateful. I personally don’t understand why, while I was in the middle of it, he didn’t tell me it was bad. I could look for reasons and try to justify it, but the truth is, I don’t know. But I do know that if He had not been there with me, I would not have survived. I very nearly didn’t even with Him.

Your words seem to indicate that maybe you haven’t considered that some of these places start out okay….and shift, gradually, over time, as the pastor falls deeper and deeper into his own issues. And let me tell you, they can twist Scripture to the point that you are afraid to leave for fear of losing your salvation. And I know that goes against what Paul taught. But I also know this. You can pray and plead and beg God till you’re blue in the face, but until he shows you something, you WILL NOT see it. That is one of the things that gives me compassion for the people still under this man’s spell. They cannot see what God does not reveal to them. None of us can.

And we could get into another whole can of worms asking why God doesn’t reveal things to us. But I don’t know the answer to that – I’m still wrestling with it.

Oh, and just for the mix, my definition of Spiritual Abuse is this: Spiritual abuse occurs when someone (anyone) who has some, even small, amount of sway with someone else twists the Bible to manipulate that person for any reason or when one person (any person) claims to speak for God and uses that to manipulate and control people to do things their way. It is when someone uses spiritual things to manipulate others. It does not have to be a pastor. It can be a parent, a Sunday School teacher, an elder, a fellow congregant, a ‘friend’, a spouse, anyone.

I still have bouts of fighting the teaching that portrays God as an angry vengeful Father in the Sky who will punish you if you get out of line. And I really still fight the concept that when things are not going well it is because I somehow screwed up and God in turning His back on me. This is something I have asked His help on – I have told Him I only want Truth and He has made it clear that healing from this is a process that will take T-I-M-E. And in the meantime, it still hurts. And fortunately, I have also learned that no one else gets to tell me how I ‘should’ feel. He certainly doesn’t do that.

Yikes, I can’t believe I missed this thread. We had our own over at ACFJ (the blog for the book pictured above):

https://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/john-pipers-clarifying-words-on-wife-abuse-are-they-helpful/

I do not have time to read this whole thread, but I really want to address Gavin:

Gavin- there is no nitpicking here: I did not have to look closely at all to see how grievous this statement is. In fact, I didn’t really see all of the flowery language other people comment about.

Piper does not offer the abused woman (or man) anything positive here and he places a lot more burden on a victim by telling them what the “may” do, when going to the authorities is obvious to anyone who has any idea of what they are talking about on this subject. An abused spouse who reads this and respects Piper will be less likely to escape her abusive marriage after reading this article.

As for the “if you don’t like it, don’t read it”- guess what? I’m fine with that if OTHER people weren’t reading Piper, but they do and they put a lot of stock in what he says. Because of Piper’s teaching on divorce I pretty much lost my entire social base when I had to leave my church for divorcing my wife. I’m sorry, but I’m not the only causality in this war, and I’m not going to stand by while Piper launches another salvo at a bunch of innocent and oppressed people.

And finally, this thing about telling abuse survivors to move on and stop dwelling on it- abuse is a hush-hush subject that we are not allowed to talk about in the church and it’s near impossible for victims to process it because of that. Please do not be another voice trying to quiet them. Instead I invite you to read some of the comments at our blog (https://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com) and see how healing some of these women (and men) find telling their stories. If you read the comments long enough, you see people go from frayed at the edges panicky to calm and rational over time. Most of our first time commenters are just so thankful that there is anywhere at all that they can talk about their experiences in a community of Bible believing Christians that they can’t help but gushing a torrent of emotions. This is not the way it should be.

To everyone: I highly recommend the  book “A Cry For Justice” pictured above. Please, please read it. Jeff pulls no punches and takes a very serious look at how the church is failing hard and what can be done about it.

Eagle: “watching the sun rise over the Kansas plains. There’s nothing else like it.”

I’m from Nebraska originally and my grandfather was a custom harvester who traveled from Texas to Canada following the wheat harvest.

Let me tell you something else that nothing else is like.

Standing out in the middle of 1000s of acres of wheat, bleached platinum blond by the hot sun and watching the wind ripple through it. It is a golden ocean of tranquility bordering on lonlines. And the sound of the wind rustling through it is as beautiful as the sound of wind whistling through pine trees. In my opinion, it is more beautiful.

Rich Mullins was one song writer who “got it” when it came to the wild, desolate beauty of The Great Plains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaNwTYJrYtA

Rafiki, Thank you for drawing attention to that heinous crime. I had not heard about it. My heart is broken over the suffering and violence she endured before she died from these evil animals.

Welcome, Rafiki! Happy to have you with us!

I can’t help but wonder what would make someone like Piper, or any other Calvinista, tiptoe so cautiously around the issue of domestic abuse? His “clarifying” article contains so much fluff and so many conditional statements that it’s hard to figure our what he’s really trying to say.

What’s stopping him from just making a definitive, concrete statement like “No one should ever required to submit to abuse of any kind.” Seems like he fears that a definitive statement would have negative repercussions of some sort, although I have no idea what they might be. Does he think that thousands of Calvinista women would suddenly rebel and become bra-burning liberals who leave their husbands and start going to “heretical” churches (Methodist, mainline, etc.)?

(No offense to bra-burning liberal ladies or gentlemen. I used that term because I imagine that is a concise summation of a Calvinista’s worst nightmare).

gavin white wrote:

Anon 1
Well there’s the siren sound of TWW to denigrate anything Mr Piper might say. Here’s another quote from the Puritans’ by Arlo Bates ( not Carlo as spell checker originally said)
“There were more women than men present, and Ashe was amazed at their cleverness and their shallow reasoning; at the ease and naturalness at which they played this game of intellectual gymnastics, and at the apparent failure to pierce to anything like depth.”
Look at the whole counsel of God. Don’t just pick what suits you.

I know you’ve mentioned that you don’t think the commenters at TWW are shallow in their reasoning, but I have yet to hear you apologize for presenting this work of fiction — a link to which was posted several posts after yours — as something authoritative. Perhaps you didn’t equate it to the “whole counsel of God”, but you certainly didn’t mention its origins as fictional. If someone hadn’t gone looking for the author and book, it might have been understood as either theological or historical or both. While it’s true that fiction can often present theological ideas in an interesting fashion (I think here of C.S. Lewis), to quote one as a backhanded slam against posters here without identifying its origin is misleading at best.

Tikatu wrote:

gavin white wrote:

Anon 1
Well there’s the siren sound of TWW to denigrate anything Mr Piper might say. Here’s another quote from the Puritans’ by Arlo Bates ( not Carlo as spell checker originally said)
“There were more women than men present, and Ashe was amazed at their cleverness and their shallow reasoning; at the ease and naturalness at which they played this game of intellectual gymnastics, and at the apparent failure to pierce to anything like depth.”
Look at the whole counsel of God. Don’t just pick what suits you.

I know you’ve mentioned that you don’t think the commenters at TWW are shallow in their reasoning, but I have yet to hear you apologize for presenting this work of fiction — a link to which was posted several posts after yours — as something authoritative. Perhaps you didn’t equate it to the “whole counsel of God”, but you certainly didn’t mention its origins as fictional. If someone hadn’t gone looking for the author and book, it might have been understood as either theological or historical or both. While it’s true that fiction can often present theological ideas in an interesting fashion (I think here of C.S. Lewis), to quote one as a backhanded slam against posters here without identifying its origin is misleading at best.

Tikatu – Many thanks for this!

Muff – thanks. Yes, even though it seems sometimes that I have a long way to go, I am in a much better place than I used to be.

This is something that came to mind a while ago that you might appreciate: If you want to know what God isn’t, look to the gods men have created – from Anu, Ra, Zues and Juno to Almighty Gawd of the Calvinistas…if it is a man-made god, it is probably not how God is.

The is a verse – Isaiah 46:5 – in the Message that has stuck with me and reminds me to relax and breathe and quit trying to figure it all out….

“To whom would yo compare me, the incomparable? In trying to picture me, you reduce me.”

So much of Christendom spends a lot of time and energy trying to sell their claim that they have a lock on God and who he is and what he would and would not do….neatly defined and boxed up with a bow. I am so thankful that God simply will not stay inside any box we try to place him in. He is so much more than we can comprehend and in the effort to try and picture him, define him, we make him less than what he is because we simply have no frame of reference to comprehend all of him.

I remember the first time I said, out loud, that I no longer worshiped the god of my mother, it was liberating and frightening both. But it is an easy thing to say, now. The god she imagines and describes is not the same God I know.

And, from experience, if you really want to set a Calvinista off, tell them that if God is really the way the portray him, he does not deserve to be worshiped. 😉

Jeannette,
Thanks for the Isaiah passages! Years ago in my own journey out of Calvary Chapel’s brand of fundamentalism, Katharine Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women was like a compass; especially where she writes:

“…If we find even in the Bible anything which confuses our sense of right and wrong, that seems to us less exalted and pure than the character of God should be: if after the most patient thought and prayerful pondering it still retains that aspect, then we must not bow down to it as God’s revelation to us, since it does not meet the need of the earlier and more sacred revelation He has given us in our spirit and conscience which testify of Him…”

@ Sad:
Sad asked: “Can you explain to me your understanding of what Piper means by Christian hedonism and why it is objectionable to you?”
Sorry it was so long before I caught up and repiied.
1: The term itself, which Piper admits in the Desiring God appendix he invented mostly for shock value. The NT mentions hedonism (pleasures) a half dozen or so times and it’s ALWAYS evil and NEVER equated with joy. But Piper equates the two and applies all the “joy” verses to his theory. It seems to me that for Piper affixing “Christian” to something evil makes it good, which is why we’re accusing him of twisting language.
2 Even if he called it Christian Joyfullness I have trouble with the main point: that the chief end of man is to glorify God *BY* enjoying him forever. Or that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied (living in enjoyment) with him. He takes one at least 9 elements of Spiritual Fruit– Joy– (or one of 8 aspects of the fruit of love, if you read it that way) and makes it THE primary Christian goal. Abundant life in the Spirit, or salvation itself, becomes a one-trick pony– how well am I enjoying God today? He says we can only always act according to our highest selfish desires, and therefore we should make God our highest desire in order to get the highest joy from him. I think this is of questionable orthodoxy — and much historic Christian charity, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, sel-control, sacrifice, altruism, and martyrdom is thrown out the window. Loving God for himself, as he is, because he is fully worthy, becomes loving him of the joy he gives. My personal example: I came to Christ and was born again for several reasons which converged in God’s providence, but getting enjoyment from him was not on that list. Then Piper tells me, in an *improved* John 3 quote, that “unless one is born again AS A CHRISTIAN HEDONIST (ie in order to glorify God BY enjoying him) he cannot see the kingdom of God”. Conclusion: I wasn’t really born again. Amazingly, after *I wasn’t really born again* I was surprised by an abundance of joy– people actually asked why I was beaming. I took it this as a happy fruit of Christ’s Spirit which now lived in me– joy which I had not previously been desiring. If I’d made this joy a primary aim, I’d have been pretty disappointed when the joy matured and toned down after about a year, and looked for ways to conjure it back up!

@ Dave A A:

Dave,

Thank you for your very thoughtful response. I get a sense the word “hedonism” is what is objectionable to you. It was to me at first as well. For the sake of argument, let’s remove the sinister nuance of the definition, for now. Let’s just think of hedonism as pleasure, not wickedness. IF God created us in His image, then our affections should fall in line with His affections. What pleases Him, should please us. With the Fall, our affections no longer mirrored God’s affections. With Redemption, with new hearts, our desires begin to reflect Christ’s desires. Indeed, there should be no gritting of the teeth while enduring obedience, because if God has truly given us a new heart….that new heart desires the things of God more than anything else in this world. In a sense, and I believe this is the core of “Christian Hedonism”…there is no more self-serving thing that I can do than to obey God…because it is the only thing that will bring me true pleasure.

Jonathan Edwards was a tremendous influence on Piper…and this is what Edwards says in “Religious Affections”…

“That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless wishes, raising us but a little above a state of indifference: God, in his word, greatly insists upon it, that we be good in earnest, “fervent in spirit,” and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion: Rom. 12:11, “Be ye fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.” Deut. 10:12, “And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord the God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul?” and chap. 6:4, 6, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy might.” It is such a fervent vigorous engagedness of the heart in religion, that is the fruit of a real circumcision of the heart, or true regeneration, and that has the promises of life; Deut. 30:6, “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”

If we be not in good earnest in religion, and our wills and inclinations be not strongly exercised, we are nothing. The things of religion are so great, that there can be no suitableness in the exercises of our hearts, to their nature and importance, unless they be lively and powerful. In nothing is vigor in the actings of our inclinations so requisite, as in religion; and in nothing is lukewarmness so odious. True religion is evermore a powerful thing; and the power of it appears, in the first place in the inward exercises of it in the heart, where is the principal and original seat of it. Hence true religion is called the power of godliness, in distinction from the external appearances of it, that are the form of it, 2 Tim. 3:5: “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power of it.” The Spirit of God, in those that have sound and solid religion, is a spirit of powerful holy affection; and therefore, God is said “to have given the Spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind,” 2 Tim. 1:7. And such, when they receive the Spirit of God, in his sanctifying and saving influences, are said to be “baptized with the Holy Ghost, and with fire;” by reason of the power and fervor of those exercises the Spirit of God excites in their hearts, whereby their hearts, when grace is in exercise, may be said to “burn within them;” as is said of the disciples, Luke 24:32.”

@ Dave:

“The NT mentions hedonism (pleasures) a half dozen or so times and it’s ALWAYS evil and NEVER equated with joy. But Piper equates the two and applies all the ‘joy’ verses to his theory.”

This is my problem with Christian Hedonism also. Pleasure and joy aren’t necessarily the same thing. They sometimes go together, but as you pointed out, there are many pleasurable things that are sinful. Gluttony, for instance, is quite pleasurable because you’re stuffing your face with macaroni and cheese. Fornication, by all accounts, is quite pleasurable also. And yet, both of these things are sin and if someone tried to equate them with joy, Piper would throw a hissy fit.

“I will also go out on a limb and say that I personally believe that a man who physically or emotionally abuses his wife repeatedly is probably not a Christian.”

I have to completely disagree with this. A man who has abuses his wife is often someone who is addicted to controlling his environment. He is not unlike someone who is addicted to alcohol, drugs, pornography or gambling. He is also not unlike those who are addicted to promoting their own beliefs above those of others.

For example, Jim Packer signed a statement that the TNIV was not a trustworthy Bible translation. But in conversation with me he denied believing this, and pointed out to me that he had not chosen the wording of the statement that he signed. He signed something that has gone high wide and handsome in public, something that he claims not to believe. He contributed to a great deal of unpleasantness among Christians. I do not regard Jim Packer having a spiritual state that is in any way at all elevated above that of any other human being that I know. People still call him a Christian and I do not deny that he is a Christian. I simply believe that what he has done goes against the definition of a Christian in the Bible.

FYI – The Twitter feeds were reporting that today was John Piper’s last sermon at Bethlehem Baptist before retiring. But evidently he still plans on writing and speaking, so he’s not done yet.

‘Seen’ not ‘send’

Tikatu – Yes.

@ dee:

Could also easily happen in speaking to people face to face, though there, I think, words are often less important than body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions.

Text-only is a “cold” medium (per Marshall McLuhan) and it can bey *very* hard to work with when discussing difficult or controversial subjects. But sometimes there’s a certain amount of game-playing going on in comments, and it’s not always obvious.

A lot of what Piper said here sounds good. But I, too, questioned the wisdom of saying, essentially, “A wife who reports her husband can still feel submissive in her heart.” I think when the relationship has escalated to abuse, the matter of who feels what kind of submission is way past being relevant. I doubt Piper would actually counsel a woman to POSTPONE reporting abuse until she felt properly submissive, I think he’s just throwing it in there to make hard comp women feel better about the decision, but still…he’s essentially glorifying the same attitude that leads so many marriages into abuse in the first place: that of female submission and male leadership (which is easily confused with dominance by many men). And really, when you are being physically endangered, does it seriously MATTER how you feel about your husband on the night you walk into the police station? And, as Dee pointed out, why are we assuming that the relationship ever had some kind of healthy set-point that it could be “restored” to?

His final statement, that of Christian men creating a culture of Christian manhood that won’t tolerate abuse, etc. etc., sounds good but is woefully 50% of the solution. Women also have to have the courage and conviction to stand up against abuse. When the culture of Christian womanhood includes courage and bravery, rather than simply focusing on quiet spirits, then we will be on our way.

This is why I find compelementarianism impractical in the real world (and I’m not harping specifically on Piper here, but on the system as a whole). It offers solutions in which men are responsible to do XY and Z, when in reality, God created two genders for a reason and gave them BOTH the same set of instructions in Eden regarding how to live. But somehow we’ve gotten from that beautiful union to a scenario in which everyone has a separate part to play, and therefore can’t truly collaborate. Is it any wonder, in such circumstances, that we can’t make headway against serious issues like abuse? We’re supposed to be working together, but comp-ism convinces us to work separately in our own “roles” or spheres.

And finally, I thank John Piper for clarifying some positive things about his stance on abuse. However, I still don’t understand what his comment about enduring abuse for a night even means, if the above statements on abuse are truly his beliefs on the subject? Why would a wife “endure” abuse for a little while if, in actuality, it should be confronted by the church and the authorities? I’m not trying to be difficult. I really don’t understand.

No, Julie Anne……comments under “Sad” are from me, I have only posted under that name.
Thank you for pointing out the potential for confusion.

On Piper’s Calvinism, Roger Olson does a good job here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/12/calvinism-and-the-god-as-author-analogy/

Hester wrote:

Also, when I read Piper’s defense of Ayn Rand (yes, he did write one and it’s quite long) and his description of her philosophy, I realized that huge chunks (if not the whole) of Christian Hedonism appears to have been lifted straight out of Rand and given a Christian label and a name change. Make of that what you will.

Well, in the jockeying for the 2012 elections, Ayn Rand is now the de facto Fourth Person of the Trinity. Just ask eminent theologians Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

(I wonder now that Obama defeated Romney, will the Mormons go back to being a Cult Cult Cult?)

Anon 1 wrote:

Hester, I have some family members who went to work with and study under Piper about 10 years ago. They were young and it was after college. Tney came back totally different people

They came back as Piperjugend.

Gavin – you’re the eldest child – yes? I’ll give up my Mt Franklin sparkling mineral water for a week if I’m wrong.

Michael said: “This hyper-paranoia that everything follow “Bible-saturated, spiritual wisdom” makes one into a Pharisee, straining out a gnat (maintain a spirit of submission, now), while swallowing a camel (telling a woman to endure a beating at least once).”

and this:

“Piper is more concerned with being “biblical” than being loving.”

This really sums up so many of the abuse we see by spiritual abusers. Their god is the Christian formulas they have created for their people (keep in mind they don’t use their own formulas for themselves – they are exempt, of course, because Hebrews 13:17 says they are the ones who care for our souls). It’s not about a loving and gracious God who would want to protect us – it’s about – “do you have the right heart attitude when you bring this problem up?” and “Have you dealt with the sin in your own life?”, etc.

Bravo, Mike!!

Haitch
In which family?

Gavin