Well, I wonder how Desiring God handles good old David and best friend Jonathan?

I have posted a new update on the open discussion thread. Thank you so much for all your support.

http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-12/#comment-316586

http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp

Seventh!

I read this the other day. Interested to hear other peoples thoughts. This is all fear of same sex attraction, the original article series makes that clear. Which, I think I said before, has literally never happened to me so false fear.

Just to be slightly contrary and play uhhh… “devil’s advocate”, is there any evidence that Piper might be surrounded by a flock of Ned Flanders who ask him about every mundane thing under the sun and he makes these lists to satisfy them and make them go away?
…
…
…
…
(crickets)

Ok, maybe not.

I prefer not to read articles on sites that don’t allow comments; which is what Desiring God and other sites like to do.

Those type of sites/people present themselves as the only ones with the correct answers. No discussion. No room for disagreement. No room for iron to sharpen iron.

Thanks for allowing comments here!

Just when I think that it can’t get any stranger, what a bunch of whack-a-doodles! If the Desiring God bunch call, I’ll be over in the real world.

More platonic Christianity from the Augustinian gnostics. A case study on everything on earth is evil and only the spiritual is good. This train of thought flows from philosophies of men, not Scripture.

Also, the Gospel is something you believe, not something you obey- which puts a wrench in the plans of authoritarian types.

“Making a list and checking it twice, gonna find out who’s naughty and nice…”

so Piper wants to cull people away from one another ?

Why? When God Himself, in the Person of Jesus, has assumed our whole humanity in its entirety to Himself in the Incarnation?
And in doing that, He IS the unity we share with one another

Piper could take a page from the martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, this:

” We now know that we have been taken up and borne in the humanity of Jesus, and therefore that new nature we now enjoy means that we too must bear the sins and sorrows of others. The Incarnate Lord makes His followers the brothers and sisters of all humanity……..
…. The form of Christ Incarnate makes the Church into the Body of Christ.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

Maybe one of the reasons why Piper and the neo-Cal folk see Christ as ‘lesser’ is BECAUSE of the Incarnation (?)
But it works another Way entirely, Mr. Piper.

Lea wrote:

I read this the other day. Interested to hear other peoples thoughts. This is all fear of same sex attraction, the original article series makes that clear.

“HOMOSEXUALITY(TM). Even the mere mention of the word is sufficient to induce — PANIC!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQuieWA3SWY

“And sometimes late at night you can hear his voice, carried on the wind… ‘I’m NOT gay… I’m NOT gay… I’m NOT gay…'”
— South Park

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Beg to differ. Or, maybe, rather, expound on this, take it one step further.

More fundamentally, there is a fear of relationship, period. Any relationship, and that is what is completely lost on this crowd.

Interesting. By contrast, God is actually all about relationship. “Let US… make man in our image.” “It is not good for man to be alone…”

Sin separates one from God, thus, severs the relationship. Jesus offers the path to bring us back… into relationship, with God and properly with each other.

Men and women in loving bilateral relationships, sans hierarchy, neither dominion nor power play.

“Please, folks, do not pay attention to this sort of codswallop. It seems to me that John Piper and his BFFs are attempting to snuff out any joy in this world be it from dogs, friends, or women with muscles. This stuff is not Biblical.” – Dee

And let’s not forget Piper’s maligning women police officers and women who know have to give men who are lost directions.

He’s an odd man.

Thank you so much for posting this. As someone who is gay and Christian, I followed this line of teaching for years in a TGC type church. It was oppressive and the other members treated me like a second class citizen. I was made to feel inferior, intrinsically disordered and uniquely sinful. It led me into depression and suicidal thoughts. When I left that line of thinking I was mocked and condemned as “rebelling against Gods rules”. I am free now from these commandments and traditions of men.

Everyone else is doing a good job of dismantling the gospel argument of Piper and his minions (guess I can’t call them friends, right?).

There’s something that’s been on my heart for years that I don’t hear about in the church. And that is how precious each one of us is to God. Jesus went around and built relationships with the “least of these”. He dismantled the cultural cliques. He really laid the smack down when people tried to presume importance, even when His disciples were doing it in Mark 10.

We might hear about how we are precious to God, but we don’t hear about how we should treat others who are precious to God. I believe having contempt for other humans, and believing they are lower than you, is one of the worst sins in the eyes of God.

I’d like to ask the guys of TWW how much they were taught from other Christians that a woman’s worth is in how she looks? Because what I’ve seen from Christian guys is a lot worse than what I’ve seen from secular guys on this issue.

Many secular guys believe that women have value beyond how she looks, and can be equal to men in work and in other arenas. I went to both a Christian college and seminary, and knew a lot of Christian guys, and a large percentage of them seemed to believe a woman’s place was to satisfy their needs.

Just as bad, I saw a lot of Christian women who believed that Christian men were to do the same for them–that marriage would “save” them. Save them from what I could never figure out, as singlehood never seemed that bad of an option to me after meeting many of these guys. I saw their families say things like “You’re only worth in the family is to produce grandchildren.” I saw pastors and professors repeatedly tell young Christians that marriage fixes all problems and lust is really the root of all sin issues.

All of this is because Christians really don’t value human life and dignity like they say they do. They don’t see other Christians as precious in God’s sight. They put human emotions over God’s children. They don’t chase after the outcast, give to the poor, and protect the weak like Jesus did.

“… and thou shalt love thy neighbor as yourself…”

Piper: Bu bu but God, that just sounds wrong!

Eeyore wrote:

How that direct relationship is to be accomplished, when God is not in the habit of directly interacting with 98-99(?)% of His people, is the prize question in my mind. After all, you can touch, converse with, and share activities with other physical people. Apart from Bible study and inner feelings, where is the equivalent WRT God?

This is a thing often thrown at single people too. ‘God will be your husband’. Um, no. Aside from that being creepy, God isn’t mowing the lawn and helping pay the bills. God isn’t going to give you a hug when you’ve had a bad day. And unless you’re Mary, God isn’t giving you children.

We are humans and made to want companionship, whether it be friendship or love. There is nothing wrong with that.

Lea wrote:

This is a thing often thrown at single people too. ‘God will be your husband’.

I haven’t gotten that very often. Much more often it’s, “You just need to pick someone. Being married is much better than not being married.” This usually comes from people who have been married since they were 20 and have no concept of being single. Or they have very clear issues in their marriage that everyone knows about and they are avoiding.

But when people say either, usually it’s because they are too lazy to reach out to you and are looking for an excuse not to engage. God has nothing to do with it.

JYJames wrote:

More fundamentally, there is a fear of relationship, period. Any relationship, and that is what is completely lost on this crowd.

Yep. We can’t have a close friendship through marriage because of the hierarchical “creation order” – that’s more of a master/slave relationship. We can’t have close friends of the same gender because we might give into SS temptation. We can’t have friends of the opposite gender because we might give in to temptation. We can’t have dogs.
All we have is John Piper, with his sermons and books, to help us and comfort us through life’s trials.
(What’s next? Goldfish and house plants?)

Nancy2 wrote:

All we have is John Piper, with his sermons and books, to help us and comfort us through life’s trials.

Because Piper is just so comforting! Like a warm blanket outside in summer in Arizona smothering you to death!

All we have is John Piper, with his sermons and books, to help us and comfort us through life’s trials.
(What’s next? Goldfish and house plants?) My thoughts exactly, so many idiotic faux-bible rules. I’ve chosen blue paint for my bathroom – is green more biblical, is carpet more Jesus-y than vinyl covering? The truth is supposed to set us free, not have us in a state of permanent spiritual exhaaustion as we constantly look inwards and find new ‘sins’ to confess. It’s a glorious afternoon here in the UK so I’m off to plant some beautiful bushes in my garden. No contest Mr P, stay in and listen to your sermons…I’d rather chew my arm off…and I imagine you can guess which of the 2 alternatives makes me feel closer to the spiritual part of my being and it ain’t your silly rants and raves.

Matilda wrote:

The truth is supposed to set us free, not have us in a state of permanent spiritual exhaaustion as we constantly look inwards and find new ‘sins’ to confess.

Ain’t that the TRUTH. This is the biggest reason I’m on my way out of the Reformed world.

Matilda wrote:

The truth is supposed to set us free, not have us in a state of permanent spiritual exhaaustion as we constantly look inwards and find new ‘sins’ to confess.

I remember that we know so much about the Massachusetts Puritans because they kept Personal Spiritual Journals about everything, and a lot of them survive to this day.

And all those Puritan Spiritual Journals are alike — All Obsessive Navel-Gazing Sin-Sniffing, All the Time.

ishy wrote:

I haven’t gotten that very often.

I haven’t gotten it directly because I mostly don’t associate with people who would say it, but I think that’s the direct implication of all this ‘gift of singleness’ stuff coupled with people who think you don’t really NEED other people, and if you do something is wrong with you, which we get from this article and from Piper and from this whole crew. It’s the whole attitude.

I need other people. Friends, love, family. I resent anyone who tries to shame people who admit that.

Continuing in my self appointed ministry of yes, but…

Piper et al are presenting some things as ‘gospel’ which were part of the secular culture before the cultural revolution but which were not presented as ‘biblical/ gospel’ back when. I think that Piper et al are borrowing ideas and then re-presernting them in religious terminology as their own.

In my formative years, and yes that was in this nation and in protestantism, the idea that one should not have ‘special’ or ‘exclusive’ relationships was for two reasons.

First, it was the era of Freud (genuflect) and the concept that everything had sexual overtones and that repressing those sexual overtones lead to neuroses. So not only was the thinking then as to how prevalent sexuality was in human thinking and behavior, the idea was also there that is was not necessarily a bad thing but rather that failure to recognize that sexuality was what led to mental/emotional malfunction. Hence, of course all relationships have sexual overtones, thus spake Freud.

Nancy2 wrote:

Do Piper, Mahaney, want women treated them the same way they treat women?

No. But will anyone dare to ask them this?

max wrote:

McKnight appears to be on track now, although I’m still trying to get my brain around his teachings on the “new perspective on Paul.”

Actually, the “new perspective on Paul” comes from N.T. Wright. McKnight is rather a latecomer.

On the topic, John Piper and the Desiring God people remind me of that H.L. Mencken quip from early last century: “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

When I think of the league of “friends” who rule the New Calvinist movement (Piper, Mohler, Dever, Mahaney, Chandler, etc.), the following verse comes to mind:

“… the companions of [conceited, dull-witted] fools [are fools themselves and] will experience harm.” (Proverbs 13:20)

Considering the characters who are leading this rebellion, it will most likely come to an end when they turn on each other. Remember Driscoll? All of the above counted him as an asset to the reformed movement until he became a liability. “Friendship” among the New Calvinist elite is superficial, while they support and promote each other in book sales and conference indoctrination of young minds. If they personally feel threatened when one of the “friends” stray in word and deed, they will drop the hot potato in a heartbeat. Any attempt at restoring one of the bros who fall will be approached very carefully so as not to stain personal reputation. These guys are too into themselves to do otherwise – they are not really friends who sticketh closer than a brother.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” (H.L. Mencken)

When I visit New Calvinist church plants in my area, it’s obvious that Mama ain’t happy! Female members of those works are oppressed – you can see it on their countenance. I guess the “beauty of complementarity” hasn’t set in yet.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

Actually, the “new perspective on Paul” comes from N.T. Wright. McKnight is rather a latecomer.

Agreed. I confess that I haven’t studied their “perspective” enough to know what I think about it at this point. But anyone who exits emergent church and stays clear of resurgent church has my respect.

So I guess I better not buy a dog and make it my best friend. Two strikes right there.

I don’t know if readers of TWW realize that John Piper is not Reformed in the traditional sense of that word. A Calvinist(a) yes, but not Reformed. Here is a relevant paragraph from a Reformed confession–especially relevant because the author does not cite any Scripture except for two generic ones (and the Jeremiah one out-of-place).

“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”

A cool line from a song:

Listen to what they say,
Do not imitate them

Thanks for sharing Piper’s “$lanted” view…glad I’m not him 🙂

Josh wrote:

okrapod wrote:
The second thing was a type of individualism in which one was to be ‘well rounded’ and to be sociable as in the house by the side of the road idea, a ‘friend’ to all humanity as it were and hence the idea of a liberal arts education as the ideal as opposed to the current emphasis on STEM or some other intense and limited focus.

It never occurred to me, but in a few paragraphs, you’ve just explained my parents. Mind you, they weren’t upset that I ended up getting an engineering degree, but they did encourage me to think about studying liberal arts when I was in high school.

Okrapod: Nowadays make that “Common Core teaching to the Test” as well as STEM.

Josh: Instead of “studying liberal arts”, I found reading a LOT of all types of science fiction since age 14 (when I discovered Andre Norton & Star Trek at the same time) also works to broaden your brain.

Josh wrote:

My non-churchgoing friends are smart people. They just buy their liquor on Saturday… and so do I.

Oh man. When I moved back home it took me a while to remember you can’t buy beer on super bowl sunday!

Gram3 wrote:

JYJames wrote:
More fundamentally, there is a fear of relationship, period. Any relationship, and that is what is completely lost on this crowd.

And for some odd reason they think that any relationship somehow diminishes one’s relationship with God.

Zero-Sum Game.
Where the only way to Increase is for another to be Decreased.
Where the only way to get more is to take it away from someone else.
Where for God to have supreme importance, nothing and nobody can have any importance at all.

Like Lord Farquar from Shrek (an achondrophlasic dwarf) decreeing that all others in his realm have their legs amputated so nobody can ever be taller than their Lord.

But mostly this is a factor of youth and immaturity, not same sex attraction.

Eggzackly!! Same-gender friendships are a crucial and totally normal part of growing up. Sexualizing them as Piper does is just plain sick. Yeah, because riding bicycles together, climbing rocks together, and looking for pollywogs in the pond are all just so sexual. Barf, yuck, puke.

okrapod wrote:

First, it was the era of Freud (genuflect) and the concept that everything had sexual overtones and that repressing those sexual overtones lead to neuroses. So not only was the thinking then as to how prevalent sexuality was in human thinking and behavior, the idea was also there that is was not necessarily a bad thing but rather that failure to recognize that sexuality was what led to mental/emotional malfunction. Hence, of course all relationships have sexual overtones, thus spake Freud.

“How much different psychology would be if Uncle Siggie hadn’t turned on to toot. Remember whenever you start to stand in awe of psychiatry, remember it was all dreamed up by a coke freak with issues of his own.”
— line from some unpublished SF story whose manuscript I saw in the Eighties.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Same-gender friendships are a crucial and totally normal part of growing up. Sexualizing them as Piper does is just plain sick.

I had a major problem with this article trying to conflate same sex attraction with same sex friendship, when they are totally different things. And basically saying, stay away from close friendships lest they turn into romantic relationships. Such a dangerous teaching.

ishy wrote:

I’d like to ask the guys of TWW how much they were taught from other Christians that a woman’s worth is in how she looks? Because what I’ve seen from Christian guys is a lot worse than what I’ve seen from secular guys on this issue.

Remember Lead Pastor parading his Smokin’ Hawt Trophy Wife before all the Beta to Omega males — “SEE WHAT I’VE GOT THAT YOU! CAN’T! HAVE! SEE? SEE? SEE?”

Lea wrote:

I haven’t gotten it directly because I mostly don’t associate with people who would say it, but I think that’s the direct implication of all this ‘gift of singleness’ stuff coupled with people who think you don’t really NEED other people, and if you do something is wrong with you, which we get from this article and from Piper and from this whole crew. It’s the whole attitude.

I think the Baptists missed those “gift of singleness” sermons and books, because everything is Adult=Married.

And if you’re married, then all your problems are solved! At least, according to all those male pastors and professors who talked about how wonderful marriage was because how beautiful their wives were and how good of cooks they were. Her worth in Christ is irrelevant!

Zechzav wrote:

Thank you so much for posting this. As someone who is gay and Christian, I followed this line of teaching for years in a TGC type church. It was oppressive and the other members treated me like a second class citizen.

As a straight guy who also got The Treatment (to a lesser extent) in both high school and some churches, I figured the root cause is Being Different. “Beware Thou of The Mutant” and all that.

Just your difference from the Good Church People around you intersected with their church culture’s Strongest Taboo.

ishy wrote:

And if you’re married, then all your problems are solved! At least, according to all those male pastors and professors who talked about how wonderful marriage was because how beautiful their wives were and how good of cooks they were. Her worth in Christ is irrelevant!

Only that she’s the Smokin’ HAWT Trophy of the Alpha Male.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Same-gender friendships are a crucial and totally normal part of growing up. Sexualizing them as Piper does is just plain sick. Yeah, because riding bicycles together, climbing rocks together, and looking for pollywogs in the pond are all just so sexual.

I don’t think even the More Freudian Than Freud types take it that far.

As I’ve said before, this takes an Extremely Dirty Mind with Only One Thing on the brain.

DICK MARTIN: I have a pornographic memory.
DAN ROWAN: That’s photographic memory.
DICK MARTIN: You don’t know me that well, do you?
— Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In, mid-Sixties topical comedy revue

Geoff S. wrote:

So I guess I better not buy a dog and make it my best friend. Two strikes right there.

Ah, but it is perfectly Godly to ring a bell to command your servant girl bring your tea up to you on the third floor! Doesn’t that make the third swing a gran slam?

Nancy2 wrote:

Geoff S. wrote:
So I guess I better not buy a dog and make it my best friend. Two strikes right there.
Ah, but it is perfectly Godly to ring a bell to command your servant girl bring your tea up to you on the third floor! Doesn’t that make the third swing a gran slam?

Oops – GRAND SLAM

Lea wrote:

ishy wrote:

because everything is Adult=Married.

There have been a number of things recently talking to single people. That 9marx ‘journal’ thingy recently was all about singles. They even let Owen S. write an article, so you can imagine how awesome that is.

I think the ‘gift of singleness’ is what they conjure when they’ve given up on you getting married.

Did you see Mohler’s recent post on how all young people should get married young to “grow up”? He basically blamed all cultural problems on delaying marriage. I’m on my phone or I’d find it.

I’m betting Strachen write that more as click-bait propaganda than belief. They can always demand you get married once you are “under discipline”. It’s not like they are known for being honest when trying to get people in.

Plus, according to my friends in neo-Cal churches, there’s a lot of single guys and few single women. Can’t keep single guys with the promises the neo-Cal leaders make about enslaving your own woman when they have no women. And they wonder why?

Lea wrote:

Considering they love the puritans, I would not be at all surprised.

Because who thought, hey? Those guys who killed all those non-witches? Let’s be more like them. They were super godly.

The attraction for the Puritans in NeoCal circles (from my inside experience) stems from several factors:

1) the emphasis on sin. The way NeoCals see it, they’re the only ones who still take the concept seriously, and therefore they will go out of their way to emphasize it, and read stuff by people who sharply focused on it.

2) Rational(ist) precision and emphasis on detail. Puritan books tend towards the very long, very verbose, and very detail-obsessive. For theology nerds (which most NeoCals are, admitted or no), that is exactly what they like and want.

3) mythic past – they see the Puritans as parallels, guides, and role models for themselves – intellectually rigorous, spiritually strong Christians living in an age of compromise and apostasy. The Puritans (at least the rose-tinted version they envision them as) serve the same purpose for NeoCals as the Founding Fathers do for libertarians and Tea Partiers – the shining lights of Truth who can guide us out of the darkness and back to the Golden Age.

ishy wrote:

The examples were so extreme that they sound like just like Piper

Did you read the original article series??? I’m going to dig up some quotes.

One more thing, as pertains to your point about marriage vs friendship, this is why she says it’s different:

The Bible tells us that marriages alone are to be exclusive, binding, and have a level of “you-belong-to-me” ownership. (Gen 2:24, 1 Cor 7:4, 39) No other relationship gets the title of “one-flesh.” We all need friends who will be there for us in good and bad times, but to treat a friendship with the weight, exclusivity, and ownership of a marriage has serious dangers.

Also, you’ll be happy to know that if you had a relationship that was sexual with your friend, that doesn’t make you the L word, because reasons.

Amen! When I read this DG article originally, while outraged at the legalism, what made me more sad was those sitting under this teaching that are now scrambling to “work on their friendships”. Women who have already been told to stay away from male friendships, now need to be careful of their female ones too. I have the saddest of feelings that maybe DG wants women to be alone, with children, or only with their spouse. Other than that, us women are just too much of a problem and we would be best behind the closed doors in our homes… utterly alone.

ishy wrote:

Did you see Mohler’s recent post on how all young people should get married young to “grow up”?

Many years ago, I read a social history book called The World We Have Lost. (Unlike most scholarly texts, it was clearly and beautifully written. Highly recommended.)

Anyway, it was about life in rural England right on the brink of the Industrial Revolution, before the advent of those “dark satanic mills.” The author combed parish records and other surviving sources for his research.

One of the findings I remember most clearly is that 17th-century rural Brits did NOT marry early. They couldn’t. It was financially infeasible. Usually a young man waited until he had a decent position (for lack of a better word) on a tenant farm or on his own small farm. That means most couples married in their mid-twenties or even later. I was really struck by this.

It’s ironic that these old-timey “traditional families” so beloved by the Calvinistas did not in fact match the Calvie Ideal. As someone else has pointed out, everyone in a farming family had to work – husband, wife, kids. Plus, it also turns out they married relatively late (mid-20s, not teens.)

Toiler wrote:

I have the saddest of feelings that maybe DG wants women to be alone, with children, or only with their spouse. Other than that, us women are just too much of a problem and we would be best behind the closed doors in our homes… utterly alone.

New Calvinism is all about subordinating and marginalizing women to obscurity as lesser citizens of the Kingdom. The beauty of complimentarity is an ugly thing if you are female. There is no freedom in Christ if you are a New Calvinist woman … bondage to rules and regulations are your lot in life.

I think a part of us likes having rules for this sort of thing. It’s something we can hold onto. If we obey the rules, we can own that. Salvation by grace is something much harder in that respect. We haven’t earned it, we don’t deserve it, and we’re not entitled to it. Freely given, freely received, but we don’t own it, and cannot claim it. We certainly cannot use it to feel superior to other people.

As for these rules in particular, the trick is that no amount of obedience to them will ever be enough if the rule makers don’t want it to be. If a Piper wants to humble you he will find some way you have fallen short and will beat you over the head with it.

My response to Piper and his ilk is a phrase that normally ends with “and the horse you rode in on”.

Josh wrote:

This teaching is dangerous because – if followed – it leaves all single people lonely in life and lonely in death, causing misery for every single person who’s not naturally at home with little human connection (I’m not one of them, but some people seem to be fine all by themselves, so more power to them!).

Let me put my perspective on this as a single Christian woman in my 40s who has spent many years in complementarian churches (though I don’t any longer). Being married to a guy who viewed me as a sex slave and maidservent seemed a lot worse than being alone. And most of the Christian guys who’ve tried to pursue me clearly saw me as one or both of those.

There are much worse things than being alone and not having sex. Being a slave is worse. Christian guys usually don’t see marriage that way, but I know a lot of Christian women who do, even if they wouldn’t admit it.

There are people who decide to be single for the rest of their lives, but that’s not why most are, and it’s always felt a bit insulting to me to hear people say “Well it’s okay for you, but not me.” That’s not how it works. If it’s better for you to be single in God’s plan, either you know why or you need to figure it out to be content. But it won’t be based on how you feel.

Maybe guys like Piper should go get a real job instead of sitting around telling other people what color socks to wear.

ishy wrote:

Being married to a guy who viewed me as a sex slave and maidservent seemed a lot worse than being alone.

I think there are a lot of people who just get married, because they want to be married. Reading about that ‘always learning’ Lori person, she didn’t even really seem to like her husband but she got married anyway and now she’s telling everybody how great it is to be under his thumb. I know someone who married a man who ‘used to be’ gay (which, not so much on the used to be part).

Lots of people find someone wonderful and settle down. Lots of people find someone, anyone and settle down. If you aren’t in group A and aren’t willing to be group b you might end up single for a while. Or always.

Josh wrote:

I could see how someone who experiences a bit of sexual fluidity themselves, coupled with the intense repression and silencing nature of the church on those matters, might assume that because they are tempted just a wee little bit to want physical intimacy with their same-gendered friend, then everybody must share their desires.

I do wonder how she got caught on this topic. Some personal experience seems likely. Of course, it could be a friend had a thing for her – I remember a girl in high school who was so obviously in love with another girl…some very awkward, dramatic sleepovers. But that’s hardly the norm. Most of what she’s talking about (minus the attraction/cuddling stuff) is common in teenage girls and drifts away as people grow up.

dee wrote:

Sergius Martin-George wrote:
If your “friend” tries to convince you to go down to the river to watch the parking teenage couples, DO NOT GO.
You remember that Twitter exchange!!! It was one of the funniest ones in history. Do you have a screen shot of that Piper tweet by chance?????

Is that the one where he talked about how unhappy the girls in those cars looked? It cracked me up. I did a lot of kissing in cars when I was younger & it never failed to put a big smile on my face. I am an unnatural beastess, obvs.

Beakerj wrote:

Is that the one where he talked about how unhappy the girls in those cars looked? It cracked me up. I did a lot of kissing in cars when I was younger & it never failed to put a big smile on my face.

Um, maybe he was…misinterpreting…those looks?

Because yeah. I don’t think I’ve ever been unhappy after something like that!

Beakerj wrote:

Is that the one where he talked about how unhappy the girls in those cars looked?

Was he using binos, or what??? Peeping Tom???

Lea wrote:

Speaking of, could someone, anyone, explain to me how incredibly terrible it is for men and women who aren’t married are married to other people to share a meal in public? Because I see this all the time from a certain crowd and it makes no sense. Unless you think every shared meal is a date. Is that what it is?

If you’re obsessed with sex and see the opposite sex only as objects, it probably is a problem.

But it’s not the root problem, and until the root problem is dealt with, the systemic problem remains.

Nancy2 wrote:

Big trust issues, I think.

ishy wrote:

If you’re obsessed with sex and see the opposite sex only as objects, it probably is a problem.

I think another problem is that some men seem to have gotten the idea that such a thing is bound to lead to ‘false accusations’ of assault? I don’t really get how a simple lunch would create that. Is it just all billy grahams fault?

Lea wrote:

ishy wrote:
If you’re obsessed with sex and see the opposite sex only as objects, it probably is a problem.
//
I think another problem is that some men seem to have gotten the idea that such a thing is bound to lead to ‘false accusations’ of assault? I don’t really get how a simple lunch would create that. Is it just all billy grahams fault?

I’ve never heard assault. Just adultery.

I dunno if that view is entirely his or was just made very popular by him.

Lea wrote:

If people are going to gossip, they are going to gossip. It’s stupid, to me, to be rude to actual real people by treating like either potential predators or bait based out of some fear that people might make something up. Women are people. If you go around treating them like they aren’t they are going to notice.

I agree with you. Someone who is sneaking around is going to sneak around. Not have lunch out in the open.

I’ve missed the assault arguments, but if so, to those people I say, “So what”? Just ignoring the actual statistics which say false assault accusations are very rare (because, I mean, every woman really wants them so they’d be an exception, right?), if someone accuses you of something you didn’t do, things might get hard, but life will go on. And if they want to falsely accuse you of something, there’s probably no way you could stop them.

Toiler wrote:

I have the saddest of feelings that maybe DG wants women to be alone, with children, or only with their spouse.

Keepers at home. Taken to its woodenly literal extreme.
I think that DG desperately needs to crank out content, and Kelly apparently has not had enough life experience to know what is worthy of worry. Deep friendship is certainly not worthy of worry. Being a faithful friend is praised in the Bible, and Kelly and everyone at DG should certainly know that.

Everything is not about sex. But it certainly seems to be. Everywhere.

okrapod wrote:

And as to having trust issues, I would give half my kingdom if I had had ‘trust issues’

I don’t have trust issues, but I have experience with liars.

I just don’t think that rule making will change them. It just makes them sneakier.

Gram3 wrote:

Unless the sexual aspect requires authority or something else I’m missing.

Ah! That’s a creepy thought. So creepy.

Lea wrote:

some of the comments applied to teenage girls moreso than adults.

I agree, and you’re right about the jealousy and immaturity. But friendship is often intense as people move away from family and toward independence. Young adults often feel and show lots of emotion toward roommates and co-workers and fellow college students. I have to believe it’s a phase with benefits as well as disadvantages. (Certainly I learned something from all those nights I sat up talking with a good friend or two.)

I once had a pastor who didn’t believe in any fellowship whatsoever. No small groups, no get together, no breaking bread together. Nothing. It wasn’t quite mandated, but getting together with one another was never church sanctioned so it was done “on the sly.”

His reason was that any conversation longer than 15 minutes was gossip.

(Of course his real issue was control.)

@ okrapod:

BTW, I hope my comments didn’t come off as flippant. I have experience in this area, although different from yours.

@ Lea:

I always respect the opinion of people who have experience with something. There is nothing that can replace boots on the ground when it comes to how one views things.

Remnant wrote:

His reason was that any conversation longer than 15 minutes was gossip. (Of course his real issue was control.)

He was probably concerned that the congregation would talk about him … which they should have. It’s not gossip when you get your heads together to remove authoritarian, controlling, manipulative, intimidating preachers from the pulpit … it is wisdom. “Thou shalt not usurp authority” doesn’t apply for such leaders.

okrapod wrote:

Marriage counseling is not going to make the untrustworthy spouse turn into someone who is trustworthy. And as to having trust issues, I would give half my kingdom if I had had ‘trust issues’ and could have avoided some of the fallout from misguided trust of a spouse.

I’m sorry for the situation you went through, but I feel like you totally missed my point. We were talking about people who try to control other people’s actions or are afraid to do reasonable things (or judge other people who do reasonable things) because they have trust or other issues. Someone without trust issues isn’t going to go around telling someone else how to act trustworthy. There are definitely real reasons for people to not believe or trust other people, but that was somewhat outside of what I was addressing.

okrapod wrote:

There is nothing that can replace boots on the ground when it comes to how one views things.

I feel like this was my ‘lifequote’ last year:

““Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.”
― C.S. Lewis

Of course, then the question now becomes ‘when is what I have learned applicable’ which I am still figuring out.

dee wrote:

Tune in tomorrow when I discuss the Billy Graham rule.

If I’m stuck alone changing a flat tire in the rain, and some dude throws an umbrella at me, I’m getting the license plate #!!!

okrapod wrote:

I always respect the opinion of people who have experience with something. There is nothing that can replace boots on the ground when it comes to how one views things.

I believe this also. But many do not, cannot, will not openly share what they have been through, and yet they also have experienced and learned.

Sometimes we don’t understand another person. So we ask ‘did something happen’ in their lives that affected them? But they cannot easily share that.
This recently happened to me, and I wrote this as a result of what I had learned from that encounter:

“lately, I have come to understand better, through the sadness of what passes between people who love one another, how it can be that the bonding of sons and fathers transcends all barriers, even death

when people love one another unconditionally, the ways of their grieving are a measure of the intensity and the purity of that love,
and those on the outside rarely comprehend this

if what I wrote is cryptic, I am sorry, but I needed to say it because I have impatiently judged someone unfairly and I am repenting of my own rush to judgement in a matter where it was not for me to judge or even to comprehend the pain another suffered, but only for me to listen ”

I think people who share the situations in their lives are very brave to do it, but I think we all share in our way the pain that comes even when we cannot speak of the incidents that birthed that pain,
and yet sometimes our way of communicating is even more an expression of the depth of pain, whether it was grief, or loss, or betrayal …..

I have come to see my own deep grief and the grief of others as something not to run from, but to hold in reverence as the way in which we have loved very, very much the one who was lost to us.

People are entitled to their way of grieving, and of hurting, and of when and how they share the pain that is. No one can question or judge another’s situation who has not been through it.

There are times when listening alone is the best response to what is not understood. I am learning still.

Nancy2 wrote:

(What’s next? Goldfish and house plants?)

ROTFL.

Except this really isn’t funny. Those probably are next, as well as Teddy Bears, comforters, and my favorite pair of socks. Rules for how to relate to everything, that is.

Oh well, I guess I’ll just be a rebel and thank God for my favorite pair of socks, rules or no rules.

Josh wrote:

You’re a braver person than I am! Knowing that my church wouldn’t have or do anything helpful for my own situation keeps me in the closet (to them). The only “help” they’d have to offer would be further isolation and mistrust coupled with attempts to coerce me into wasting money and throwing away my sanity on so-called reparative therapy.

Reparative therapy is a complete sham. I am glad I never spent a dime on it. But they actually caused me to feel isolated. On the one hand they said that I should look to the church and not other gay Christian friends for fellowship, but then when I tried to follow that advice they were always too busy pursuing their own romantic interests. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, they wanted me to follow their rules but they did not want to make any effort themselves. Friendship in TGC type circles was always very shallow and superficial.

Muff Potter wrote:

I have no ‘desire’ for Piper’s god.

Neither do I.

Nancy2 wrote:

Something like the Lord saying …. I visited you 3 times that night

reminds of CS Lewis’ providential Aslan:

““I was the lion who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I was the lion who gave the horses the new strength of fear for the last mill so that you should reach King Lune in time. And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you.”

would we recognize grace even if it hit us over the head, I wonder? 🙂

ZechZav wrote:

Friendship in TGC type circles was always very shallow and superficial.

I have found New Calvinists to be some of the most unfriendly folks on the planet (at least in my corner of it) … snooty, arrogant, distant, thinking more highly of themselves than they ought.

@ Muff Potter:
@ miot:
Ditto.

@ dee:
that Billy Graham Rule sounds a lot like ‘avoiding the near occasions of sin’ 🙂

OP, quoting article on Piper’s site:

…Followers of Christ find many good things in friendship, but identity and security should never be among them.
However harmless this may seem, allowing anyone but God to be your peace of mind and the joy of your heart is dangerous.

I think it’s in this book, by Christian authors,
https://books.google.com/books?id=R_sy4bBlUeEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=12+Christian+beliefs+that+can+drive+you+crazy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bI7NVObPB9LesAT_qIDgBw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=12%20Christian%20beliefs%20that%20can%20drive%20you%20crazy&f=false
That explains this Christian idea (as being promoted by Piper’s writer friend) that Christians can and should ONLY rely on Jesus, is actually not biblical, and it’s harmful to people.

The psychiatrists explain in their book that God sometimes meets the needs of people through other people.

God does not always intervene directly into the lives of people, or send angels, or other supernatural help, to someone in need.

My goodness, even Hollywood (which is usually not friendly to Judeo-Christian views or morals) got this spot-on in the movie “Bruce Almighty,” where God (played by actor Morgan Freeman) tells Bruce the same thing, that people are always ‘looking up for a miracle,’ when they can at times BE the miracle for someone else.

There follows scenes in the movie of Bruce helping people he meets in daily life, like on his way to work, helping push the car of some guy who has a flat tire on the street. Bruce was being a miracle to and for that guy with the flat tire.

I’m awaiting the day that Piper’s site tells people such as myself that chatting with folks online and being online friends with people is a sin.

Since my mother passed, and I’m not on great terms with some of my family (who are verbal abusers), while others in the family view me as a burden (so I stopped contacting them), while church people I tried turning to scolded me…. I’m pretty much on my own.

My pet cat died a few years back, which was tough. The cat was more of a comfort to me after mom died than any people I knew / know. (I cannot afford another pet.)

I’ve never been married, so I don’t have a spouse to lean on or to confide in.

So… I’m on my own, other than online buddies, like some of you here on this blog, and a few of my other online haunts.

But I guess Piper, or Piper’s writers, would tell me I’m in sin for that. I should rely on Jesus only, they would argue.

Since my mother died, Jesus and God have been very, very quiet, too, so so much for the “rely on Jesus to meet your needs!” stuff they spout.

I’ve prayed and prayed and get no feedback from God, or any indication my prayers make it through.

I cannot believe how Piper and like-minded guys such as him shame people, or caution them against having normal, healthy relationships with other people, or with animals.

They must not take into account folks like me who don’t have any one at all. They must want people to be miserable. Maybe they think being alone and/or miserable is a mark of spiritual maturity or holiness. Whatever the motive, it’s twisted and not very compassionate.

Does anyone else here recall the sci-fi-ish thriller movie “Altered States?” It came out in 1980. I saw it on TV a few years later.

Here is a link about that movie on IMDB’s site:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080360/

I remember a scientist in the film gets into an isolation chamber thing, so he gets no sensory input. If I remember right, he has no contact with people at all, either. I think he goes nuts afterwards, from lack of human contact.

I bet John Piper and his writing friends at the Desiring God would LOVE it if every one had to live in an isolation chamber all the time.
That pretty much sounds like what they’re promoting with their “Having or loving pets is a sin,” or “being close friends with someone else is a sin” papers.

First, they (or other Christians like them) told single women like me that we cannot be friends with dudes, because all of us single women are temptresses, so we get walled off from men.

But now, thanks to this new article, they’re also forbidding women from having same-gender friendships as well.

Piper says a woman like me cannot even have a pet cat for company, because that is sin.

Lord love a duck, where does that leave me?

I guess I’ll take a sock out of my drawer, draw a face on it, and talk to it. Or does Piper have something against socks, too?

srs wrote:

is there any evidence that Piper might be surrounded by a flock of Ned Flanders who ask him about every mundane thing under the sun and he makes these lists to satisfy them and make them go away?

I think John Pipers is Ned Flanders. Check this video:
“Ned Flanders Is On the Phone”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA9g2krEOAc

ishy wrote:

Lea wrote:
This is a thing often thrown at single people too. ‘God will be your husband’.
– – – – –
I haven’t gotten that very often. Much more often it’s, “You just need to pick someone. Being married is much better than not being married.” This usually comes from people who have been married since they were 20 and have no concept of being single. Or they have very clear issues in their marriage that everyone knows about and they are avoiding.
But when people say either, usually it’s because they are too lazy to reach out to you and are looking for an excuse not to engage. God has nothing to do with it.

I’ve seen both attitudes. I think I see the “the Lord will be your spouse” more in articles and in Christian blogs than in real life.

I think in real life, if you as a single, tell a married Christian you’re tired of being single and can’t seem to meet anyone, they become uncomfortable dealing with this in-person.

So the advice switches from “God will be your spouse” on the internet to “you’re too picky, just go with the first guy who shows interest in you” when you’re talking to a Christian face-to-face.

The other popular one from Christians is, “Try a dating site, like (insert name of popular Christian dating sites here)! It worked for my cousin Sally, that’s how she met her husband Rob!!!”

Er, yeah, I tried dating sites, and the sites either won’t send matches after a while, and the ones they sent made life-long singleness look appealing by comparison.

ishy wrote:

Well, yeah! Love thy neighbor requires work!

Yes, most Christians will love you from afar, which means telling you to be warm and well fed. I brought this up on Julie Anne’s blog 2 or 3 weeks ago.

About every Christian I went to after Mom died would cry a river of tears for African orphans but would just tell me to buzz off, by way of scolding or Christian platitudes.

I never have been able to figure out how someone can on the one hand express so much dang sympathy for orphans in third world nations they’ve never met and are happy to cut checks to charities that help them, but will so callously dismiss the person right in front of them needing some emotional support.

Nancy2 wrote:

Yep. We can’t have a close friendship through marriage because of the hierarchical “creation order” – that’s more of a master/slave relationship. We can’t have close friends of the same gender because we might give into SS temptation. We can’t have friends of the opposite gender because we might give in to temptation. We can’t have dogs.
All we have is John Piper, with his sermons and books, to help us and comfort us through life’s trials.

Seeing as how they sexualize every thing, shouldn’t Piper, Driscoll, etc, stop hosting or attending those “Manly Men” Christian conferences?

Why are they encouraging Christian men to meet up at these places and hang out with each other and have arm wrestling contests with each other and so on?

I just saw yet another one advertised about a week ago.

Driscoll is a speaker at this (he is actually listed under the heading “World Class Speaker,” LOL):
Stronger Men’s Conference, 2017
http://strongermen.org/

The Stronger Men’s Conference exists to empower and motivate men to live out God’s view of manhood and be the best husbands, fathers, and leaders God has called them to be.

In response to the tremendous growth the conference has experienced, we are taking the 2017 conference to JQH arena located in downtown Springfield, MO.

The conference features world-class communicators, high-energy entertainment, and NFL Superstars. This action-packed conference will truly be an experience to remember.

So, it’s okay for a bunch of men to hang out with other men, and be friends with other men, but it’s dangerous for women to be friends with other women.

Also from the man’s conference site:

Exciting Entertainment

Every year we have the incredible opportunity to have exciting Friday Night Entertainment at the Stronger Men’s Conference.

We have seen high flying motocross bikes, enormous monster trucks, and America Ninja Warrior Contestants competing on a custom-built course.

We’re excited to announce that this year’s entertainment will be a Lumberjack Competition.

For the first time ever, we’ll have four of the top ten STIHL TIMBERSPORTS lumberjacks facing off in various popular events including: Hot saws, Springboard, Cross Cut, and more.

Lea wrote:

stuff coupled with people who think you don’t really NEED other people, and if you do something is wrong with you, which we get from this article and from Piper and from this whole crew. It’s the whole attitude.
I need other people. Friends, love, family. I resent anyone who tries to shame people who admit that.

It seems that the people who preach the “you don’t need other people and if you think you do, you are in sin and error” – usually have people!

They have been married contentedly for decades, and have children and/or grand children, and both parents of theirs are still alive and well. They probably have siblings they get along well with. They are already getting their relational and emotional needs as it stands.

If God were to pull a “Job” on them and allow all their current family to die off, I bet they’d change their views in a heartbeat.

dee wrote:

You remember that Twitter exchange!!! It was one of the funniest ones in history. Do you have a screen shot of that Piper tweet by chance?????

Julie Anne did a blog post about the Piper tweet here:
Say what? John Piper tweets about teenage couples making out down at the river?
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/08/06/say-what-john-piper-tweets-about-teenage-couples-making-out-down-at-the-river/

ishy wrote:

Did you see Mohler’s recent post on how all young people should get married young to “grow up”? He basically blamed all cultural problems on delaying marriage. I’m on my phone or I’d find it.

I haven’t seen his recent one, but the guy has a history of writing them, and he’s received a few rebuttals before.

“Is Singleness A Sin?” by Camerin Courtney
https://web.archive.org/web/20160322153056/http://www.crosswalk.com/11621125/

All the hyping of marriage by conservative Christians usually comes at the expense of singlehood or singleness, which runs contrary to what the Bible says on the subject.

Many Christians will bad mouth singles and singleness to promote marriage, which is insulting and wrong.

Daisy wrote:

Exciting Entertainment
Every year we have the incredible opportunity to have exciting Friday Night Entertainment at the Stronger Men’s Conference.
We have seen high flying motocross bikes, enormous monster trucks, and America Ninja Warrior Contestants competing on a custom-built course.
We’re excited to announce that this year’s entertainment will be a Lumberjack Competition.
For the first time ever, we’ll have four of the top ten STIHL TIMBERSPORTS lumberjacks facing off in various popular events including: Hot saws, Springboard, Cross Cut, and more.

I don’t feel a pressing desire to attend this event for any of these reasons. With that said, whether it’s a chain saw, a giant leaf blower, or some other professional grounds maintenance equipment, I can’t help but wonder if there’s not some … shall we say … symbolism involved. It’s like those guys who get high powered rifles that they never use (or have no idea how to use skillfully). I call tools / toys like that “compensators,” because it seems like that’s the real function that they serve.

Josh wrote:

So, the $1,000,000 question: does Owen agree with his bro Al Mohler that remaining single is a sin? Because if so, well, in the words of our inimitable hosts, good night!

Strachan’s 2014 paper about singleness:

A New Model for Living Single by Owen Strachan
http://www.boundless.org/adulthood/2014/a-new-model-for-living-single

As much as I disagree with Strachan on gender roles, I was at least happy to see that in that paper, he did tell singles it’s OK to wrestle with being single, if you’d like to get married.

So often if you’re a single who’d like to be married, you will be SHAMED for admitting that you’d like to be married.

You’ll be told to “be content” in your singleness, that you’re making an idol out of marriage (merely for just wanting it!!), etc.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

One of the findings I remember most clearly is that 17th-century rural Brits did NOT marry early. They couldn’t. It was financially infeasible. Usually a young man waited until he had a decent position (for lack of a better word) on a tenant farm or on his own small farm. That means most couples married in their mid-twenties or even later. I was really struck by this.

I’m sorry I cannot remember where I’ve seen this information, but in a few different articles I’ve seen online that discuss age of first marriage, the whole getting married in one’s early 20s (as the Mohlers are promoting) was a blip in the American cultural radar.

I can’t remember when it started – I think the articles said young marriages started in the U.S. around the ’40s or 1950s??

But that prior to that era, a lot of people (Americans) didn’t get married ’til their mid or late 20s (like they’ve been doing the last decade or more). So, being married a bit later in life was actually the NORM in our culture for a long time.

But your Al Mohler guys assume that because lots of folks got married, and got married by the age of 21 back in, say, 1955, that this should be the way it is for everyone forever and ever,
It’s the way God designed marriage, and it’s wrong to get married later – just because for a brief time in our nation’s history folks got married younger.

Daisy wrote:

About every Christian I went to after Mom died would cry a river of tears for African orphans but would just tell me to buzz off, by way of scolding or Christian platitudes.

I’ve seen this too Daisy and it really sucks. They have their heads stuffed so far into… er… ah… the sand, that they can’t even smell the coffee any more.

ishy wrote:

Being married to a guy who viewed me as a sex slave and maidservent seemed a lot worse than being alone. And most of the Christian guys who’ve tried to pursue me clearly saw me as one or both of those.
There are much worse things than being alone and not having sex.

I’ve said before on this blog that complementarians are shooting themselves in the foot.
The ones who notice there are a lot of singles bemoan the lack of marriage. But then, they don’t make marriage look appealing.

Complementarians make marriage look like a master-slave relationship, and we women are told if we marry an abuser, we HAVE TO stay married to the guy, and all we can do is “pray and submit more” in response to the abuse.

Since that is the way complementarians present marriage, I would either rather stay single or marry a non-complementarian guy.

ishy wrote:

but Christians seem to place such high expectations on marriage, without actually doing any work to develop the skills to uphold such expectations (at least the ones that are reachable).

I read an article by a marital counselor who said his atheist married clients would do all the homework assignments he gave them (to strengthen their marriages), but the Christian couples would not.

He would ask them why, and they would say stuff like, “Oh, we just pray together, that should do it. God will heal our marriage.”

The Christian couples had this magical thinking that if they just read the Bible or prayed, their marriages would improve. The atheists actually did the hard work.

ishy wrote:

You can’t dump everything on your spouse and expect them to be able to handle it.

I think that applies to any relationship.

After our mother died, I was dealing with that grief alone (which was very, very difficult), but in the first few years after the death, my sister turned to me as her sounding board. She would phone me up, complaining very negatively for hours on end about all her problems.
(And she never asked how I was doing, or offered to listen to me talk about what I was going through.)

It became too much. I could not deal with my pain plus hers any more.
I had to ask her boyfriend to ask her to please dial it back. (At that point I was still too afraid to confront her myself.)

I could not absorb all her stuff. One person cannot be a Messiah figure to another, it’s too much for one person.

Friend wrote:

I’ll just find a woman who can’t stand me, and buy her a house.”

Goin’ Through The Big D by Mark Chesnutt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne86ALTC85s

Bought her a house like I said I would
in a subdivided neighborhood.
The fuse got short and the nights got long.
It was over, long gone before I knew I was headed to

I’m goin’ through the Big D and don’t mean Dallas.

I can’t believe what the judge had to tell us.
I got the jeep and she got the palace.
I’m goin’ through the Big D and don’t mean Dallas.

Things like this are never final.
I’m still paying on the vinyl
flooring in the laundry room;
it’s multi-colored, water proof.

Gram3 wrote:

Another problem that a close friendship creates for Female Subordinationists is that it undermines their argument that any relationship requires a leader otherwise CHAOS. If two females or two males can enjoy a close and mutually fulfilling non-sexual lifelong relationship without one having authority over the other, then certainly a man and a woman can enjoy a close and mutually fulfilling sexual lifelong relationship without one having authority over the other. Unless the sexual aspect requires authority or something else I’m missing.
This might be an interesting Ask Pastor John episode.

Most excellent observation.

@ Gram3:
You hit it on the head. This is exactly the problem in Piper’s world. As you get to marriage age, you aren’t a real person who is looking for a real friend, you’re a stereotypical Piper-defined woman looking for a stereotypical Piper-defined man and vice versa.

That is a perfect description of my first marriage…which was a disaster. This time, I’m marrying a friend whom I knew platonically (and ate many platonic one-on-one meals with) for more than a decade.

Gram3 wrote:

Another problem that a close friendship creates for Female Subordinationists is that it undermines their argument that any relationship requires a leader otherwise CHAOS.

Anybody know how to get John Piper onto Ft. Campbell ….. I know some military wives that can make him long for CHAOS in his world! After they get through with him, if there’s anything left of him, I’ll drop him off at the jump training area.

Desiring God likes to take the joy out of people’s lives. This article was written by a woman and directed to women. Why does she not want women to have meaningful relationships with other women? Apparently the Christian life is not meant to be joyful and experienced with other people. I don’t recall an article written by a man directed toward men on this same topic.

Thank you for this post. I saw this the other day and hope you would do an article on it. I just wanted to weep when I read it because he influences so many and so many young moms who so desperately need friends may now back away from them. Or their husbands may discourage close friendships because of this.

I wish JP would move to Africa or Indonesia or a country outside the US to get a small glimpse of how very American his Christianity is.

Christiane wrote:

“Anything can happen anywhere, given the right circumstances.”

What happened to Our Lord Jesus Christ beats all. Yes, anything can happen to anyone, any time, anywhere – here in our fallen world.

Kathi wrote:

Desiring God likes to take the joy out of people’s lives. This article was written by a woman and directed to women. Why does she not want women to have meaningful relationships with other women?

DIVIDE AND RULE plus QUEEN BEE?

Lea wrote:

Women aren’t like adults, they are like children. So obviously men need to hangout with other ‘adult’ level humans, so that only leaves other men.

Isn’t that the reason why male-supremacist societies have a strong pull towards the glories of male homosexual relationships? As one pre-Christian society put it, “Women for breeding stock, Men for Love, Boys for Pleasure”?

Daisy wrote:

Couples used to be more outward-focused (used to have a wider social network, did more community service etc), but the meaning and understanding of marriage in our culture has changed to the point that we have this now:

The Greedy Marriage
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/world/americas/16iht-16greedy.7519861.html?pagewanted=all

I’m the only one in the Cal Poly Gang who didn’t walk the aisle and tie the knot.
And thus experienced the fundamental law of nature that Marrieds only associate with other Marrieds.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
P.S. “Wider social network” does NOT mean your 5000 friends/10000 likes on Facebook or Twitter.

@ Eeyore:

“Basically, it all seems to boil down to this – the only permissible source of strength, joy, meaning and stimulation for Piper & Co. is God Himself, direct and unmediated. Anything else is a possible idol.”
+++++++++++++

i’m sure i could concoct quite an argument for why Kelly Needham’s birthday, her Thanksgiving Day, her Christmas Day, her family vacations, her hobbbies, her favorite TV shows, favorite movies, favorite books, favorite foods, her jewelry, the make up she likes to use, the hair styling products and implements she likes to use, the way she does her fingernails, the clothes she like to buy, how she decorates her home, the kind of car she drives, and everything else in her life that she finds pleasing, fun and enjoyable is dangerously allowing anything but God to be her peace of mind and the joy of her heart.

sounds like a very satisfying thing to do, actually.

@ Bridget:

“Do these people write about their own struggles and then project them on the rest of humanity?”
+++++++++++++

I’m sure that’s the case, as well as making a hobby out of dissecting the daily lives of other people with a sanctimonious scalpel & making value judgements on it all. and then comes the fun part: making it a topic to write on as an expert in order to gain an audience.

@ Lea:

Eeyore wrote: “How that direct relationship is to be accomplished, when God is not in the habit of directly interacting with 98-99(?)% of His people, is the prize question in my mind.”

Leah wrote: “This is a thing often thrown at single people too. ‘God will be your husband’.”
+++++++++++++++

the christian equivalent of “Let them eat cake.”

their ignorance and insensitivity is lost on them. as lost as their common sense.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

“As a straight guy who also got The Treatment (to a lesser extent) in both high school and some churches, I figured the root cause is Being Different. “Beware Thou of The Mutant” and all that.

Just your difference from the Good Church People around you intersected with their church culture’s Strongest Taboo.”
+++++++++++++++++

it’s something to feel good about. despite the inconvenience, it’s a good thing to fly above the lowest intellectual & depth & creative & awareness common denominator.

@ Jeffrey Chalmers:

“why does sex, or “sexual deviations/activiy” always seem to work its way into these conversations? I saw this in my IFB world in a pervious life…”
++++++++++++

it’s like telling yourself, “Don’t look at it! Don’t do it! No….No….watch it…..no looking…. don’t do it…”

every urge is going to want to look at it. all cylinders will be firing to both look at it and not look at it.

i think many christians are so hyper focussed on sex that they can be aroused by a potato.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Josh:

Leah said: “And basically saying, stay away from close friendships lest they turn into romantic relationships. Such a dangerous teaching.”

Josh said: “It’s dangerous, in the same way that Denny Burk’s teaching that merely experiencing temptation toward someone of the same gender is sinful, is dangerous.”
+++++++++++++++

so incredibly thoughtless and stupid. absolutely dangerous.

a 14-year old girl in town took her own life a few days ago because of this.

beyond heart-breaking.

in my son’s sunday school class a few years ago, a student asked the leader “will gay people go to hell?” the reply, “yes, they will.”

that was the last time my son went to church. all indications are that he is opposite-sex-attracted, but he was extremely troubled by the implications and incredible insensitivity of the glib reply.

this leader is praised and highly-esteemed for his no-compromising stance. I think he’s a religious freak. a very nice person, but a religious freak. with the influence he’s allowed to have, a very dangerous person.

So many people want everything to be black and white. Also I think it is wise to leave who goes to Hell to God.

@ Lea:

And just to tie this back to the topic, Kelly acts like every close friendship is just in danger of turning sexual at any moment if you aren’t careful. It isn’t.

Short off-topic important announcement.

We have been raising funds for Shauna and her son Billy in Texas to pay their monthly bills.

(Dee wrote about Billy being abused at the hands of a church member.) Shauna has a part-time job at a grocery store, but it is not enough to provide for their financial needs.
At this time they need April rent which is $700. Donations are needed!!

https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk

Thank you.

Max wrote:

ZechZav wrote:

Friendship in TGC type circles was always very shallow and superficial.

I have found New Calvinists to be some of the most unfriendly folks on the planet (at least in my corner of it) … snooty, arrogant, distant, thinking more highly of themselves than they ought.

Amen to this. A neo Calvinist acquaintance of mine is the worst, all the while saying she’s the chief of sinners. She recently got married and my feed is flooded with “Godly marriage” stuff and she’s always blabbing about how her husband is leading her and shepherding her heart. Gag me with a spoon.

I fear a cage wrote:

Gag me with a spoon.

This is how I feel about my sil’s gushing posts about my brother. Ugh.

I did read a study (or probably ‘study’) that said people who post incessantly on social media about their significant others are not secure in their relationships.

I fear a cage wrote:

A neo Calvinist acquaintance of mine is the worst, all the while saying she’s the chief of sinners. She recently got married and my feed is flooded with “Godly marriage” stuff and she’s always blabbing about how her husband is leading her and shepherding her heart. Gag me with a spoon.

I unfollow people like that. They aren’t worth clogging up my feed. You can unfollow them without unfriending them, so they have no idea. And when people ask if I’ve seen something, I just say, “No, I haven’t seen it”, which is the truth.

elastigirl wrote:

in my son’s sunday school class a few years ago, a student asked the leader “will gay people go to hell?” the reply, “yes, they will.”

On the bright side, in hell they won’t have to spend eternity around people like said leader…

Nancy2 wrote:

If she gets sick, is her husband going to take to a doctor ….. or a veterinarian???

Ha!

ishy wrote:

I unfollow people like that. They aren’t worth clogging up my feed.

The unfollow feature has been a lifesaver. Whether it’s people who clogged up my newsfeed with you-know-what last November, or people who post sappy “inspirational” tripe, or people who do nothing but hawk their MLM scheme of the moment (these days, essential oils are out, and “diet” shakes and expensive women’s clothing are in), I can make them disappear with a single click and keep social media social (and more or less civil).

Lea wrote:

I did read a study (or probably ‘study’) that said people who post incessantly on social media about their significant others are not secure in their relationships.

These days, how can you tell?
These days, EVERYBODY “posts incessantly on social media”.
(Including literal “sleep-texting”.)

Lea wrote:

I’ve been thinking a bit more about the BG rule stuff (and maybe the article in wash po about Pence acting along these lines will show up) and one of the things that bothers me about it is that it is indiscriminate.

The BG rule makes sense for a public figure like BG.

Otherwise, it’s like “Private Revelation” in the RCC — binding on the person receiving the Private Revelation, not binding (voluntary basis only) on anyone else.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Once more we come to Auggie’s personal baggage leavening his Theology.

Piper is very fond of Augie’s line about He loves thee too little who loves anything which he does not love for thy sake (paraphrase).

Daisy wrote:

Say what? John Piper tweets about teenage couples making out down at the river?

One of the tweeters tweeted this in response to Piper’s tweet:

“Maybe they weren’t happy because a creepy old man was watching them.”

A talented script writer could use this as a possible episode for Criminal Minds (CBS tv).

JYJames wrote:

Yes, anything can happen to anyone, any time, anywhere – here in our fallen world.

It can only happen if we let it happen. God is not in control. We are. Tsunamis, comet strikes, and what have you, are beyond our pay grades, true. But the rest of the stuff? Handmaid’s tales, Auschwitz, and just plain old-fashioned individual meanness? That’s all on our own dime, the Almighty ceded control of that stuff to us long ago.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Example — guy was always swinging his rifle/shotgun around with HIS FINGER CONSTANTLY ON THE TRIGGER! (One up the spout and safety off, natch.) I actually showed him why you ALWAYS keep your finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard unless you’re actually firing — pointed it downrange and bumped his hand — BAM! AND HE STILL DIDN’T GET A CLUE!

I may be a female, but even I was taught better than that. I won’t even point a firearm that I know is empty at anyone. That boy needs to be restricted to water pistols.
A couple of months ago, my dad showed me a revolver that he had just bought. When he handed it to me, he said it wasn’t loaded. The first thing I did was pop the cylinder out to see for myself. It was fully loaded.

Nancy2 wrote:

A couple of months ago, my dad showed me a revolver that he had just bought. When he handed it to me, he said it wasn’t loaded. The first thing I did was pop the cylinder out to see for myself. It was fully loaded.

First thing I learned, too. Always clear & check.

And every time I’m first handed an unfamiliar firearm, I have the hander show me the control locations — charging handle, safety, mag release, cylinder pop, any special controls/settings.

Many years ago, there was this small-time cartoonist in Phoenix named Michael Scott McMurray, AKA “Mc Moo”. Once on a visit to some buds in Tucson (i.e. my informants), he was handed a pistol; trusting the guy who handed it to him, he didn’t check & clear. (Kind of a brain-fart moment, as he WAS experienced in firearms handling.) Well, he ended up accidentally shooting out the living room TV picture tube. (No chance of over-penetration, as I was shown the scene and the apartment walls & party walls were concrete block.) For the rest of his life, the “Tucson Mob” never let him forget the day of “The Mc Moo Cup Challenge”.

Lea wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The BG rule makes sense for a public figure like BG.

But every random super Christian man is jumping on it.

More-Godly/Pure-Than-Thou one-upmanship?

Muff Potter wrote:

But the rest of the stuff? Handmaid’s tales, Auschwitz, and just plain old-fashioned individual meanness? That’s all on our own dime, the Almighty ceded control of that stuff to us long ago.

And Islam and Calvinism try to hand it all back.
“NOT MY FAULT! NOT MY FAULT! YOU PREDESTINED IT!”

@ Christiane:
Someone on TGC a couple years back had all those explained away er uh properly understood to mean members in good standing of your local church. Not too hard with “brother” and “one another” but they had to come up with something ingenious for good Sam.

The fear of close sam-sex friendships becoming “sexual” smacks of homophobia, quite frankly. I think these rules are likely to create an environment where adult singles in the church experience serious isolation. (Maybe the good folks at Desiring God are not even thinking about singles since they like to push people to get married as young as possible.) It goes without saying that touching or establishing emotional intimacy with a person of the opposite sex is off-limits in this framework. On top of that, touching or establishing emotional intimacy with a friend of the SAME sex could be a dangerous temptation. Where does that leave single people? American culture is already so individualistic and squeamish about male friends bonding closely with one another; This advice/command from Desiring God is the opposite of helpful.

Dave A A wrote:

@ Christiane:
Someone on TGC a couple years back had all those explained away er uh properly understood to mean members in good standing of your local church. Not too hard with “brother” and “one another” but they had to come up with something ingenious for good Sam.

I’m smiling because Our Lord made a point of using a Samaritan as ‘the good guy’ in His parable, because Samaritans were not considered ‘like us’ to the Jews …. but I’m sure, with enough ‘creative’ manipulation of the scriptures, something to please Piper could be managed ……. they even changed the position of Our Lord in the Holy Trinity to accommodate their ‘male-headship’ idolatry (sigh)

Edward wrote:

It goes without saying that touching or establishing emotional intimacy with a person of the opposite sex is off-limits in this framework. On top of that, touching or establishing emotional intimacy with a friend of the SAME sex could be a dangerous temptation. Where does that leave single people?

Touch, and here I’m talking about the non-sexual kind although the other is good too, is good for us. Medically. Emotionally. Etc. We should not be restricting ourselves from physical touch like hugs.

Dave A A wrote:

That said, we may be blaming Piper overmuch.
Needham quotes several women who don’t seem to be Piperettes. I also discovered a book from 1988 by Dee Brestin, The Friendships of Women

Sounds close enough to me! Maybe she got the idea from Piper. Or they both got it from Gothard in the 60’s. Lots of that going around back then which keeps getting recycled and repackaged to kids who have no idea that Something New and Radical is old and busted.

@ elastigirl:

I agree. I think what they do, often to vulnerable people, can be called emotional abuse.

It makes me I’ll . . .

Gram3 wrote:

Or they both got it from Gothard in the 60’s.

Reminds me my college roommate came back from a Gothard conference and acted really odd for the next couple of months.

@ Dave A A:
Gothard. Odd. Yes.

elastigirl wrote:

the christian equivalent of “Let them eat cake.”

their ignorance and insensitivity is lost on them. as lost as their common sense.

It is my fervent prayer that more and more people can chance upon TWW and other sites like it and learn to free themselves from these brutal religious systems. One human being at a time.

max wrote:

McKnight appears to be on track now, although I’m still trying to get my brain around his teachings on the “new perspective on Paul.”

This is the best short primer I’ve seen on the New Perspective. Dr. McKnight studied with Jimmy Dunn for his doctoral work. https://pursiful.com/2012/04/10/the-new-perspective-on-paul-in-about-1000-words/

miot wrote:

Piper and others like him hate women. They can not imagine having a normal relationship with a woman.

I think that’s exactly it. No matter what they might say about respecting women and wanting to protect them and see them fulfilled as happy wives and mothers, what it boils down to is that they only accept those women who fill their patriarchal view of what a woman should be. Anyone who dares to deviate from that must be shut down immediately. There is no real, genuine care or concern or respect for women as individuals worthy of friendship or love. There is no understanding of a woman who doesn’t fit their very limited “feminine” box; again, no consideration that she might be an individual with interests and needs and dreams, a person that God can use in His kingdom just as much as a man. They reduce women to just helpers and supporters. Sadly this has been my personal experience – I sometimes think that if I was replaced by a maid who cooked, cleaned and was sexually available, my husband wouldn’t notice the difference. They sort of appreciate having a generic wife who takes care of all those boring household chores, but they don’t appreciate or even notice women as individuals.

max wrote:

One of my biggest concerns with the New Calvinist movement is that you seldom hear the name of Jesus mentioned. You hear them talk about being “Christ-Followers”, but rarely do they lift the name that is above all names in their ministries. “Gospel” to them is a rigid set of doctrinal propositions about grace, rather than a direct experience of Grace through an encounter with the living Christ. “Gospel” to the reformed mind = Calvinism … the message and ministry of Christ gets lost in their version of the gospel, which is not the Gospel at all.

A lot of foks are in for a big, nasty surprise when they stand before Our Lord Jesus…..

JYJames wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Beg to differ. Or, maybe, rather, expound on this, take it one step further.

More fundamentally, there is a fear of relationship, period. Any relationship, and that is what is completely lost on this crowd.

Interesting. By contrast, God is actually all about relationship. “Let US… make man in our image.” “It is not good for man to be alone…”

Sin separates one from God, thus, severs the relationship. Jesus offers the path to bring us back… into relationship, with God and properly with each other.

Men and women in loving bilateral relationships, sans hierarchy, neither dominion nor power play.

I know Piper, and he is not a relational person. Likes to hide in his office with his books and write.