Two Troubling Tweets: John Piper

From the man who is seen as the expert on Biblical gender roles:

 

 

***

***

105 comments on “Two Troubling Tweets: John Piper

  1. Okay, so human empathy is a resource that you consolidate and you don’t get to decide your own response to your own life experience? John Piper, that’s what sociopaths would say.

    And as a man, you don’t get to decide what manhood is for me or anyone else. Women are in the military because they planned to and wanted to. Same for men. Having a penis doesn’t mean my life is worth less than a woman’s and should be sacrificed first. We’re long past that point in history.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. Piper really is unbelievable. I’ll leave it at that – I have other words I’d really like to say about him.

    It would be a blogger’s dream for him and Robertson to do a show together.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Is he volunteering to be a martyr? Kinda hypocritical since he so readily puts women up on the altar to sacrifice to his odd preferences.

    Rubbish is a good word to start with…

    Liked by 4 people

  4. I’m struggling to make any sense out of either of his quotes. “Manhood means take a bullet if you can”??! Is that supposed to signify some warped perception of compassion? Or is it just plain unbridled chauvinism?

    The second quote is REALLY troubling to me. When they seek help within the church, aren’t abused women often told to “pray for their abusers”? Is this saying the same thing — and worse? Is he SERIOUSLY implying that if an abused woman *does* pray for her abuser and she “hears nothing” in reply, that Jesus is unsympathetic? To me it means that she has been abused to such an extent that she has no more inner voice left, no belief in herself, and probably even blames herself (since she might have been told ad infinitum by her abuser that SHE is the problem). Jesus will “settle” for a broken woman (physically, spiritually, emotionally, and very possibly physically? He will “settle” for her demise? Is this the *loving Jesus* that this woman is told is her savior? Seems to me that, in this situation, she can only feel abandoned by him.

    So divorce is a sin, but abuse is not? The more I learn about abuse in the church, the more this seems to be the message. That is so wrong on so many levels. Do women who are locked into such a desperate situation have ANY idea where to turn when both the church and their husbands have betrayed them? Julie Anne, thank you SO much for helping these women find real, compassionate help!

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I wish you had put each of these two tweets into a thread of its own, Julie Ann. I hope you don’t mind me commenting on them in separate comments.

    “If Jesus is not empathetic to your mistreatment, you don’t need to be. If he is, no one else needs to be. He will settle.”

    I see the good point that he is trying to make, but the way he has put it is cringe-worthy. However, I don’t see that, unless there is a context you haven’t disclosed, that his point is a gendered point. Mistreatment isn’t gendered, is it?

    I much prefer an older and better expression of an overlapping meme: “Do thy friends despise, forsake thee? Take it to the Lord in prayer! In his arms he’ll take and shield thee; thou wilt find a solace there.”

    What John omits to say, is that one way in which Jesus might “settle” something, is by sending along a saint who *is* emphatic, through whom He expresses *His* empathy tangibly, as well as offering emotional support by the Holy Spirit. He might even lead somebody being mistreated to go out and look for empathy, in the right places.

    Basically, John’s saying is too much like the standard, “Let go and let God” platitude, for getting rid of parishioners with problems one doesn’t want to deal with.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. John Piper has stated that everything he says in a book, sermon, or a tweet comes directly from God. Wish I had the quote, but I don’t, and I don’t feel like searching for it.

    The Protestant Church operates on a spiritual caste system, same as the Roman Catholic Church. John Piper has spiritual authority, and you, lowly pewsitter, do not.
    Until that reality is recognized and dealt with, there will be no solution, and Piper can continue to blatantly proclaim whatever he wants. That second quote is a direct in-your-face statement to those who disagree with him and his good ol’ boys club.

    Salvation is not tied to membership in the institutional church. Salvation is tied to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. No problem, John. I don’t mind two separate comments.

    I’d especially like to hear responses from those who have suffered spiritual abuse. How do you take Piper’s tweet on empathy? How does it line up with scripture?

    Like

  8. “Should the death of military combatants be gender specific? Yes. Manhood means take the bullet if you can.”

    This was a silly thing for John Piper to say. It would dangerous for male soldiers to take it seriously, if they are serving alongside female soldiers. It is (allegedly) hard enough to train male soldiers not to take risks to protect female comrades in arms they would take to protect male comrades, without John Piper piping up with something like this.

    What he said is an appeal to Chauvinism (if you want to call natural male chivalry towards women “Chauvinism”.) Males chivalry towards women is so instinctive that many military people warned against allowing women to serve in the infantry in battle, because it would cost lives.

    A male infantryman in battle is supposed to concentrate on *avoiding* getting shot, not on the “glory” of getting shot; doing a job he is trained to do that involves killing other people without emotion, neither pity or terror, but with a healthy modicum of self-preservation. It endangers a male soldier, if he is distracted, by thoughts put into his head by a clergyman, of his taking bullets rather than dodging them. Especially because he cannot stop himself from behaving chivalrously and self-sacrificingly towards a female infantryman beside him in the trenches, who (the argument goes) should never have been there in the first place.

    The reason that some people didn’t want women in the front line, was’t because they thought women couldn’t do the horrid job as well as men. One reason they had was that men often cannot do the job as well as usual, when they are having their natural male chivalry to sacrifice their lives for women if need be, stimulated by the presence of women. The other reason is that the soldier needs to have the dim recollection that there are *women* in the world too, so life will be worth living for him again one day, if only he manages to stay alive until the end of the present tour of duty. Having women dropping down dead either side of him with great big holes through their bodies isn’t the sort of thoughts about women he needs, to keep him and his comrades safe.

    One doesn’t need the bible to know this, either.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. @ Julie Anne

    I think most of us have suffered what you mean by “spiritual abuse” at some stage, and abused others spiritually ourselves. It’s just that some people have suffered exceptionally bad spiritual abuse, in churches that are jungles of unsaintly behaviour they ought to have left early on.

    “How do you take Piper’s tweet on empathy? How does it line up with scripture?”

    Empathy isn’t really a bible word. But “the Lord is gracious and compassionate and loving towards all He has made.” I believe that Jesus feels that way towards *everybody* who is experiencing (or even perceiving mistakenly) any degree of mistreatment that gets them down, or makes them unsafe.

    It’s not so much that what Piper said wasn’t true, as that the way he said it, His pithy little platitude could easily be used to excuse spiritually abusive behaviour.

    I read the tweet, and then immediately said to myself, “Yes, that’s true, as far as it goes, but there again, SO WHAT?” I can imagine many wrong answers to that “So what?” question. For example, “So, you don’t need my empathy, so go away.” Or, “So pray that Jesus deals with my colleague in the ministry who has upset you, gossiped about you, put you down instead of building you up, or put his hand up your skirt. You’ve got Jesus. So, don’t expect ME to get involved too. [eyes narrow] OK?”

    Like

  10. The second tweet reminds me of what is commonly quoted in Pentecostal circles: “Do not touch my anointed ones, and do my prophets no harm.” 1 Chron. 16:22
    It’s meant to discourage any accusations about the pastor. You are supposed to pray for God to deal with him/her.

    I interpret it as “sit down and shut up.” Many of us have done that for too long, which may explain why abuse is so prevalent in the church today.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. It strikes me that, whether one agrees or disagrees with Piper, he tends to speak in ways that are not well expressed in 140 characters. Try to describe “Christian hedonism” in a tweet, for example. Good luck.

    For that matter, how many of the writers in the Bible confine themselves to 140 characters, or how many of the great theologians communicated that way? Not to threadjack (sorry Julie Anne), but it strikes me that maybe, just maybe, Christians ought to communicate in complete….paragraphs, or even pages?

    Regarding the first tweet, I am reminded of Patton’s comment that the point of soldiering is not to die for your country. The point is to make the other (expletive) die for his. It strikes me as well that Augustine’s theory of just war implies just this as well; you only go to war when you have a reasonable chance of success–which would include as many soldiers coming home alive as possible, I’d think.

    And regarding the second, I think I get what he’s talking about, but how exactly can one not be empathetic to one’s own feelings, whether they are aligned with reality or not?

    Long in short is that I think Piper needs to realize that he communicates best in paragraphs to pages, and ought to drop the Twitter account. I can then criticize, or praise, him fairly.

    Like

  12. “If Jesus is not empathetic to your mistreatment, you don’t need to be. If he is, no one else needs to be. He will settle.”

    Wait… If Jesus is empathetic to your (anyone’s) mistreatment, no one else needs be.

    That’s surely good news; I’ll no longer waste my time weeping with those who weep, then.

    Pointless exercise, clearly.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Bike Bubba,
    Piper definately doesn’t do well in tweets. As for his writings, take a peak at A Cry for Justice blog for breakdowns of twisted scripture in a few of JP’s writings. They aren’t always up to snuff either. His marriage book, “This Momentary Marriage” although some things are good, I would burn it rather than give it to anyone who needs direction in that adventure.

    Like

  14. Chris R,

    That’s surely good news; I’ll no longer waste my time weeping with those who weep, then.

    Isn’t that good news. We’ll all have spare time on our hands now. What shall we do instead now that we don’t have to have compassion for other people?

    Like

  15. Last I knew, God indwells His people with the Holy Spirit, therefore, the God who is in Christians should be the ones who are expressing the empathy of Jesus and they should be the ones who are responding to the abuse and mistreatment.

    Liked by 4 people

  16. I’ve never heard Piper’s voice.

    Does The Short One with Fluttery Hands have a Booming Manly Voice or a Soft Whiny one?

    (I have heard Womb Tomb Swanson’s voice, and he sounded like a dorky high school kid with an attitude. Which is what I expected from his appearance.)

    Liked by 1 person

  17. @Carmen:

    The Protestant Church operates on a spiritual caste system, same as the Roman Catholic Church. John Piper has spiritual authority, and you, lowly pewsitter, do not.

    As someone who’s in the RCC, these guys like Piper claim much more spiritual authority than any Pope since the Borgias, their Ex Cathedra pronouncements are far more sweeping, and their churches have a more extreme caste system than anything I’ve seen in the officially-hierarchical RCC.

    Like

  18. John Piper wrote:
    “Should the death of military combatants be gender specific? Yes. Manhood means take the bullet if you can.”

    1. See: (On Wikipedia):
    Onna-bugeisha (Japanese women warriors)

    2. Google for: Peshmerga
    NY Post headline:
    “ISIS [Male] Troops Terrified of Being Killed by Female Troops [Kurdish female Peshmerga fighters]”

    3. From Nat Geo (Link):
    “Amazon [Women] Warriors Did Indeed Fight and Die Like Men”
    Interview with Adrienne Mayor, author of The Amazons

    Snippets from that page:

    Archaeology shows that these fierce women [ie, the Amazons] also smoked pot, got tattoos, killed—and loved—men.

    Interviewer Question: “You refer to the “Amazon spirit.” What are its key characteristics?”

    Answer: I used that phrase in the dedication to a good friend of mine, Sunny Bock. She was a strong figure who believed in equality between men and women.

    She rode motorcycles, she rode horses, then became the first female railroad engineer. She was a risktaker who died an untimely death, probably because of her life of risk.

    She embodied the Amazon spirit: the assumption that women are the equals of men and that they could be just as noble and brave and heroic.

    “The Greeks were both fascinated and appalled by such independent women [the Amazons]. They were so different from their wives and daughters. Yet there was a fascination. They were captivated by them. Pictures of Amazons on vase paintings always show them as beautiful, active, spirited, courageous, and brave.”

    Like

  19. I’m sorry, I forgot to mention these people in my last post (more examples below).

    I don’t think John Piper knows what he’s talking about.

    I do recognize that most men are physically stronger/larger than most women, and in the United States, at least, and based on many surveys and news reports I’ve seen, concerning domestic abuse (physical, especially), men are usually the perpetrators, not women.

    However, women can sometimes be just as deadly or aggressive as men, if they choose to be, but our culture heavily socializes women to be passive, compliant, and unassertive.

    4. Heather “Lucky” Penney (American fighter pilot, served on 9-11)

    Maj. Heather “Lucky” Penney, one of the first fighter pilots in the air over Washington that morning [9/11], had been ordered airborne out of fear that a hijacked plane was heading to the capital. In the scramble, she and Col. Marc Sasseville had to launch without live ammunition or missiles and were prepared to ram the Boeing 757, at the likely cost of their own lives as well as those of everyone on board.

    The potential coincidence was revealed by Penney’s mother, Stephanie Penney, in an email to The Washington Post.

    Source: bangordailynews .com

    5. Maj. Mariam Al Mansouri – first female fighter pilot in the United Arab Emirates

    CNN Headline:
    “UAE’s first female fighter pilot led airstrike against ISIS”

    6. Deborah
    Deborah Was a Wise and Courageous Judge of Israel

    Deborah ranks among the most famous women of the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament. Not only known for her wisdom, Deborah was also known for her courage. She is the only woman of the Hebrew Bible who gained renown on her own merit, not because of her relationship to a man.

    7. Jael – see Judges 4:21 in the Bible

    But Jael, Heber’s wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him [man who was an enemy of Israel] while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died.

    Like

  20. John A said (though most of my comments in my reply here are not aimed at John A specifically. I am simply riffing off what he talked about in most of this),

    The reason that some people didn’t want women in the front line, was’t because they thought women couldn’t do the horrid job as well as men. One reason they had was that men often cannot do the job as well as usual, when they are having their natural male chivalry to sacrifice their lives for women if need be, stimulated by the presence of women

    Wouldn’t a man in battle seeing other men with bullet wounds be traumatic for some men?

    I don’t see how or why seeing a woman comrade die next to them would be any more horrific than seeing a man die next to them.

    I have several family members who are or were in the United States military. I don’t recall off hand any of them directly seeing a colleague get shot in the head.

    I have read that some male military personnel become upset or develop PTSD just from seeing other men get killed in battle, like men returning from the Viet Nam or Korean conflict.

    I suspect part of this mind set from gender complementarians (such as John Piper) is that they cannot conceive of a world where God is fine with a woman doing or being something other than a being a mother or a wife.

    (And to remind people: I’ve nothing against women choosing to be a wife and mother, but not all women want to marry or want to have children, or some do, but they can’t find “Mr. Right,” or they are infertile, etc etc.)

    I’ve never married and never had children, and most gender comp teaching I hear has nothing to do with me or my life. Gender comp material for women is, 99% of the time pertaining to how to be a better wife or mother.

    I also suspect gender complementarians think that they have to think of women as being dainty, compliant, easily crushed little flowers and demand we all live accordingly, because it fits in with their very rigid, 1950ish gender role views.

    And that, further, they like these stereotypes, and deem them biblical, because such clearly defined gender role views will help stamp out (they believe) homosexuality, lesbianism, and transgenderism, feminism, and abortion.

    (If women would just marry young, have kids, and act like sweet, June Cleaver housewives and allow Ward the role of warrior, wage earner, and beer can crushing He-Man, there would be no more abortion, divorce, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, etc, in other words).

    Like

  21. Piper wrote:
    “If Jesus is not empathetic to your mistreatment, you don’t need to be. If he is, no one else needs to be. He will settle.”

    If Christianity is all true and everything, I sure hope Jesus is ALWAYS empathetic to my mistreatment, and it’s not a “hit or miss” type thing.

    I sure hope that if I’m being devoured by a lion after falling into the lion enclosure at the local zoo that Jesus would care (be empathetic).

    I’d be mighty disappointed to get to Heaven after being mauled by the lion only to find out at the time, Jesus saw what was going on to me, shrugged his shoulders, yawned, and said, “Meh, that’s not a big deal. I’m just going to return to reading the Wall Street Journal and filling out the rest of today’s crossword puzzle.”

    The Bible seems to teach (Hebrews 5) that Jesus is empathetic:

    For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet he did not sin.

    And there are passages that say Jesus had empathy for suffering people:

    Mark 1:41 ASV

    And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean.

    And (from Matt 10), Jesus said:
    …29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 “So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. I missed this one: I’d like him to say this to abused spouses or ones who commit adultery. Oh, yea, I forgot – he believes in the permanence of marriage. No divorce for anyone allowed.

    Like

  23. Serious question…has Piper ever served in the military or ever tended to someone who has taken a bullet?

    Christianagnostic,

    Of course not. If Jesus isn’t empathetic to the bullet wound then Piper doesn’t need to be either. And if Jesus is empathetic to it then Piper doesn’t need to be. Jesus will take care of it.

    (My answer isn’t very serious but my point is.)

    Like

  24. @ missdaisyflower

    “I don’t see how or why seeing a woman comrade die next to them would be any more horrific than seeing a man die next to them.”

    Objectively, it is no more horrific. Subjectively, though, it *seems* more horrific, that’s all. How or why that comes about, we could be discussing for the next few weeks, before finally reaching agreement, only to find that out agreed joint statement as to how we had finally agreed to say that we thought this came about, was one that others found offensive, in entirely opposite ways. 🙂

    Like

  25. @ Julie Anne

    “How to know if you are married to the right person. Short answer: Look at the name on the marriage certificate.”

    That’s actually quite witty, don’t you think? As long as he doesn’t try to base a sermon on that one throw-away quip, or start preaching the Roman Catholic doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, isn’t it that remark fairly harmless?

    I can foresee the remark touching a raw nerve if read by a Roman Catholic who was being beaten up by his or her spouse, whose priest told him or her, “Tough, you’d be sinning if you fled from your spouse for your own safety and got divorced.” But humorous remarks are notorious for touching raw nerves, even mine. 🙂

    Like

  26. Mr. Piper evidently knows nothing of the Russian women partisans who fought and died on the Eastern front during WW2. If he did, he wouldn’t make such inane statements regarding their mettle as warriors. As snipers they were greatly feared by the Wehrmacht. Tanya Chernova and Roza Shanina (also known as: Die Weisse Hexe) come to mind.

    Die Weisse Hexe means The White Witch in German

    Like

  27. I have to say thanks for this Julie Anne. I must admit that fake piper on twitter is absolutely hilarious. Here is a gem

    “Fake Piper ‏@FakePiper 7h7 hours ago
    Sorry for my prolonged silence. I’ve been on a social media fast for 40 days after glimpsing a bare female shoulder on Facebook.”

    This one is truly profound and it hits at the heart of the matter with many of these men.
    “Fake Piper @FakePiper · 9h 9 hours ago
    If Jesus’ death drained the wrath of God, how much more should we compress our feelings of anger toward our spouse into a tight little ball?”

    Their theology does two things. Takes very complex issues and compresses them down to a sound byte or a tweet. It breeds rage, some of it is subdued beneath the grandfatherly smile of Piper or the classic passive aggressive of a MD or to some degree John Macarthur and his platitudes and assuredness on every subject. Just watch JM on Larry King when he was on a panel with deepak chopra concerning evolution, when Deepak makes more sense than you thats scary dont believe me go watch the entire dialog, it is an embarrassment but JM and his ilk were happy with back slaps all around for how the Good Pastor stood up for the troooth ™.

    Then you have the angry prophet motif such as Paul Washer Tony M etc. It is actually rather sad. But I think it stems out of their view of God and how God just hates most of us with such a passion.

    Like

  28. JA,
    There is a very good post on ACFJ written by a guest Pastor who answers Pipers “look on the marriage license” theory of marriage for anyone who is interested. He was directly speaking about JP, but about those who hold with the permanence view of marriage. He states that vows that are made with lies are not a covenant. That of course is my spin on what he said. If anyone abuses their spouse, the vows were false and there is no covenant. God will not recognize false vows. There has not always been a piece of paper called a marriage license. That is man made, not God made.

    Like

  29. John Allman,
    I find JP’s remark about looking on the marriage certificate to be offensive and not a bit of wit to it. I am not Roman Catholic but was an abused wife told that I must stay with the abusive man in a nondenominational church. It should be offensive to everyone who realizes that abuse exists. His word carries a lot of weight with a lot of people although it shouldn’t. What he says is not Biblical and as I have said previously should have his twitter account revoked. He speaks babel.

    Like

  30. Miss Daisy, your link (google it) is awesome! “ISIS [Male] Troops Terrified of Being Killed by Female Troops [Kurdish female Peshmerga fighters]”

    For such a time as this I guess.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. the first tweet is typical of these guys. second tweet really bothers me and the one that should really bother us the most.

    as usual Piper does not tell us if the person mistreating the other person is a professing Christian or not. why? because in his world it does not matter. his paradigm of Christianity is all about authority and caste systems. that is why it does not matter if the wife abuser is a professing Christian or not. he taught the very same thing on his video where he said wives should take abuse….for a season. whatever that means. I guess the authority gets to decide what a season means.

    Piper knows a different Jesus than I do.

    Like

  32. the first one doesn’t bother me that much there are plenty of secular men who have the same problem. Israeli women have been fighting for years,BTW.

    it is the second tweet I have the biggest problem with. as usual Piper does not say whether the person mistreating is a professing Christian or not. and yes it matters.

    the reason it does not matter to Piper is because his religion is one of authoity and a caste system.

    he taught this very thing in his video about wives taking abuse for a season. and in his video concerning a husband who asked his wife to have three way sex. in both scenarios all that matters to Piper was the man’s position in Pipers spiritual caste system. he simply defined Christianity for the person who was receiving the bad treatment. usually women

    this is how Pipers religion works. as a philosopher king he gets to tell us what to think. he gets to tell us what a new life in Christ looks like. and all it boils down to is obeying what he says is your authority . in all the years I have been listening and reading to him I have never seen him have concern for the bad persons behavior and their relationship with Jesus Christ.

    And there is a reason for that.

    Like

  33. @ Brenda J

    “If anyone abuses their spouse, the vows were false and there is no covenant.”

    The vows weren’t “false”, they have been *broken*.

    The problem is that the word “abuse” applies to a spectrum of behaviours, ranging from the trivial abuse that I don’t think many of us remain innocent of, to life-threatening abuse. The dividing line in secular English divorce law echoes the traditional protestant position: that the respondent’s behaviour (his “abuse”) is such that the petitioner cannot reasonable be expected to live with him.

    A spouse whose abuse is severe enough in effect to force the other spouse to leave the relationship, when the abuser cannot be brought to repentance, even with the intervention of the church on the behalf of the aggrieved, has placed himself in the same position as the unbeliever who is unwilling to live with a believing spouse of 1 Cor 7. The abused spouse, in those circumstances, is not “bound”, so he (or she) must therefore be *free* of the abusive spouse, including being free to remarry, to another believer.

    Is that what I am going to find said at the end of your link?

    I consider that Ecclesiastes 3 implies that there is a time to get divorced, and a time to seek reconciliation. Every case is unique. Not to recognise this, or to make the wrong call recklessly and then to treat the main victim as the main abuser for objecting to the main abuse when it is truly intolerable, because of a mistaken and unscriptural belief in the indissolubility of marriage, is a type of spiritual abuse. That is where I stand.

    Like

  34. @ Brenda J

    “It should be offensive to everyone who realizes that abuse exists”

    It sounds to me that your non-denominational church was influenced by the Roman Catholic doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, and because of this error, abused you spiritually. I have tried to deal with your serious point elsewhere, so I won’t repeat myself.

    If you were sure that you had the Lord’s approval, but not that of a particular church’s leaders, and there was nothing you could do about that, then you more-or-less had to walk away from that church, and find another church, didn’t you? Presumably that is what you did.

    I don’t want to abuse Julie Ann’s hospitality, by commenting too extensively here. I have recovered from past spiritual abuse that I have received, enough not to need to talk about it. I am not abusing anybody spiritually myself, so far as my conscience tells me. (I am not the leader of a church, but I do have a ministry that is like Julie Ann’s, with victims of a completely different sort of abuse.) I don’t have to make this site my *home* though.

    But I will make this one comment, on this place, which is not home to me, but which I respect, as a tolerated guest.

    It may be that the Lord has rejected certain Saul-like once-anointed leaders of His people, and anointed Julie Ann for even greater things in the future. It strikes me that a very striking biblical comparison might therefore exist between Julie Anne’s present ministry, and the phase that David went through as God prepared him for the even greater things for which he was anointed. I am referring to the time when David had escaped to the Cave of Adullam, “and everyone who was in distress … and everyone who was bitter in soul, gathered to him.” [1 Sam 22:2]

    I pray for you all here. May God bless you richly, Julie Anne and Brenda, and all.

    Like

  35. “in all the years I have been listening and reading to him I have never seen him have concern for the bad persons behavior and their relationship with Jesus Christ. ”

    This seems to be a chronic problem among a certain group of leaders. Ugh!

    Liked by 1 person

  36. @lydia00:

    the reason it does not matter to Piper is because his religion is one of authoity and a caste system.

    With himself as the highest caste of all.
    Maybe the only member of that caste.

    “SO SHALL I EXALT MY THRONE ABOVE THAT OF THE MOST HIGH!”

    Liked by 1 person

  37. “The problem is that the word “abuse” applies to a spectrum of behaviours, ranging from the trivial abuse that I don’t think many of us remain innocent of, to life-threatening abuse. The dividing line in secular English divorce law echoes the traditional protestant position: that the respondent’s behaviour (his “abuse”) is such that the petitioner cannot reasonable be expected to live with him.”

    I would highly recommend the Hebrew Scholar, David Instone Brewer of Tyndale House in London. He wrote a book that helps us understand what Jesus was referring to with the Pharisees concerning divorce (breaking vows). One reason often overlooked is “neglect” based on the fact that in that Pagan patriarchal culture a women had to have protection and provision from a man. That was one reason God allowed Polygamy. We tend to forget just how Pagan the Israelites became while in bondage and exile. God’s laws reflect the FACTS of the situation. Today a woman can seek shelter from abuse and even go to college and be independent

    I don’t do “traditional Protestant” positions on anything. Church history is an evil bloody mess. And besides the “traditional Protestant” laws also included the fact he was allowed to beat (discipline) her to a certain extent as if she was chattel and a mere child he must raise and not a partner (Ezer Kegndo). Traditional also means the governing authorities stayed out of domestic abuse. That has only changed within the last 60 years or so.

    Like

  38. “I think most of us have suffered what you mean by “spiritual abuse” at some stage, and abused others spiritually ourselves.”

    How would most of us ‘spiritually’ abuse others?. That is a strange, vague, blanket assessment based upon what? That most believers will spiritually abuse? Can you expand upon that?

    Like

  39. “How to know if you are married to the right person. Short answer: Look at the name on the marriage certificate.”

    Even arranged marriages? which still happen in some parts of the world. Especially Islamic countries.

    Like

  40. John Allman,
    There are those that recite what the minister/justice-of-the-peace or whomever is validated by the state that do not mean one word they are saying. They don’t intend to love, they intend to abuse the other person, their children or a combination of both. They intend to dominate and control. Their intentions are evil and a lie. The church more times than not enables the abuser. I have no problem agreeing to disagree. On some things we do agree. I don’t take divorce lightly, but I do not believe that all marriages should be permanent. I also do not believe that being divorced should cause the injured spouse to remain unmarried until the abusive spouse is deceased. I site the Exodus 21. I see no difference in the slave wife then and the abused wife now.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. lydia00,

    the fact he was allowed to beat (discipline) her to a certain extent as if she was chattel and a mere child he must raise and not a partner

    I had a conversation with a man on MarketWatch (of all places) a couple of days ago about this very thing. He believed that he had authority over his wife, we should go back to the days when a woman knew her place and partners were only for homosexuals and corporations. That conversation didn’t go well and all of his remarks were deleted from the site.

    Like

  42. @ lydia00

    When I used the phrase “traditional protestant position”, I meant how those protestants who have taken most seriously over the ages the idea that *scripture* is authoritative, not the pope or tradition, have interpreted scripture. I agree with that interpretation. I don’t agree with it because the interpretation is “traditional” (a bad choice of word on my part), but because that is what it strikes me that Jesus and others were actually saying, if you take all of it together.

    @ Brenda J

    I did not intend to say that *nobody* who breaks his marriage vows does so because he was insincere when he made them, only that it is possible to break vows that one meant completely sincerely when one made the vows.

    Like

  43. Who is John Piper to make the claim that GOD almighty is not empathetic about someone being mistreated. I’m starting to think this guy has lost his mind. If you evaluate him by his tweets, he has gone from being the typical reformed goob to boarder line psychopath. When a “pastor” goes to the point of being so crass about other people’s suffering or abuse, when he minimizes it to “cover” for his fellow thug “pastors” that have had incrediable abuse including children being raped occurring in their churches it’s beyond explainable for him to tweet that.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. @ lydia00

    “How would most of us ‘spiritually’ abuse others?. That is a strange, vague, blanket assessment based upon what? That most believers will spiritually abuse? Can you expand upon that?”

    Mine was a vague, blanket assessment, based upon nothing more sinister than that the “spiritual abuse” term that Julie Anne used was a vague, blanket term. 6,,

    Like

  45. @ lydia00

    “Even arranged marriages?”

    What’s wrong with arranged marriages? I think an “arranged marriage” is a pretty good description of my marriage to my late wife. We both believed that God had arranged that marriage Himself. We had good reasons to believe this.

    Like

  46. John Allman,
    What’s wrong with arranged marriages? In your case probably nothing. For many others–plenty.

    I hope you were only referring to your own marriage. I certainly hope your parents didn’t go into negotiations and your wife was not purchased for money or a goat. I hope you met before the ceremony. I am very happy for all of those couples that feel God put together and live happy yet realistic lives. By realistic I mean that no one is perfect, but work things out together when their are problems.

    My daughter has told me that if I were to ever get involved with anyone ever again, which the chances are slim and/or nil, that she would be doing the interrogation of this person, but then would give her blessing if he would pass her tests. Arranging the marriage, no.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. OK, I know I commented that maybe Piper ought to just keep away from Twitter because his ideas generally don’t package well in 140 characters, but then I just read his comment on why he doesn’t believe sexual immorality is reason for divorce….in which he uses a narrow definition of “porneia” as “fornication/premarital sex” to exclude adultery as a reason for divorce. In doing this, I’m pretty sure he (a) abandons the usual Jewish use of that word and (b) abandons the link to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Exodus 20:14, and other Torah passages about divorce. I had thought that Piper usually does better than that, my disagreement with his charismatic side aside.

    Off topic; sad news about Mars Hill. Absent Mark Driscoll, the church needs to disband. Disagree as I do with many things of and about the man, pretty sad.

    (lesson; if the church you serve probably couldn’t survive without you, maybe it’s time to stop the building programs and see about graciously dividing that church into multiple churches that can be led by a pastor of average ability?)

    Like

  48. @BikeBubba:

    Off topic; sad news about Mars Hill. Absent Mark Driscoll, the church needs to disband. Disagree as I do with many things of and about the man, pretty sad.

    That’s par for the course on Personality Cults — business, politics, or church. Once there’s no more Great Man to Worship, everything falls apart. It’s a rare cult that survives the death or departure of its founder.

    (lesson; if the church you serve probably couldn’t survive without you, maybe it’s time to stop the building programs and see about graciously dividing that church into multiple churches that can be led by a pastor of average ability?)

    Yertle the Turtle’s ego gets in the way.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. @ Brenda J

    I’ve been feeling guilty lately, about cluttering up Julie Anne’s focused SBS blog with long comments of my own that Julie Anne has been polite enough to allow to be published, even though I am long-winded, opinionated, and not somebody who defines his most distressing problem in life as the aftermath of past spiritual abuse he has suffered – least of all any abuse perpetrated by any of the American church leaders frequently berated by the Bereans here. (I don’t know them from Adam.)

    Just as bad, I also have worse problems than the memory of failed romances that have left me with baggage, especially not abusive romances that might have failed earlier but for silly suffer-in-silence-when-abused teaching that kept me romantic for an imprudently long time after I should have started making “I Will Survive” my anthem.

    Imagine, then, my dismay, upon arriving back from a night out at the pub, to find a comment of yours that required from me a non-short answer, to do the topics you’d raised justice.

    “What’s wrong with arranged marriages? In your case probably nothing. For many others–plenty.”

    You say “plenty”, but you forgot to say *what* was wrong with arranged marriages.

    “I hope you were only referring to your own marriage.”

    No, I didn’t intend my question to “refer” to my own marriage at all. Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned my marriage at all. Maybe my mentioning my own marriage didn’t help you to understand my question after all.

    I asked a more general *question*. That question was, “What’s wrong with arranged marriages?” As I say, you have told me that there is “plenty” wrong with arranged marriages. But you haven’t actually identified one single thing that is wrong with arranged marriages. If there are plenty of things wrong with arranged marriages you never got round to mentioning, the it ought not therefore to be too hard for you to think of one or two specific things that are wrong with arranged marriages.

    Foolishly, I aroused your curiosity about my more recent of my two marriages, I now therefore have to respond to your questions/speculation, to remain polite.

    “I certainly hope your parents didn’t go into negotiations”

    Well, my father had passed away before I met the second wife of mine whom I mentioned. My intended’s parents had both passed away by then too. So THEY didn’t enter into negotiations. But negotiations between parents isn’t part of my cultural background, or of my wife’s cultural background for the magtter, in which the would-be bridegroom is expected to do the necessary negotiating himself, with the intended brides parents or other elders.

    “and your wife was not purchased for money or a goat.”

    My, my, my! What a cultural imperialist you are! Are you trying to embarrass me? Fat chance! LOL!

    No, my wife was not certainly “purchased” (as you put it) for a mere goat. (Only ONE goat???!!!) She wasn’t Nigerian! Perish the thought! She was from South Africa, a Tembu, Xhosa-speaking subject of the Daliwonga (king – literally “impart dignity”) Kaiser Matanzima, who blessed our marriage at Qamata Great Place, as he had Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela’s second marriage (reportedly to a Nigerian lass – there’s no accounting for taste!)

    The lobola was negotiated between me and her son from a previous relationship, and her uncle, in *cows*, not goats. It would break an almost-sacred tabu, in my late wife’s culture, for me to tell you (or anybody) exactly how MANY “cows” I had to draw from the nearest ATM in Pretoria to get permission to wed, or how many rands that converted to, and hence how many British pounds, or US dollars my wife cost me, if I look up the exchange rates that day.

    “I hope you met before the ceremony.”

    Of course. Personally, I wouldn’t marry anybody whom I hadn’t got to know pretty well, well before the ceremony. Not even if my own late father (the loveliest patriarch in the blessed patriarchy’s dying days, my youth, whom I have ever known) recommended this. Are you confusing arranged marriages (whereby – for example – Pakistani British people who love their daughters and sons enough to want to marry them off happily, scour the social landscape for possible mates for their kids) with unlawful forced marriage?

    “I am very happy for all of those couples that feel God put together and live happy yet realistic lives. By realistic I mean that no one is perfect, but work things out together when their are problems.”

    Who could possibly criticise you for being “happy”, “for” realistic couples with such optimistic feelings? Not me!

    “My daughter has told me that if I were to ever get involved with anyone ever again, which the chances are slim and/or nil, that she would be doing the interrogation of this person, but then would give her blessing if he would pass her tests.”

    LOL! Good for her!

    “the chances are slim and/or nil”

    That’s what my late second wife and I both thought about our marriage prospects. Both admitting this in prayer only says before we met in almost *miraculous* circumstance, and accepting this dire fate, appears to be all that our adorable God was waiting for, before introducing us to one another, in His providence, by way (I like to think) of saying “I was only joking – I just needed to test you both, ascertaining that singleness was something you were willing to put up with for me, before I arranged your marriage to each other.”

    You are welcome to send me a photo, if my use of language turns you on. You never know who might take a shine to you, wrinkles and all. God wants His people to pray to Him, pouring out their heart’s desires. Of course, if you find the world depleted of good men, thus persuaded by feminism’s misandy that giving your heart to a man again would be folly, then sending photos of your less-marriageable self to strangers would be a tease that the less-marriageable male population could do without.

    “Arranging the marriage, no.”

    Don’t ***EVER*** go on a dating website then. These are the decadent residue of a centuries-old marriage arrangement industry, celebrated (with some proto-feminist irony in it) in this movie clip:

    Like

  50. The more he tweets, the more he proves himself to be an idiot and not quite the deep theologian that his followers worship him as.

    Like

  51. And I honestly think half the problem is that they guy tries to tweet 200 “relevant” tweets per day because he is the guru and people “need” to hear from him.

    One in his position cannot tweet so many thoughts in a day without letting some idiotic statements come out. Especially if you are John Piper.

    He is like the theological version of SNL’s “Deep Thoughts: By Jack Handy.”

    Like

  52. JA

    Disclaimer: SSB is no Eharmony.com

    I am so glad to hear it. Have you heard the stories of women being killed on their first date? It actually happened to a women in my area about 2 years ago. They went out for a walk after dinner and he shot her. IF, I am to meet someone, I won’t be looking on a website or asking John Piper for marriage advice. Of course, he would not allow that. I am divorced.

    Like

  53. John Allman,
    I know nothing about you other than your question about arranged marriages and when reading about the cows wasn’t sure if you were for real or a comedian. I was not intending to pry into your personal life. Being labeled an imperialist is a new one. I’ve been called many things but that is a new one. If people want someone else to tell them who to marry, far be it from me to tell them otherwise. There are still countries in South America where warring villages will practically pull a woman apart in an effort to make her their bride. The woman has no choice.

    There was a recent article of many, many couples all being wed on the same day in the same place who had never laid eyes on each other. I didn’t see any happy faces in the picture. Perhaps that is a cultural thing or maybe many if not most of these people will ever be content with their new spouse. There could be some there who loved another, but were not allowed to marry that person

    Thanks, but no thanks. I don’t like the idea of putting myself on display for possible romance, as you put it. Love is a choice each and every day. If God chooses for me to meet someone that I will love and will love me that is for Him to decide, for now I choose to remain single.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. “Disclaimer: SSB is no Eharmony.com”

    Oh, my goodness. I just read last night about an Instagram account called “Bye Felipe.” The woman posts messages that women receive from guys via dating sites. I couldn’t believe some of the creeps out there. I’m thinking I didn’t do so bad meeting my husband in a cult. 🙂

    Like

  55. BTDT.
    I couldn’t believe some of the creeps out there. I’m thinking I didn’t do so bad meeting my husband in a cult. 🙂

    That’s really bad if meeting a man in a cult is better than a dating site. I don’t even want to know what they said. The really sad part is I’ve been told it is not any better on Christian dating sites.

    Like

  56. “That’s really bad if meeting a man in a cult is better than a dating site.”

    It’s been an interesting journey, Brenda. He was raised in the cult, and I joined it at 18. So we are both have different recovery issues. When we first married, I still had my rose colored glasses on about the cult. He didn’t. I was excited to raise a family in such a “wholesome” environment . He knew exactly what really went on with the young people who grow up there, and it isn’t all good.

    He is a sweetheart. He has values and integrity, even if he isn’t very religious at the moment.

    Like

  57. BTDT,
    He sounds wonderful and I am sooooo happy for you. The words Religious and Religion sound too legalistic to me. I prefer to follow Christ and not religion, as such. Don’t get me wrong I do attend a church and stay there as I feel I can make a difference even though I don’t always agree with what certain leaders and members believe. I pray that you recover well and with the Holy Spirit in your heart.

    Like

  58. It is absolutely true that I did do “imbizo” with my fiancee’s family, in which the currency of the lobola discussed was indeed the cow. It would have been offensive of me not to. The *number* of cows was not up for negotiation. The money equivalent of a cow (given that there was nowhere to graze a real cow in a posh gated community in Pretoria) was negotiable.

    However, I did word my account in a way that I hoped would strike a humorous note. I approached the computer in tredipation today, since my attempts at late night humour after an evening at the pub are not always taken well. I am relieved at your neutral response.

    The woman you mentioned, murdered on a first date, would have been safer if her parents had arranged her first dates for her.

    Like

  59. “I pray that you recover well and with the Holy Spirit in your heart.”

    Thank you, Brenda. This has taken far more work than I ever imagined.

    I’ve been reading a recovery book that talks about the psychological and social controls that some groups (and families, and one-on-one abusers) use to manipulate people. I realize that God wasn’t the problem. He never was the problem. He isn’t the problem. But some people can inflict some serious psychological damage.

    I think the book is helping. I’m taking my 13-year-old to get her ears pierced this morning. She’s pretty excited. I am, too. I’m too stubborn to just give up.

    Like

  60. Brenda R
    OCTOBER 30, 2014 @ 12:49 PM

    We could always tell same weeping sufferers that God is a holy God and that if they are suffering, they clearly are not ‘where they ought to be in God’. They need to get their act together and repent…

    Like

  61. Chris R

    November 1, 2014 @ 1:50 PM

    I think that might be just as bad as having no empathy. I think I will stick with weeping when others weep, mourning when others mourn and be joyful the rest of the time.

    Like

  62. @ davidbrainerd2

    “Christians shouldn’t be joining the military.”

    As a child, I wondered why, when Roman soldiers came to John the Baptist requesting his baptism of repentance, and asking him what they should do, John missed the golden opportunity to tell them to inform their centurions that they had had a religious conversions, and were now therefore pacifist consientious objectors, who appealed to Caesar to discharge them from service in the Roman army, or at least to put them onto non-combatant duties.

    I also wondered why Jesus, at the least supper, asked the loyal apostles if they had any swords. They had one sword amongst the eleven of them. Jesus said that that was “enough”. Enough for what? Enough for *deterrence*, I reasoned. Jesus planned to be arrested, but for the eleven to run away, safely. He wanted them just threatening enough for those who arrested Him to think twice about pursuing the fleeing apostles, because they were (or seemed to be) armed. He later boasted to Pilate, “If my kingdom were of this world, my followers would fight for me.”

    I had been pro-CND when I read this latter bible story, after the Tories were re-elected, to my disappointment. In a moment, it was as if my eyes were opened. The election of a pro-NATO government that WASN’T going to disarm itself of nuclear weapons unilaterally, suddenly seemed like an unanswered prayer of mine that I was able to acknowledge that God was *wise* not to have answered as I had wished. Deterrence was OK after all, because Jesus used it. And, if deterrence was OK, then the deterrence had to be credible, which implied the need for an apparent willingness to wage a just, defensive war, if pushed too hard.

    A few weeks later, we were in the first just, defensive war, the first Gulf War. The Lord revealed to me that our victory would be swift, so there was no need for me to pray for my own country’s soldiers, whom he would protect. He urged instead me to pray earnestly for the enemy soldiers, that they might have revelations of Jesus, and escape with their lives. I wept for the enemy soldiers as I prayed for them in church the next morning.

    A few months later, I met somebody who had worked in a Christian Vision refugee camp in Jordan, who was amazed at my testimony, because, he said, Iraqi deserters had indeed arrived in droves at the camp, with tales of exactly such revelations, asking not just for food and shelter, but also for the gospel. I’d forgotten all about this, until you reminded me.

    Unfortunately, it cannot be said that second war against Iraq enjoyed the same divine blessing. The doves prevailed first time, and the campaign stopped short of seeking to impose regime change. The later adventure, when hawkish counsel prevailed, has led to the present chaos, including the persecution of Christians in Iraq.

    Don’t forget that the Lord is “the Lord, mighty in battle.” God as revealed in the Old Testament is certainly not a pacifist, although Jesus is the Prince of Peace. We have to hold these two biblical truths in tension.

    Like

  63. Sorry, but I doubt he would know what manhood is…I taught school in a high school East of Houston in which I broke up fights between 250 lb high schoolers on a regular basis ( Like every other day)
    I’ve rolled on the floor between knot heads fighting more than I care to think of, and you know who always was on the floor helping stop the fight? A 120 lb 5’4″ blonde female geometry teacher….she is more of a man than Piper…

    Like

  64. Do you want a face shining light like an angel, irresistible wisdom, fullnes of grace and power? Prepare to die. Stephen

    The men with white coats are coming soon.

    Like

  65. John Allman, you’ll notice I never said Christian shouldn’t defend themselves. I said they shouldn’t be joining the military. When John the Baptist told the GENTILE Roman soldiers simply to be content with their wages and not shake people down that’s because Christianity wasn’t around yet and certainly not extended to Gentiles. You’re arguing a red herring. And its laughable for anyone to claim any of the Iraq wars was “defensive” on the part of the US. Since when is the US Iraq? How is it ever defensive to go invade someone elses’ country? That’s pure hogwash. And NATO is the NWO, so its run by Satan.

    Like

  66. The first gulf war was defensive of Saudi Arabia, pursuant to treaty obligations. NATO equals the New World Order is over-simplistic. The “secret power of lawlessness” of 2 Thess 2 was already at work in the apostle Paul’s day, and has been trying ever since then to bring the global governance of the final and worst anti-Christ, from whom nobody but Jesus, on his glorious second coming, will rescue us from, according to that chapter. Is Satan working within NATO? Of course. Is NATO the only organisation or movement through which Satan is working? Not as understand his methods. I think he was working through both regimes during the Iran-Iraq war. He works in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in the US. He works through just about every major political party in the world. But Michael the restrainer is still restraining.the rebellion against God, and will continue to do so until he is taken out of the way, and the “final” rebellion is launched, and succeeds. The final “new world order” will be terrible, but it won’t last lon, according to 2 Thess 2.

    Like

  67. ‘Prepare to die’ belongs to Inigo Montoya?

    Yeah, I read the entire story, which isn’t very long RE: Stephen after I read that tweet. I don’t believe any of it had anything to do with Stephen

    Like

  68. John, if the term spiritual abuse is too vague for you and therefore you think it applies to most believers, you might want to read the book, “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” which was really the first to identify it. It might be helpful.

    Like

  69. Fake Piper missed it by THAT much–
    “Fake Piper ‏@FakePiper 7h7 hours ago
    Sorry for my prolonged silence. I’ve been on a social media fast for 40 days after glimpsing a bare female shoulder on Facebook.”
    New improved version:
    “Sorry for my prolonged silence. I’ve been on a social media fast for 40 days after glimpsing a MUSCULAR female shoulder on Facebook.”

    Liked by 1 person

  70. Fake John Piper is Jared C. Wilson. You can find him at The Gospel Coalition.

    He’s a huge fan of Piper’s, and Piper thinks it’s all so funny.

    With social media, today it’s easier than ever to take the Lord’s name in vain.

    Like

  71. Amen Carmen S…”With social media, today it’s easier than ever to take the Lord’s name in vain.” Well versed.

    In addition: “and carve idols out of celebrity preachers.” Thankfully, all authority belongs to Jesus as quoted by Him in Matthew 28:18-20.

    Like

  72. Wilson twittered out at least one offensive tweet under his own name a couple years ago. I think he was trying to be funny.

    Like

  73. I don’t think Pipers comment on combat is all that difficult and not as disparaging as many commenters are making it seem. The little phrase “if you can” is significant. Here’s the jist of it: if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, while my wife may be fully capable of handling the situation while I hide in a corner, it is far more appropriate for me, the physically stronger and the one entrusted by God with the care and protection of my family, to be the one meeting the danger head on. I’ve heard Piper say essentially “it’s not that a woman can’t do that, but it’s more appropriate for a man to bear that burden.”

    War is ugly, brutal, and violent. And it’s more appropriate for a man to bear that burden and protect what the Bible refers to as the “weaker vessel” (not less valuable, talented, or competent, mind you!) and “take the bullets” himself. So if anyone takes a bullet in a break-in in my home, if I can, I will take it and spare my wife and my daughters. Not because they couldn’t or wouldn’t, but because it’s more appropriate, given the option, for me as a husband, father, and the stronger of us, to do so. Does that make sense?

    Like

  74. Fake John Piper is Jared C. Wilson. You can find him at The Gospel Coalition.

    He’s a huge fan of Piper’s, and Piper thinks it’s all so funny.

    With social media, today it’s easier than ever to take the Lord’s name in vain.

    So what you’re saying is that Piper is getting even more publicity by all of this.

    Like

  75. Brenda R, Piper does seem to draw attention to himself, does he not? Twitter is very important in the YRR crowd. Taking the Lord’s name in vain includes anything that results in His name not being respected. Social media in all it’s forms contributes to this today, but it is our personal choice to join in with the crowd.

    Like

  76. Regarding John’s comment about John the Baptist’s response to the soldiers who wondered what they should do, “be content with your pay” (Luke 3:14) is more powerful than you might think. Soldiers’ pay at the time was official (the promise of land, daily food, money) and unofficial (a share of the plunder and rape of a city, things extorted from people while you’re living there or passing through).

    So when John the Baptist tells them to “be content with your pay”, what he’s really saying is “you will take no booty of any kind from those around you.” Get a certain portion of soldiers following that principle, and you’re going to seriously rein in the terrors of war.

    Like

  77. Bike Bubba,
    Good insight into what John the Baptist was relaying to the Roman soldiers. I know that the Bible stands on it’s own, but when we don’t realize what was going on at the time its lessons can fall on deaf ears.

    Like

  78. Joe Reed,

    I don’t disagree with all of your comment but think you totally misunderstand Piper. I know many secular men who would rather women not have to fight wars. But with technology and fewer front lines, I see that attitude changing more and more.

    However, you totally misunderstand Piper. And I wonder if you have enough experience listening to him and reading him? I know I have for the last 15 or so years when some of my family went to study and work with him and came back so totally changed (and not for the better) we were devastated. They were insufferable.

    Think about Piper for a moment and what he teaches concerning women. It would take days to go through it all. Women should not give driving directions that might make it look like they are “teaching or leading men”. Women cannot read scripture aloud in mixed worship and so on. Wives should take abuse for a season and so on and on. I won’t even get into the horrible scholarship he and Grudem put out there concernign something as benign as Junia. These men have an agenda and are willing to lie to promote it.

    Now, let us look at Piper personally. If he weights 100 lbs I would be surprised. he is a tiny man. Very short. Now, logically, if there were an issue where “brute force” were needed for defense, the chances of it being Piper are very slim. JA is tall as am I. If the building were burning down, either one of us would have to save Piper. But he could not save us. See his problem?

    Now, if you add a gun to a dangerous situation, the genders automatically beome equal in defensive positions. So Piper has to make such things a “spiritual” distinction and gender caste system. (He never seems to acknowledge Jael. :o) Penis’ rule, vaginas submit. That is basically his theology. It is Phallocentristic Christianity and he is obssessed with it. As was Driscoll and Mahaney. A lot of those guys are obssessed with it but many have emulated Piper.

    Piper’s personal problem has become his doctrine. He needs what he teaches to be true for his own self worth.

    If you have heard him use “gender role” examples from his sheltered and lonely childhood, you might understand him better. My mom used to always warn me that whatever pet issue a pastor is constantly focused on— is usually his personal problem.

    Like

  79. Lydia, one might argue that with firearms, most women are slightly superior to men because (a) they don’t make as many mistakes since they don’t think they’re John Wayne and (b) they’re generally a smaller target that doesn’t seek out conflict as much.

    “As a rule”, of course. And of course when it comes to soldiering instead of basic self-defense, there are any number of other things that are convolved that I won’t get into.

    But that aside, Patton’s quote comes to mind; “No bast**d ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bast**d die for his country.” The point of just war is not in effect suicide. It is victory followed by a just treaty for both sides. And that’s the primary difference I’ve got with that tweet of Piper’s.

    Like

  80. Do you want a face shining light like an angel, irresistible wisdom, fullnes of grace and power? Prepare to die. Stephen

    The men with white coats are coming soon.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s