John Piper, Sexy Stones and Political Stones? Help!!!

IMG_5856John Piper does it again. A recent tweet from John Piper has me scratching my head. I need an interpreter, please!

76 comments on “John Piper, Sexy Stones and Political Stones? Help!!!

  1. I think he’s referring to the public criticism of Trump and his cohorts. The Christian right is having to double down on the justification of their vote. That’s my take, anyway. Not trying to be political here, just saying how I read it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. He has a long history of tweeting very odd tweets. They leave you hanging, not quite sure what he’s talking about, and frequently, the topic of sex is included.

    Like

  3. Falene is probably right. The first thing I thought of is he’s reminding the faithful that God can raise up a chosen leader from stones that are wealthy, sexually immoral, or politcal and make them precious. In other words, Trump. And, Piper is definitely stoned!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The first thing I thought of is he’s reminding the faithful that God can raise up a chosen leader from stones that are wealthy, sexually immoral, or politcal and make them precious.

    You’ve got to have some a level piper deciphering skills to make that make sense!

    I would never refer to trump as ‘sexy’ though. So I can’t quite jump on that interpretation.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. As the head of the organization, Piper can tweet anything he wants, and his staff have to put up with it. It’s got to be embarrassing for them.

    When your leader writes nonsensical tweets and you say nothing, then you either have to justify it somehow, sweep it under the carpet, or slowly remove yourself from it.

    Although he seems to have a lot of ridiculous tweets, only a few have been truly harmful, like the one outing underground Christians in the Middle East (which was wisely deleted).

    Liked by 1 person

  6. and the nominee for the weirdest tweet of 2017 goes to The pride piper for ….

    This is one very strange man. Prediction: someday he will get caught in some bizzare sexual escapade. He reminds me of Jack Schaap, always coming up with weird little sexual comments and stores. Someday his wife will come home early and catch him playing dress up or something . You can just see it coming.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Lee, yeah, the “sexy” term doesn’t quite fit, but maybe it’s Piper’s way of saying sexually immoral. It’s not just Piper deciphering skills, but evangelical ones too. Having been one for 25 years, I’m taking my best stab at it. They are in the habit of taking scripture verses and stretching them to suit their abusive and political goals.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. The first time I heard Piper I saw he was a quack. A little while later I told someone in my family he wasn’t right and got reprimanded about how one of his books blessed her so much…there was no convincing her. New Calvinism has been a blight on Christianity.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. “Prediction: someday he will get caught in some bizzare sexual escapade. He reminds me of Jack Schaap, always coming up with weird little sexual comments and stores. ”

    This!

    The man is a full-blown misogynistic pervert. He is consumed with sex. Woman make him very insecure with his feeble manhood. It is very important to this group of creepy men to convince people they know about sex. Their fourteen-year-old boy rhetoric about sex and women is so obnoxious and juvenile. No wonder they preach women can’t leave them, no woman in her right mind would want to be married to a fourteen-year-old child.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Jesus meant God could raise up biological children (jews) of Abraham from the stones…so I guess Piper means Wealthy Jews, Sexy Jews, Political Jews, and Precious Jews. Maybe Piper is including Arabs also.

    New Calvinism’s expository teaching in a nutshell.

    Like

  11. And gallstones and kidney stones! (sorry, couldn’t resist….maybe Piper’s point was to get us thinking and have fun?)

    I wouldn’t make too much of his references to sex, though, as Piper, agree or disagree with him, has an interesting theory called “Christian hedonism” where he suggests God is glorified in how we enjoy Him, and that extends to how we enjoy the good gifts He gives us. Like sex.

    Schaap is quite different, as his preaching (e.g. “polishing the shaft”) tried to push people away from sex while doing things that are clearly sexual. It was as if he was trying to get caught doing something perverse, or perhaps figure out just how far he could go before someone would deal with him. And, of course, he did.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I’ll go with Falene’s answer. Probably Donald and Ivanka (or maybe it’s Melania). If it’s not specific like that, I would expect it to be just general babbling, like trying to say that God can work even through the horrible societal situation of money sex and power. But… that would be too encouraging, so guessing it’s the first answer.

    Like

  13. I wonder if Piper’s God is capable of raising up those same self-glorifying stones when a Democrat is “raised up by God” — because, according to Piper’s Calvinism, God has predetermined and brings about all that occurs, including when Democrats are elected, including Planed Parenthood, including Supreme Court Justices who insist that Gay Marriage is not unconstitutional, etc. We typically don’t see those contextualized tweets from him, though. Just stuff that crosses my mind. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Thank-you Christianity Hurts for your observation. I totally agree with you. I call Piper the “SS Wacko” for his submission and sex rhetoric. As stated before, I used to listen to this individual’s preaching several times a week via the internet, believing he was teaching sound doctrine. Then one day I woke up and discovered this individual is an utter fruitcake; the fruits of his doctrine didn’t line up with what I was reading and understanding from my Bible.

    Looking at Luke 3:8, “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘ We have Abraham as our father.’ For I (John, the son of Zacharias, speaking here) say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”

    I’m sorry, but I don’t see any of the stones Piper mentioned in his bizarre twitty tweet, let alone sexy stones? Why is he so focused on sex, sex, and more sex, like many celebrity pastors in this day and age. If we’re not hearing “wives be submissive to your husbands” on a constant basis, we’re hearing the sex word associated with every Scripture inspired by God, the Holy Spirit. And I think I’m leaning towards the verse that precedes the one Piper quoted, that could very well describe Piper himself.

    Luke 3:7 “Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”

    Let’ see here, how does Luke 3:7 pertain to sex?

    Sorry, folks, but I believe Piper is one of those viper voices, making money off of our LORD. Time for him to go and find a real job and leave our faith in Jesus alone, keeping his sex/sexy rhetoric to himself.

    My life is full to overflowing with joy, now that I don’t listen to this SS guy. Alleluia and Amen!

    Liked by 1 person

  15. In my opinion it sounds like he is trying to say “all different kinds of people” with that bizarre collection of phrases. But his metaphor choices for, basically, all of us, is offensive, nonsensical, inappropriate and (one could go on with adjectives). Also it is really unkind of him (imho) to put God’s people (the stones raised up to worship God) in little stereotyped, one-dimensional, shallow boxes like that. If he was trying to make some kind of political statement, i have no idea what that would be referring to. It’s been 8 years+ and I’m still horrified at “endure abuse for a season”….

    Like

  16. I was afraid of my father growing up. I never respected the self-worshipping mother abusing thug. Infantile thugs are not respectable. And that is what this group of men are, bratty little thugs.

    These sadistic cretins that get a thrill out of physically, emotionally, and sexually terrorizing their kids belong in prison. I always knew my hyper-conservative Southern Baptist father was an embarrassing POS. He needed trapped, @ss kissing, self-hating slaves to kick around to feel better about his odious self.

    “He’s basically giving fathers free reign on abusing their families.”

    What these men are too selfish and oblivious to understand is that some of their children can grow up, become atheist and tell the world what childish, thuggish, nightmares Christian fathers are. And how Christian fathers suck. I wish I never knew my self-worshipping thug Christian father.

    Like

  17. John Piper, with all his bizarre talk of wealthy, sexy, political stones, has epically failed to mention the only “STONE” worthy to be proclaimed. Piper’s thoughts and teachings are centered on the fleshly things of this world, just like the chief priests and Pharisees of old, and the fruit is rotten.

    Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
    “‘The STONE the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;
    the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?

    “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [the chief priests and the elders] and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

    Matthew 21:42-43 (NIV)

    Liked by 1 person

  18. This most recent post from Piper is actually from an much earlier sermon according to the credits at the end of the post. It is SO totally creepy and revolting!! “That’s why little babies have fat bottoms.” He just seems to be chortling with glee about physically abusing children and how it should be such a blessing in a father/child relationship. I chose not to listen to the “message”–reading it was bad enough!! What was wrong with people that they sat and listened to such puerile maunderings?

    Like

  19. “What was wrong with people that they sat and listened to such puerile maunderings?” Sexual sadism.

    There is a culture of conservative Christians that get a thrill out of women and children being trapped, sexually, emotionally, and physically demeaned, used and abused. I grew up with them. This gross group is the reason I am an atheist now. They belong in prison, but they have decided Christianity tells them they have a right as father and husband to do whatever turns-them-on to their wives and children.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. John the Baptist made that statement to denounce Jewish nationalism. The Jews were so smug about their heritage, and John made the stones analogy to put them in their place.

    do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

    Christian nationalists should take that to heart. I don’t think John The Baptist would think very much of “God Bless America” or the American Evangelicals’ patriotic fervor. Some commenters have alluded to the election of Donald Trump. Without Christian nationalism, there is no Donald Trump.

    And Piper is using this verse to justify or tacitly endorse the election of Trump?

    Jesus came to build a GLOBAL faith community called The Church that transcends national, racial, political, and class barriers. Christian nationalists should look for another religion.

    Like

  21. be the kind of father that your children delight to fear.

    I am SO blessed to have had a father I never feared. Maybe I’ll slip something extra into his fathers day card this year. Sheesh.

    I am God to my children…

    Wow.

    Like

  22. Contrast Piper’s comments with the George Strait song we were listening to the other day: It’s a love without end, amen.

    (obviously he’s referring to good fathers, and our heavenly father, but speaks in term so love not fear. There is SO much wrong with this article I want to quote all of it and scream but I will just say it’s probably good Piper didn’t have girls, if I’m reading right? Or did that just ensure that he never had any young women around to give him perspective.)

    Like

  23. I have not seen John Piper ever “trembling” in the presence of God, our Father, but rather acting as an arrogant spokesperson for a god of his own making. Is it possible that he believes he is a god of some sort?

    Song of Joy, you are correct! False prophets and teachers always leave out the One who saves, Jesus, in pointing people to themselves and their own words of vain and gain. It’s as though John Piper actually believes Jesus was a wealthy man, an influential politician as well as sexy in appearance. Where does he come up with this stuff?

    John Piper’s post was disturbing and no one, and I mean no one, should be following this individual’s teachings. I have a difficult time calling John a man, for I see a coward in our midst, not a real Biblical man.

    Like

  24. “You are playing God here. “You are representing me there,” God says. ”
    Uh, no.
    And this stones comment – Piper has pastored for 30 years; has he never read the whole passage?
    Sheesh. Can we just put Piper in a rock quarry and let him spend the rest of his days sorting the stones …… wealthy stones, sexy stones, political stones, precious stones.
    Did anyone notice that he made no reference to wise stones?

    Like

  25. @JA: “Read this latest post at Desiring God by Piper:”

    This is the Neo-Calvinist caricature of God. Christian leaders, fathers and husbands have to lead using fear and intimidation. Why? Because the Bible talks about how holy and just God is and how intimidating he is.

    But, that’s a half-truth. I think the Prodigal Son is Jesus explaining the character of the father. The son takes his godly inheritance – the wonderful things the father had given him, and wastes it on the trappings of the world. Now, where is the father here? Is the father following him around whipping him? Is the father sending drunk friends and prostitutes his way so that the hard times come? No! The father is patiently waiting. When the son comes back, the father runs to greet him and restores his place in the family. The father doesn’t in his “holiness and justice” beat the son.

    This is the rampant legalism found in the Neo-calvinist church. We WERE objects of God’s wrath. God’s discipline is meant to show us his love and draw us to him, not in fear, but in love. My path from legalism to grace was not pleasant discipline, but I think God used that discipline to open my eyes to him as a close and loving father, rather than a cold, harsh, angry disciplinarian. I was drawn from fear to love, rather than to fear.

    I’ve come to realize that my biggest issue in my upbringing was the utter lack of value. The only time I could be sure to get attention was when I did something wrong. Other than that I was completely ignored. If I brought home straight A’s, nothing, but if I brought home a D, I got a lecture. Then the church taught, if I did well, it really wasn’t me it was Christ through me. If I sinned, though, that was just my real self coming out.

    I’m still trying to figure out how to discipline my kids in a way that shows that I love and value them, and that they are nothing less in my eyes because of some wrong they’ve done.

    I find it revealing that there are two? verses in Proverbs that talk about physical discipline compared to probably hundreds that talk about instruction, and yet Neo-Calvinists focus on physical discipline as the core component of Christian parenting.

    Like

  26. Mark ,Neo-Calvinits are hell-bent on topics of sin, even using “glorious” in front of wrath, etc. They pride themselves on being the worst sinner. It’s bizarre. May the one with the most and harshest trials win!

    Like

  27. Mark, I’ve always been interested in what the bible says about the prodigal sons brother and I think it’s kind of similar to Martha. Two people trying to do all the right things and then watching their sibling do, well, in the prodigals sons case the actual wrong thing, and in Mary’s case just not what Martha thought she should do. And their reactions. And their gentle reproof for trying to control the other.

    I always identified with both of them a little. I get their perspective. Maybe they were the ‘responsible stones’ lol!

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Christianity hurts,

    Jesus never asked us to believe in men, in fact the bible says the opposite in many places e.g., “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.” Jesus is asking you to believe in him. I’m sorry for your experience, I have quite a story myself… I have found if you look at any man you will be disappointed sooner or later. When judging a religion don’t look to the followers look to the founder. Since Christ made claims no other has made about being the only way etc. Logically that would be the place to start because if found to be true a person can rule out the others.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. @David C: “John the Baptist made that statement to denounce Jewish nationalism”

    Another component of Neo-Calvinism is a sort of micro-hermeneutic. That is, if we can slice scripture enough to make our point, we are correct. For example… Acts 6 is commonly used as the creation of the office of deacon. The entire argument hinges on one word in one verse that seems to be said in exasperation. “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.” (2b). The word serve is the same root as deacon, so therefore, this MUST be talking about the office of deacon. Through similar micro-hermeneutical arguments, the church’s spiritual and physical needs are parceled out to be the responsibility of the elders and deacons, respectively.

    As with Piper’s “stone” quote, I find that Neo-Calvinists often miss the forest for the trees. Piper seems to be using an anti-nationalistic quote to promote a message of nationalism. In the same way, Acts 6 isn’t talking about “oops, we ran out of food today. We need to have food managers!” It’s talking about overt, rampant racism. The racist Jews were making sure the Jews were taken care of and the Gentiles were ignored. This was no physical problem, but a spiritual problem, and that is why the solution was to elect seven GENTILE (presumed by their Greek names) leaders to be responsible for resolving the racism. Could you imagine some Neo-Calvinist church having concerns about racism and then electing seven black elders to make sure it was resolved?

    Liked by 1 person

  30. @JA: “They pride themselves on being the worst sinner.”

    Jeff Crippen had a great phrase, “redemption by suffering” that characterized the modern Evangelical church’s legalism. The idea that somehow the suffering we endure for our own sin becomes merit in the eyes of God seems to reflect that well.

    @Lea: re: Martha and the brother

    I think that’s very insightful. The brother and Martha thought they were doing the right thing because they were busy going through the motions. I think in the case of the Prodigal Son, the brother refuses correction – he never loved the father but he wanted to look like the good son and get the inheritance. I think Martha just needed a little bump. I think Jesus is saying the same thing. If you love me, come here, sit and let’s talk. Mary gets it and you don’t. You think that I’m somehow impressed by you being the quintessential host and you want me to push Mary into your delusion. You’re wrong.

    I grew up learning that the tithe was “God’s money”. No matter what the circumstance, we were to give God his money first. One of the anecdotes was “that” family. They were living paycheck to paycheck, and one payday, they decided they weren’t going to tithe. That week their car broke down and the bill came almost exactly to the amount that they would have tithed.

    Now, what I learned was that God was disciplining the family for “stealing” his money and that, if they had obeyed, their car would not have broken down. But, at some point I questioned that. What if God was graciously saying, “this week, you need this money more than I do! You can pay me back later.” Which family has the better idea of God at the end of the week? The one who is afraid that any screwup will result in some catastrophe, or the one who sees God as graciously intervening so that they had the money to fix their car when they needed it?

    Like

  31. Ah, see I think the prodigal sons brother loved his father just fine, he just felt unappreciated. His brother screws up, comes home in disgrace and gets a party. Not screwing up = No party.

    (*also the prodigal son had already gotten his inheritance, so I don’t think it was about money)

    Like

  32. I think the problem is that he should have been happy about his brother but couldn’t get past thinking about himself.

    But I still get it.

    Like

  33. That link to Piper’s sermon was disturbing. Piper makes the claim that fathers are God’s representative to their children. That is heretical and idolatrous, right along with teaching that claims that the husband represents Christ to his wife.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Lea, yeah, I’m probably reading too much into it.

    Roscuro. All authorities represent God, IMO, but the problem is the form of that representation. In Neo-Calvinism, each representative become a de facto priest, meaning that direct access to God is blocked and instead we approach the intermediary.

    For example, in patriarchal churches, the church leaders serve the heads of households and the heads of households serve their wives and children.

    In patriarchal churches, those “under” authority are not allowed to determine for themselves what is appropriate/not appropriate. Unless it is clearly sin, I must obey, and if it is indeed sin, somehow that sin is put on the representative. It’s akin to the “Divine Right of Kings”.

    You can see that this quickly gets perverted into patriarchal parenting being essentially removing any concept of self from the child, so that the child obeys all authority without question. For sons, the father eventually transitions that authority to the church leaders, and for daughters, the father transitions that authority to a future husband. So, even as a 35yo father, I was still expected to blindly submit to the church leadership. Unless I was a pastor, there was always some authority for me to blindly obey.

    Like

  35. @Mark,

    That is very insightful. “Verse by verse expository” teaching does exactly that. The idea behind it is to leave no stone unturned (no pun intended), but in reality, after slicing and dicing the Word into mindless minutiae, preachers put them back together to construct dogmas built around their agendas. They always use the verse that says to “rightly divide the word of truth” to justify expository preaching, but I no longer think the verse means what they say it means. Maybe you can post your take on that verse.

    Speaking of verse by verse preaching, can anyone find a verse by verse sermon on Ezekiel 16:49-50? Been looking everywhere for it, but can’t find it. It clearly spells out the reasons why God punished Sodom.

    “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”

    The language is so clear. You can put them in bullet points. Evangelical preachers love bullet points, don’t they?

    arrogant
    overfed
    unconcerned
    did not help the poor and needy
    haughty
    detestable things

    Where is homosexuality on the list? I suppose the 6th can be interpreted as homosexual acts, although detestable things can be many things. But it’s the last one on the list. BTW, John Pier, if you are reading this, #5 is HAUGHTY, not naughty.

    From the archive of John MacArthur’s sermons, the only thing I could find was just a reference to “detestable things” in verse 50 in one of his anti-gay rants. He says nothing of the other 5 reasons listed. Selectivity much?

    So works like this.

    not homosexuality
    not homosexuality
    not homosexuality
    not homosexuality
    not homosexuality
    6. detestable things. STOP THE PRESSES. SODOM IS ALL ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  36. David C, I realize this question wasn’t to me yet It made me think of Chuck Smith’s teaching on Sodom.

    “What was the sin of Sodom? The Lord in looking at it looks behind it, and He said it was:

    pride, [it was] fullness of bread [prosperity], the abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters, and neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy (Eze 16:49).

    So this is God’s indictment against Sodom. The reason why Sodom was judged: pride, prosperity, idleness, and no concern for the poor and the needy. Now, these conditions of pride and prosperity and idleness of time. Men began to look for things to fill in their idle time. And in looking for things to fill their idle time, they began to indulge themselves and their flesh. And having run the gamut of kinky flesh and not finding any satisfaction, only a greater lust, they began to burn in their lust for each other. And that horrible condition in which we find Sodom when the angels of the Lord came and were staying in the house of Lot and the men of the city began to knock on the door saying, “Open unto us and send out those men that came into your house that we may know them.” And Lot went to the door and said, “Go away, don’t do this evil unto these men. Behold, I have a couple of daughters that are virgins, I’ll turn them over to you. But don’t do this evil to these men.” And they said, “You’re a stranger. You come to live with us, and now are you gonna judge us?” And they were going to grab him, and the angels said to Lot, “Stand back.” And they smote the men with blindness so that they wearied themselves of trying to find the door. And they said, “Get out of here.”

    But you see, behind this scene there was the pride, there was the prosperity, there was the idleness of time. Now, these are the conditions that produced this blatant demonstration of these homosexual men. It was because of this kind of an environment they felt the bravado to parade publicly. When the conditions of a nation become so corrupt and immoral that men of this character feel a forwardness in expressing themselves publicly and begin to parade in public demonstrations, you know that you are at the end of the rope. The next thing is judgment. And as I see the things that are happening in the United States, San Francisco, Hollywood, Washington, D.C., I realize that the cup of God’s indignation is about to overflow, and America will be judged of God.”
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/smith_chuck/c2000_Eze/Eze_016.cfm

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Q, what a creative way to twist the passage beyond recognition.

    “They are in the habit of taking scripture verses and stretching them to suit their abusive and political goals.”

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Q,

    I just threw up a little. I’ve had my share of arrogance, overeating and overspending, but even while indulging in those things, I have never felt ghey. Not even for a nano-second.

    And as I see the things that are happening in the United States, San Francisco, Hollywood, Washington, D.C., I realize that the cup of God’s indignation is about to overflow, and America will be judged of God.”

    “San Francisco, Hollywood, Washington, D.C”. But not Alabama. Hahaha.

    “America will be judged by God.” I just threw up more.

    There is not a single verse in the New Testament that supports the notion of God judging nations. Certainly in the Old Testament, God did judge nations, but in the New Testament, it is about the catholic (small c) Church that transcends nations. Today’s nation state model bares little to no resemblance to the nations in the Old Testament. Besides, today, you can’t just get some people together and call yourselves a nation. You have to run it by the United Nations for recognition, and Christians hate the UN.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. I’ve heard good verse by verse expository, which is usually around trying to understand what the scripture says, and I’ve heard bad, which is primarily taking the verse and relating it to some hobby horse. I had a pastor who took every passage and somehow related it, verse by verse, to Rushdoony’s post-mil Christian Reconstruction theology.

    I would say that “Sodom” might be something like “Rahab”. For some reason Rahab is code for Egypt in the Old Testament. I’m wondering if “Sodom” is code for Israel. If that’s the case, then, specifically “detestable things before me” would be the cult prostitution and child sacrifice done in the name of God.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. @Mark, great point about “detestable things before me.” So it refers to sinful acts done at the altar out in the open, not secret acts of sin. It takes lots of mental gymnastics and contortions to tie that phrase to homosexuality.

    Like

  41. Not saying it does, just saying it might…

    I think the account of the angels visiting Abraham and then Lot shows the difference in hospitality. There were no hotels and no restaurants, so the expectation of hospitality was to feed those who were traveling. It’s not that Abraham recognized these men as God and angels – instead they were visitors that Abraham treated just like any other visitors – by feeding them and talking with them.

    On the other hand, the angels visit Sodom, and the town seems uniquely inhospitable. Lot rescues them from the town square (where they should have found food, water and care) and provides for them himself. When the town finds out what happened, instead of thanking Lot for his hospitality, they are offended that his taking care of them is his own personal judgment against the town.

    But, we’re probably in danger of getting kicked into the off topic dungeon 🙂

    Like

  42. Q, interesting that despite all of the cult prostitution, idleness, prosperity and blatant homosexuality of Roman-occupied Jerusalem, it was the Pharisees that Jesus always seemed to be really angry with.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Hi, Pastor John here. Oh, my–it all depends on what stones means. It’s the masculine feels of male headship symbolized by those male seed-producing parts. And there’s complementarisnism even among male headship feels. I feels threatened by muscular women. This is represented by sexy stones and precious stones. My former friend pastor Mark, OTOH, feels threatened by less muscular men, represented by wealthy stones and political stones. (explains why he wants to punch their faces or go ‘old testament’ on them.) I’ll leave you with this from the Mars Hill archives:
    “None of the guys knew what was going on. All they knew was Pastor Mark had just called an all-church meeting at the Paradox with just the men. When they showed up, they were told to take two stones, sit down, shut up, and start reading 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Then Pastor Mark took the stage—and started to yell.”
    Some bitter unmanly men slanderously claim these guys should have told HIM to sit down and shut up.
    I hope this is helpful,
    Hedonistically yours,
    Brother John

    Like

  44. Re: Sodom

    As pointed out by other commenters, the sins of Sodom were many.

    In the story of the angels and Lot and the men of Sodom, I believe that the biggest sin of the men of Sodom was violence. We’re not talking about a sexual act between two consenting adults. Nor are we talking about the mere absence of hospitality, although hospitality was a very big deal in that culture. We are talking about the attempted gang rape of two innocent travelers.

    I’m not saying that homosexuality is OK, I’m just saying that homosexuality is not what made Sodom such a horrible, wicked place.

    Imagine if it had been two female angels who were sent to warn Lot. Imagine if the men of Sodom had tried to gang rape two female angels. Would that have made them any less evil?

    Liked by 2 people

  45. I forgot:

    Stoney End
    Stone Love (The post Diana Ross Supremes)
    I’m not Your Steppin’ Stone
    Would You Lay With Me in a Field of Stone – Tanya Tucker

    Jokes aside…. this is one dufus tweet.

    Like

  46. @The Wary Witness,

    I think you are completely spot on. In Christian culture, we take the least path of resistance to blame the most stigmatized group of people for all society’s ills and throw them under the bus. For centuries, homosexuals took the brunt of Christian bigotry. Now the Muslims are the new gays.

    In Israel, the Samaritans were the easiest target for the Jews. Jesus stood up for them every time even though the Samaritans were far from being model citizens. Jesus used the Samaritan as the hero of the landmark “The Good Samaritan” parable while portraying the Jewish pillars of society as spineless weasels. He did so to purposely get under the skin of the religious elite and to expose their bigotry. He might as well have signed his own death warrant.

    In my 20-30 years in the Evangelical wilderness, I was never taught the aspect of the parable regarding the Samaritan’s “otherness.” Jesus’ message was a lot more nuanced than just about being a good guy. Who would disagree with the idea of helping someone in need? But a Samaritan being much better at being a good neighbor? Nobody would buy that.

    Like

  47. John Piper, Sexy Stones and Political Stones?

    Just read that title again and thought “Is he gushing over Trump or something?”
    (And once thought, the image cannot be un-thought… “O Stone so Sexy and Political, Beat Me, Whip Me, Make Me Write Bad Checks to Thy Campaign”…)

    Like

  48. @ClareRobertson:
    I see your Neil Diamond and raise you one Bob Dylan:

    (I’m in a very weird mood this morning. Who needs drugs when there’s sleep deprivation?)

    Like

  49. Kathi wrote, “Oh, Pastor John, you are priceless”
    Not to mention precious, and of course sexy.

    Like

  50. “Does anyone else remember his Peeping Tom tweet?”
    How could I forget?
    Put this together with the supposedly hypothetical man asking a woman for directions in her Back yard, and…

    Like

  51. Yip, sex on the mind, this “godly.” Calvinist lot. How many more times must they prove it before we see it? Perverts, IMO. All of them, IMO.

    Like

  52. “There is not a single verse in the New Testament that supports the notion of God judging nations”

    Um let’s see:

    Jerusalem 70 AD anyone?
    The Book of Revelation has God judging the wicked nations of the world

    So yes the NT has God judging nations.

    Like

  53. When a mediocre man is surrounded for decades by sycophants who preach of his greatness, this is what you get. He’s not clever enough to realize he’s not clever. So we get these pathetic tweets.

    Liked by 1 person

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