Piper’s debilitating fear of saying “no” to women.

John Piper wrote in Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice:

If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.

Piper is very clear in the above linked article, as he is here and here, that it is cowardly for men to allow women to protect them.

But combat isn’t the only place we arm women and give them the job of protecting us.  In fact, most combat (while hopefully focused on advancing our national interests) is not about directly protecting our borders or our civilians.  To protect civilians we have police, not the military.  Surely if it is cowardly for a man to allow a woman who wants to be like men to go into combat, it is at least as cowardly for a man to give a woman a gun and a badge with the obligation to come and protect him should he face danger.

Women as police should in fact bother Piper all the more because he rejects the idea of using force to protect himself and his family from criminals. In Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?  Piper asks if as a Christian man he is permitted to shoot someone who is attacking his wife.  As Steven Wedgeworth at The Calvinist International explains, Piper dances around the issue, but the thrust of his argument is that a man should not defend his wife with violence in such a situation.

The most shocking part of Pr. Piper’s essay is, as we have said, his 8th point. He offers up a common situational dilemma faced by Christians looking into the question of the appropriate use of force. He says, “A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, ‘Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?’” He then goes on to give 7 aspects to an answer which amounts to an unclear and qualified negative. We won’t quote these answers in full (you should read them for yourself), but they amount to an argument that bearing witness to Jesus precludes the use of deadly force.

Wedgeworth reinforces this later in his article:

Piper is answering a question about how a man should care for his wife, and by extension his children, by pointing the man towards self-sacrifice and martyrdom.  But self-sacrifice is not the issue in question, and the man is not actually justified in sacrificing other people in the name of his own love for Christ. One does not love their neighbor by imposing martyrdom upon their neighbor during times of crisis.

This is not hyperbole from Wedgeworth.  While Piper is circumspect in his Arm Themselves article linked above, he is much more open in his article Guns and Martyrdom.  There Piper explains that one of the many reasons he does not own a gun is because this would interfere with his plan of allowing a man who breaks into his home to kill him.  Piper’s reasoning is that he is ready for heaven, but a man who would murder him (and his family) is not.

In Arm Themselves however Piper does leave open the possibility of calling the police should someone attack himself or his wife.  Piper believes a husband shouldn’t defend his family with violence, but he isn’t above calling upon someone else to do so.  This brings us back to women as police.  If Piper won’t defend himself and his family, and instead will call someone else to do so, what if that someone else is a woman?  Surely this is the very cowardice Piper and other complementarians complain so loudly about.  This raises the question, would Piper tell women they should not become police officers?

Clearly this creates a complementarian dilemma.  He can either accept a scenario where he would call a woman to defend himself and his family (something by his own criteria which would make him a terrible coward), or he can say no to a woman who wants to usurp a man’s role.  It is hard to imagine which would be more terrifying to a complementarian, but in Piper’s case at least we know the answer.  In Should Women Be Police Officers? Piper responds to a woman who asks if this is an appropriate role for a complementarian woman.

Beth writes in, “Hi Pastor John! I’m a woman who enjoys being a woman. I have no desire to be a man, or to compete to be better than men at being masculine. For a couple of years now, I have felt drawn to police work as a vocation. I am unmarried and, should I become married and my husband object, I would discontinue work as a police officer. At this point my question is a question of principle: Can a single Christian woman, who is a complementarian, become a police officer?”

Piper opens by explaining that his goal is not to tell her what she should do, and then reinforces this by claiming that he is unwilling to tell a woman that any particular job should be out of bounds:

I love Beth’s spirit and I hope I can be of help without telling her what she should do.

Now in the home, the Bible makes plain that these definitions imply a leadership role for men that bear the burden of loving and leading the wife like Christ, and that in the church that men bear the responsibility to lead the church as elders. But what about outside the church in thousands of possible roles that men and women may fill in society? My sense is that it is unwise to make a list of women’s jobs and men’s jobs. There is simply too much diversity and too much flexibility in how many jobs there are and how the jobs are done and what the very relationships with men or women are in all the various jobs. It just won’t work to try to make a list like that.

Keep in mind that if telling a woman no wasn’t terrifying to a complementarian, this would be an extremely easy question.  Piper is deeply convicted that:

  1. The police have the unique role in our society of applying violence in the protection of men like himself and his family.
  2. Women should not be placed into roles where they would in the ordinary performance of their duties be expected to protect others, especially men, through violence.

It is only the deep rooted fear of saying no to a woman that makes this in any way hard, especially since in this case of the woman clearly is open to a “no” answer.  When complementarian heavyweights like Piper punt on the incredibly easy questions, it demonstrates that we can’t expect them to be capable of handling even moderately difficult questions without likewise caving in to fear.

 

This entry was posted in Chivalry, Complementarian, Dr. John Piper, Guns, Military, The only real man in the room, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to Piper’s debilitating fear of saying “no” to women.

  1. Absolutely LOVE the hypocrisy and contradictions that Dalrock always points out among modern Churchians TERRIFIED to say “no” to a woman. This is, in fact, the entire problem we face today as a society.

    –Loss of morality and value of life? Some women want abortions at 28 weeks. We CANNOT say “no” so go right ahead and flush that baby down the sink.

    –Excessive health care costs? A woman may have aborted her last 4 babies at 28 weeks but NOW SHE DECIDED she wants to keep this one when it is born premature at 27 weeks. We CANNOT say “no” so lets go ahead and spend $4,000,000.00 to save a brain dead baby! Yah for technology.

    –Marriage strike? Women can ride the Cock Carasol for years and we don’t DARE say “no” to them. Then she should be able to settle down with a Beta, turn off the sex spigot the day after the wedding and turn into an unpleasant (sex deprived) harpy. Just don’t tell them “no.” You patriarchal shitlord!

    –Men committing suicide? Women want to leave for cash and prizes and it doesn’t matter how many families are destroyed or how many men die, the important thing is that we NEVER SAY “No” to a woman.

    –Original Sin? Eve wanted to eat that juicy apple and Adam damn well better NOT EVER say “no” to his wife. Well that one is wrong, Adam was supposed to say “no” but he didn’t so OBVIOUSLY it is entirely HIS fault.

    Wait, what?

  2. Pingback: Piper’s debilitating fear of saying “no” to women. | Neoreactive

  3. theasdgamer says:

    Lol, Piper is merely a WK caricature.

  4. quigboo says:

    Where is the best place to find a rational defense of strict gender roles?

  5. Pingback: Piper’s debilitating fear of saying “no” to women. – Manosphere.com

  6. KB says:

    Personally I love how these complementarin fools collectivize men and women.

    ‘We (the men) need to protect our women’.

    Many men don’t have a women, let alone multiple women and him shouting it from the rooftops just illustrates his foolish impotence on the subject.

    Give a decent man a sense of ownership (read authority) over his woman and the relationship and this problem goes away. So obviously that won’t happen.

  7. LeeLee says:

    I hold a lot of pain and grief associated with letting John Piper speak into my life when I was young and still learning how to live a life that pleases God. His standards are absolutely inhuman, he’s cold, angry and disapproving, I can say from experience that if you follow his advice you will become less and less connected to yourself and other people.

    I actually wasted years of my life very specifically trying to follow his “don’t waste your life” guidelines.

    But I’m not sure how to read all this. Because I’ve heard him say wildly anti-feminists things with no shame or reserve publically, like that if a woman is being abused by her husband she should stay with him to show her devotion to God through her quiet suffering… That women who lift are basically disgusting and should expect to be treated with contempt.

    I’ve also read his book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which is okay, and in there he and Grudem do say that it makes no sense to make a list of jobs men and women can’t do, but that’s in the context of issuing what are actually much more extreme restrictions on women in the workplace by telling women that any job that requires them to influence a man both *personally and directively* is off limits — so that would definitely rule out being a police officer for a woman.

    I actually thought the guideline of not influencing men personally and directively at once was helpful for life in general.

    I think the thing with Piper is that he is a contrarian at heart, and what he does primarily through his teaching is try to disconnect people from their instinctive, natural, human thought processes. He’s promoted women marrying brain damaged men (the Ian & Larissa situation), men marrying women they are not sexually attracted to, purchasing homes in the ghetto, etc.

    He makes people feel bad, confused and unable to determine right and wrong without his bizarre and extreme guidance. I think that’s what defines him more than anything, and I think he really has little to no fear of anyone. Whatever pandering to feminists he does I imagine would be to obscure his follower’s established ideas about masculinity so that they could eventually be replaced with his unique, “super holy” ideas.

    Sigh. Clearly I’m holding on to a lot of emotion about this.

  8. Usagi says:

    Piper is a Calvinist. Since Calvinism is dependent on the 5 points (TULIP) and since my view is that all 5 points are dishonest twisting of words, it is my firm belief that a Calvinist cannot be trusted. This belief has been strengthened over the years by firsthand experience.

    As evidenced by Dalrock’s masterful analysis, Piper proves my point. Piper can no be trusted to fulfill the role God has set forth for him – the role of the head of his family. Furthermore, Piper cannot be trusted to protect his family.

    On social media, I am careful not to like, favorite, share, forward, or retreat any statement made by a calvinist, and these points solidify my views. Thank you for the article, Dalrock.

  9. rugby11 says:

    No. Being silent is the most negotiating power one can have in dealing with the world.

  10. KB says:

    Yo Dalrock,

    Are you moderating a comment I tried posting about 10 mins ago?

    Perhaps the website just ate it?

    Thanks,
    KB

  11. These men are simply delusional. There really isn’t that much more to say.

  12. The Question says:

    Although I address these topics in my blog I try to avoid bringing in politics to these discussions even when they’re somewhat related. But in this case it’s very applicable.

    Aside from his fear of saying no to women, Piper also believes the State has an exclusive claim to the legitimate use of violence and that the State is a sovereign entity rather than the people within the State being sovereign.

    As a result, he holds contradictory views and/or isn’t willing to take his beliefs to the logical conclusions. As he sees it, women shouldn’t protect men, but men shouldn’t be allowed to protect their women because that’s the State’s duty. But we don’t want to tell women they can’t enter roles within the State that allow them to use violence to protect others.

    I appreciate Piper’s desire not to equate Christianity with firearms culture but he goes way beyond that in his application. It’s as though any man who wants to purchase a firearm needs to make sure he’s not full of hatred for wanting to do so. Would Piper question the intent of anyone who signs up for the military or a police department or enters politics?

    Last time I checked, Jesus told his disciples to sell their shirt and buy a sword if they don’t have one. Piper is telling them to sell their swords to buy shirts. I love how that verse is completely ignored in this whole debate.

    I guess we all just need to buy shiny badges to put on our shirts and claim to be the governing authorities when we shoot criminals entering our homes. Who is Piper or anyone else to say we’re not?

  13. Linx says:

    @ Usagi “Since Calvinism is dependent on the 5 points (TULIP) and since my view is that all 5 points are dishonest twisting of words, it is my firm belief that a Calvinist cannot be trusted. This belief has been strengthened over the years by firsthand experience.”

    Logical fallacy. Poisoning the well.

  14. PokeSalad says:

    Piper is an idiot….figured that out from his “Arm Themselves?” vomitus.

  15. patriarchal landmine says:

    atheism is looking pretty good.

  16. jeff says:

    Dalrock,

    You are still picking low fruit.

    I stopped listening to Piper and the like way earlier than I had ever heard of RP.

    Dig deeper if you want to see a shit storm. John Macarthur, Allistar Begg, and the like.

    It’s like blue pillers saying Joel Olsteen is preaching heresy. No, Duh! Piper, Chandler, Driscoll, they’re all easy fruit. You can listen to any single sermon they preach and know they either don’t know the word, or are blatantly warping it to fit their own agenda. It’s the fruit that hang higher that have FI messages so subtle that you have to listen over and over and read their transcripts before you discern the FI diatribe.

    You wouldn’t even have to comment, just put Piper;’s or Chandler’s sermon up and 99% of your readers will see and hear what manginas they are.

  17. Dalrock says:

    @Usagi

    Piper is a Calvinist. Since Calvinism is dependent on the 5 points (TULIP) and since my view is that all 5 points are dishonest twisting of words, it is my firm belief that a Calvinist cannot be trusted. This belief has been strengthened over the years by firsthand experience.

    As evidenced by Dalrock’s masterful analysis, Piper proves my point. Piper can no be trusted to fulfill the role God has set forth for him – the role of the head of his family. Furthermore, Piper cannot be trusted to protect his family.

    I don’t see this as a Calvinist issue. The critique I quoted is from a Calvinist (Wedgeworth) at The Calvinist International, and he uses the Westminster Larger Catechism to explain why a husband has a duty to protect his family. The biggest challenge with Piper is nailing him down on an answer, as he at times goes to great lengths to avoid clarity. Wedgeworth has already done the work of nailing Piper down, and this was very helpful in keeping my post short and readable.

  18. jeff says:

    LeeLee,

    Only those who have absolutely no discernment feel bad and are confused by false preachers. These wolves will be accountable. I was barely 25 when reading some of James Dobson’s books and remember thinking something was off. Most of the content was true, but where it was coming from was way off. Now FOTF is no longer covert, they are overt.

  19. mike says:

    I love how he says “our women”. As if men today have any form of power, authority, possession, or chivalrous instincts for random women around them. That ship has sailed old Piper.
    Women can only fight for equality until being a man means you are literally forced to go and die.

  20. Dalrock says:

    @KB

    Yo Dalrock,

    Are you moderating a comment I tried posting about 10 mins ago?

    Perhaps the website just ate it?

    I just checked and didn’t see it. However, it does look like Askimet has been trigger happy today and the past few days. There were a number of non spam comments in the spam bin that I just fished out and approved.

  21. Bdawg16 says:

    Dalrock says: “I don’t see this as a Calvinist issue. The critique I quoted is from a Calvinist (Wedgeworth) at The Calvinist International, and he uses Westminster Larger Catechism to explain why a husband has a duty to protect his family. The biggest challenge with Piper is nailing him down on an answer, as he at times goes to great lengths to avoid clarity. Wedgeworth has already done the work of nailing Piper down, and this was very helpful in keeping my post short and readable.”

    I completely agree, respectfully. Many pastors claim to be “Calvinist” when they really don’t adhere to the doctrine itself. And I’m not getting into that because there are multitudes of good information all over the internet that explains what is meant by Calvinism. If anything, he is in direct opposition to Calvinism.

    Piper is showing his pacifist tendencies, which is a twisted and contradictory belief system that is not found in God’s word. No where does God forbid anyone, much less Christians, to protect themselves or protect the weak and vulnerable. Piper and his ilk have bought in to a strange, deviant interpretation of scripture that ignores the fact that we are made of flesh and blood, and live in a physical world where it’s often necessary to use whatever self defense means are necessary, to protect our lives and those around us.

    He seems think it’s more “holy” to let someone walk into his house and violate and possibly murder his family, rather than use force himself to protect them.
    That is beyond sick.

  22. Bdawg16 says:

    And another thing, I wonder if Piper has preached on I Kings, Chapters 1-3 recently. I wonder how he would “interpret” those passages. Be interesting to see how Piper and his cohorts would explain away Benaiah’s actions.
    If anyone wants to know what I’m referring to, please read the first three chapters of I Kings and it will make sense.

  23. LeeLee says:

    @Jeff, yep, I had no discernment, that’s what was so appealing with him. He presents as discernment training wheels, like some kind of strict & wise virtual daddy who is going to help you grow up if you do what he says but the advice all leads to further confusion and isolation.

    The need for the training wheels only increases as you become more dependent. This is why there are now over 800 episodes of “Ask Pastor John”.

  24. Tom says:

    Where is the best place to find a rational defense of strict gender roles?

    Can’t tell you necessarily, but it is worth pointing out that every bit of what the Bible teaches about gender roles has to do with (i) the Church, or (ii) the Christian home. You may have noticed the New Testament has nothing whatsoever to say about gender roles in broader society, or in pagan homes.

    This is something our friend Piper cannot seem to get a handle on. He is constantly taking the bait to answer hypotheticals about broader social issues the Scripture simply does not address.

  25. Jim says:

    Piper is an idiot and not just on gender.

    atheism is looking pretty good.

    Atheism got invaded and taken over by feminism as well. See Atheism+. You can’t give women an inch or they will never stop until you use that wonderful magic word that many males (they’re not men) are too cowardly to say: “No”.

  26. Boxer says:

    Atheism got invaded and taken over by feminism as well. See Atheism+.

    confirmed

  27. Looking Glass says:

    @LeeLee:

    A lot of Christians have come to the Lord and gone, “okay, now what do I do?” and it’s done them a lot of damage. If there’s a “greatest” problem the Lord has with the modern Church, that’s probably it.

    “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19-20 ESV.

    Truthfully, not a whole lot of “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” going on.

    On Piper, I think it was as Deep Strength’s place we went over the stupidity of his doctrine about self-defense. He clearly has decided a point and worked everything backwards. It’s a pretty clear rationalization approach to doctrine.

  28. Bruce says:

    She is to cultivate a quiet and gentle spirit. A quiet and gentle spirit doesn’t make for a good soldier or cop.

  29. Andrew Alpha says:

    This presents the problem of today’s men: be strong but only when we need you to be. Which is never.

  30. The Question says:

    Piper obviously does not realize it, but he acting definitely feminine by advocating men not have guns or use violence to protect their families while simultaneously insisting that the State should be called in to do it. If you’re against all violence, fine, but this is ridiculous.

    For those of you who don’t know what type of stance a cuckservative takes, this is a classic example. Honor those who fight on behalf of the State in unconstitutional undeclared wars in foreign countries; acknowledge them officially in the pews and thank them for their service. But shame on godly men who try to prevent their daughter from being raped in the middle of the night. Let’s question their motives for purchasing weapons!

    Dalrock touched on this in his post here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/chivalry-and-protecting-the-weak/

    “Our feminized society is horrified by the tendency of men to protect themselves and others using violence. This comes from the understandable feminine fear of violence combined with a lack of understanding of the realities of violence.”

    This also comes from the Church’s fear of good men who are good at being men. A man who uses violence to protect his home is acting as the de facto authority over himself and his family. The buck stops with him, not the State, not the Church, and not cucks who strain gnats but swallow camels.

  31. Andrew Alpha says:

    I extremely like your answer.

  32. HamOnRye says:

    Luke 22:36-38

    …He said to them, “But know let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one…

    …And they said “Look, Lord here are two swords”. And he said to them, “It is enough”…

    From this we can deduce that Christ expects trouble for his followers to the point they will need to defend themselves. The scripture requires us to abide by the legitimate governing body, but I see nothing that says to be completely dependent upon it for your safety. Luke 22:36-38 places emphasis on taking a common sense approach to this issue.

    One could also argue that by completely disarming yourself you are putting the Lord to the test. Jesus is very clear that trouble will be coming your way as follow of his, and expects you to prepare for it.

  33. Joe says:

    I don’t mind feminist women going into combat in front of me.

    It’s cooler and more comfortable than wearing a Kevlar/ceramic vest to stop the incoming rounds.

  34. Andrew Alpha says:

    I believe he simply should have said “no.” I noticed a big support especially on the right of women in authority positions. I mean, I wish, but it just goes against God-made naturality.

  35. TomG says:

    Many times I dismissed what you write because these Christians are a subset and not mainstream thought. Then again, it is still rather horrific. While not legalism, it is certainly a twisted version of it. Whatever hang ups he has, he didn’t tie it to sin, which if it is, he can refuse. He can’t defend himself and his wife from murder just because he can’t. This is worst because the intruder’s sins are black and white. He made his own absolution a joke.

    He can’t control whether women can work as cops and soldiers. It’s not a sin for women to work as cops and soldiers. It’s not a sin for women to fight for men and women as cops and soldiers. A Christian woman can work in a capacity of a cop and soldier and especially to protect other Christian and non-Christian men. It’s not a sin. A husband should protect his wife and family from harm. He can’t allow them to be harmed for that is cruel and worse for allowing a sinful act to not be confronted. Letting sin ruin your family is disgraceful.

  36. Bdawg16 says:

    The Question says: “This also comes from the Church’s fear of good men who are good at being men. A man who uses violence to protect his home is acting as the de facto authority over himself and his family. The buck stops with him, not the State, not the Church, and not cucks who strain gnats but swallow camels.”

    You summed it up with that statement. Excellent!!! How dare any man show authority over himself or his family, says the “Church of Mangina”. These pastors like Piper who have been entrusted to be Shepherds of the flock yet, have chosen to bow down to the Queen of Heaven (idol that does not exist), need to repent. The damage they have done and are doing to society, including encouraging feminist rebellion and blasphemy of God’s natural law, I believe, and simply my opinion based on what I understand God’s word to say, is offensive to an Almighty, Sovereign and Holy God. I hope I live to see the day where this foolishness stops, or at least slows down. I’m not holding my breath. It may get a lot worse.

  37. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    I used to work as a police officer and the women are a liability and a drag on morale. They are given the easiest jobs and preferential treatment, with higher pay, because they CAN NOT do the actual job. Often the attractive ones are having affairs with the bosses. Which gets them even more preferential treatment. Also awesome for morale.

    If they are on the beat the guys will try to keep track of them just in case. Cause they CAN NOT do the job. The most they can do is use the radio. They are a liability in every circumstance and they know it. They know it. If you speak with them they will admit it but to them it’s just a game. It’s just a fucking game. And we are expected to keep them safe while they play a make believe game.

    In training sessions it’s pathetic how weak women actually are. They are unbelievably weak. And when you have to arrest one? It’s a complete joke. They’ll act tough right up until you apply 60% of yourself and throw them against a wall to handcuff them. Then they crumple like a paper sack. And God forbid there are any modern “men” around when you are forced to arrest a woman. They’ll white knight like crazy. Even to a police officer.

  38. Opus says:

    Atheism (if I may for a moment digress) has been hi-jacked in the same way that the Churches have been hi-jacked: that is to say by Feminism. Atheism (as I see it) has been turned from an interesting philosophical position (Leucippus, Democritus and to some extent Aristotle, but NOT Socrates, Plato or the Stoics) into a Church with its own litany and creed and denominations. How deliciously ironic, that Dawkins, who is largely responsible for getting this off the ground – as if Biology was somehow a determining factor – has now been ‘no-platformed’ by institutions in both England and America for being a racist sexist Islamophobe. Naturally he apologised including to Big Red (ye gods) and withdrew the offending Tweet – and thus the SJWs began their victory dance. One might have hoped that after the debacle with elevator-diva Rebecca Watson where La Watson got Dawkins and fellow biologist P.Z.Myers to fight over her that he would have learned a valuable lesson, namely: Never apologise; never explain. He didn’t. LMFAO. How cruel of the Church of England then, to offer prayers for his recovery for he has – if you have not heard – recently suffered a stroke and sounds (it has to be said) very frail.

    I really wanted to say something else – about how women are really unacceptable in any position of faux authority over a man whether that be as Soldier, Police-woman, Judge, POTUS or as the case may be.

  39. HamOnRye says:

    @TomG

    Many times I dismissed what you write because these Christians are a subset and not mainstream thought

    I cant speak to other parts of the country but here in Houston these are not subset Christians they are mainstream. Piper, Chandler & Keller are all names that if you mention them people will usually respond with “Oh yes I have some of his books”

  40. Darwinian Arminian says:

    It is only the deep rooted fear of saying no to a woman that makes this in any way hard, especially since in this case of the woman clearly is open to a “no” answer. When complementarian heavyweights like Piper punt on the incredibly easy questions, it demonstrates that we can’t expect them to be capable of handling even moderately difficult questions without likewise caving in to fear.

    You’re right, and it’s not just that he can’t tell them no. One of the interesting things about watching Piper tackle these kinds of questions is that when he’s confronted with a woman who desires a man’s role he’ll still give a tacit endorsement to her notion that a woman has the ability to do anything a man can do — except when she does it better. At no point will he ever deflate a woman’s ego by telling her that there might be some gifts that were given to the men but not to her. Consider the example he gives of a man and woman acting out their proper complementarian roles here: (in a video link at http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/john-piper-and-darrin-patrick-on-biblical-manhood-part-2 )

    “. . . I used the illustration one time when I was teaching of two students walking over to McDonald’s, a guy and a gal dating, and a guy jumps out with a knife . . . Now, suppose that she has a black belt in karate. She can take this guy out! And the guy with her knows she does. I would say that if he says, “Take him!” he’s not a man. He’s not a man! He should step in front of her and say, “Over my dead body!” Now, she may win the battle at the end, kick him and kick him hard, but he’s still done a manly thing. He’s had the sense of “This is what I’m called to do here.” It’s not a competency issue!”

    This isn’t just bad religion, it’s bad science. Gender roles very much do hinge on a “competency issue.” Women simply can’t perform on the same physical levels that men do, and that’s one of the big reasons why they’ve usually been discouraged from challenging them there. The woman in the scenario that Piper gave is still likely to lose that fight, because even a decent education in martial arts isn’t going to be enough to compensate for her lesser size, speed and muscle capacity versus the man’s.

    But for Pastor John to say so would offend egalitarian sensibilities more than he’s willing to — so he’ll let the woman go on thinking that she certainly could win the battle if she wanted to. It’s just that proper Christianity prefers that she should have her man risk himself a beating in her place. Come to think of it, it’s almost as if he’s telling her, “Go ahead and keep on believing all of your feminist ideals and theories, just so long as you don’t act on any of them!”

  41. Reluctant Neo says:

    Good points about military and police, and the contradictions we see there. Like LeeLee, I’ve seen Piper as someone who was at least pushing back against feminism in a lot of ways. Your posts give an interesting perspective.

  42. Dalrock says:

    @Darwinian American

    Consider the example he gives of a man and woman acting out their proper complementarian roles here: (in a video link at http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/john-piper-and-darrin-patrick-on-biblical-manhood-part-2 )

    Good find! I have a post in the works quoting his slightly different telling of the same scenario in Cultural Cowardice and Co-ed combat. But the version you link to is even more cartoonish, and therefore a better fit for the point I’m using it for.

  43. Neguy says:

    The idea that a woman might be a much better real life fighter than a man is also brought up in his marriage sermon series, where IIRC Piper talks about a woman with a black belt. He’s an odd one. Keep in mind he’s been around a long time and so, like most of us, his comments, which may be taken from time periods years apart, aren’t necessarily consistent.

    Piper strikes me as a guy of his generation who still has a positive view of traditional genders roles, but also a concept of “high chivalry.” He definitely believes the norm should be the male breadwinner in the family. But he also subscribes to the complementarian approach of interpreting headship as putting all responsibilities for any failings in the family on the husband/father. I just think guys that age don’t have a clue and can’t possibly relate the reality of what marriage or dating is like for people even in Generation X, much less today’s 20-somethings.

    I would also remind you that Jason Meyer, who preached that awful sermon on “abuse”, what Piper’s successor at Bethlehem Baptist, so obviously some severe flaws are presenting in the thinking in Piper’s orbit.

  44. thedeti says:

    I watched some of the video linked in Dalrock’s 4:43 pm, 2/18 post.

    This mentality, this “boy must protect girls at all times at all costs” idea, is where Billy Beta comes from. This is where NiceGuys come from. This is where NiceGuys (TM) come from; the notion of very nice, kind men trying to “Be Friends First” with girls, only to be rejected, with the man expressing anger and disappointment at the rejection.

    This is what creates such men.

  45. The Question says:

    @ Neguy

    ” I just think guys that age don’t have a clue and can’t possibly relate the reality of what marriage or dating is like for people even in Generation X, much less today’s 20-somethings.”

    A common analogy in the manosphere is that they are the Allied generals in Paris sipping wine while ordering us to charge into No Man’s Land in the Somme and ignoring the reports of machine gunners mowing down entire battalions in minutes. They think their previous war experience, fought in another time and in another era, is still applicable or relevant to modern warfare. We need more Winters and Spiers a la Band of Brothers but keeping getting Foxhole Normans and Sobels.

    On that related note, I think this is the danger of what happens when you stop keeping tabs on culture or use the values you grew up with as the template. You have no solid moral compass. I’m tempted to just stay away from social media and the like, but in this current climate you can’t afford to be ignorant.

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Darwinian American

    But for Pastor John to say so would offend egalitarian sensibilities more than he’s willing to — so he’ll let the woman go on thinking that she certainly could win the battle if she wanted to. It’s just that proper Christianity prefers that she should have her man risk himself a beating in her place. Come to think of it, it’s almost as if he’s telling her, “Go ahead and keep on believing all of your feminist ideals and theories, just so long as you don’t act on any of them!”

    It is I think even worse than this. What he is really saying is to keep your girlpower fantasies, but please allow me to inject an entirely nonthreatening foolish romantic gesture by the men around you to make it even better. Add the nonthreatening foolish romantic gesture and now we can call it complementarian instead of feminist.

  47. Kindasortafeminist says:

    Maybe his reluctance to tell Beth no is because he has no authority over her?

  48. okrahead says:

    If you think this garbage is bad, try reading Puper’s article on “dating someone with a sexual history.” My favorite part is when he tells you not to worry whether you are the best lover your wife has ever had.

  49. frenchy says:

    @ Quigboo,

    The bible. Old and New Testaments.

  50. greyghost says:

    So the guy will call the cops so another man (person) can protect him. Is this a righteous Christian thing for other men to do the dirty work of life so the righteous don’t get their souls dirty? All Christian men need to rely more on faith than righteousness. Letting the sinners face life’s hardships in your place is not the way. Go ahead and kick those asses they need it.

  51. HamOnRye says:

    @okrahead

    Piper wants American men to play Hosea to American women’s Gomer, but without the acknowledgement that Gomer is a dirty whore.

  52. Gunner Q says:

    Rollo Tomassi @ 1:23 pm:
    “Which one of these cops do you suppose compensates the most for the other?”

    There used to be minimum height/weight restrictions to be a police officer. The thinking was that fewer people are going to start a fight with a 6′, 200lb officer than a 5’2″, 120lb officer and if they start one anyway, physics will back the badge. I would bet a paycheck that Officer Fifi will go for her gun the instant any confrontation gets physical whereas Officer Buffman would absorb the first punch, block the second, throw the third and not need a fourth. Wouldn’t even press charges because paperwork.

    snowdensjacket0x0x0 @ 4:14 pm:
    “I used to work as a police officer…”

    Just an offhand inquiry, can you suggest any ways to befriend local police? I’ve a hunch that they could be good allies in the fight against feminism but don’t know where to start. Being MGTOW has given me the free time to try something.

    “Piper is a Calvinist. Since Calvinism is dependent on the 5 points (TULIP) and since my view is that all 5 points are dishonest twisting of words, it is my firm belief that a Calvinist cannot be trusted.”

    Like Dalrock and Bdawg16, I don’t see a connection between Calvinism and feminism. Calvinist positions are a bit extreme/absolutist but not fundamentally wrong.

    The Question @ 5:11 pm:
    “On that related note, I think this is the danger of what happens when you stop keeping tabs on culture or use the values you grew up with as the template. You have no solid moral compass.”

    Alternatively, it’s the danger of being the only sermon-giver in the church. You can be ignorant about issues that the laymen in your congregation are experts on.

    “I’m tempted to just stay away from social media and the like, but in this current climate you can’t afford to be ignorant.”

    Preach, brother. This is why I’m a technophobe on the Internet.

  53. Dave says:

    On another note: How to turn a ho into a housewife, Piper’s method.

  54. Dave says:

    okrahead says:

    If you think this garbage is bad, try reading Puper’s article on “dating someone with a sexual history.” My favorite part is when he tells you not to worry whether you are the best lover your wife has ever had.

    O I just did.

  55. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    snowdensjacket0x0x0: I used to work as a police officer and the women are a liability and a drag on morale. … it’s pathetic how weak women actually are.

    Once in New York City, I saw a female police officer who was about 5 feet tall, at most. Maybe under 5 feet. I towered over her. I felt as if I were looking down on a child or a midget. Her partner was an average-sized male cop. I wondered how this midget woman ever qualified to be one of New York’s Finest.

    And God forbid there are any modern “men” around when you are forced to arrest a woman. They’ll white knight like crazy. Even to a police officer.

    A female friend of mine — an irresponsible idiot — was caught driving with marijuana in her van. The cop arrested and cuffed her. My friend burst into tears, crying and crying. So the cop changed his mind and let her off with a warning. No way can a man get off by bursting into tears.

    I also have female friends who brag about being let off of traffic tickets. Two admitted to crying when it looked as if they might get a ticket, and they didn’t get one.

  56. HamOnRye says:

    @Dave

    That article should be renamed “How to rationalize feeding yourself into a wood-chipper”

  57. gunner451 says:

    Statistically women cops are far more likely to shoot you during a confrontation than men as they know that physically they are no match for a guy in any confrontation. This is probably true for smaller men as well which is part of the reason they have tasers now since they had to modify the physical requirements for being a cop (was listening to an LA radio show and they had on a retired assistant police chief that blamed the Rodney King riots on that, because of being forced to hire women they had to get rid of hight/weight requirements which forced them to change training so that instead of using a choke hold they were retained to use their night stick, this was before tasers came out).

    I imagine the military will have to change some tactics to compensate just like the police had to which will change the effectiveness of the forces in many situations and the women for the most part will end up being a sort of tax on the system with men having to make up the difference. Also could view them as uniformed camp followers that provide sex to some of the troops (but not all which will be a moral problem but guys should be used to that by now). Overall this will be a low level problem as long as we do not have a war with a peer nation like Russia or China with an acceptable rate of additional losses on the battlefield (ya sucks to be the one killed because of this but suck it up guys, you volunteered for this … for now).

    Lastly there is one advantage with women in combat which is that because of their inherent narcissism/solipsism they suffer no mental anguish about killing men, women, children, babies or puppy dogs (well maybe they draw the line at cats and dogs). This will have the advantage of reducing the VA’s budget for PTSD.

  58. >>>> Being MGTOW has given me the free time to trysomething.

    Why don’t I like the sound of that? Something about fight club?

    >>>>can you suggest any ways to befriend local police? I’ve a hunch that they could be good allies in the fight against feminism but don’t know where to start.

    The answer for a MGTOW is to take a voluntary role in police fundraising and charity efforts. If you have a men’s group, boy scouts, or coach etc, you can ask for a police speaker and get to know them that way.

    Dalrock, I am pretty sure there is a common denominator in all of these mangina preachers- low T.

    It looks like a couple of them take an XXL butt plug, if you know what I mean. I am pretty sure that Piper’s wife uses one of those remote controlled buzzing plugs while he is preaching.

    From the video: What do we say when a little boy says daddy, what does it mean to be a man and not a woman?

    His answer: “kindness, gentleness, servant leadership, a sense of benevolent responsibility to protect women…..” What the ever living Hell is wrong with these people and how can ANY man, even the most (butt) plugged in bluepill believe what they are saying.

    The guy is a low T mangina retard and doesn’t look like he has EVER stepped inside the hallowed halls of the iron temple. I need to watch an MMA fight to get back the manhood I lost watching that toxic person.

  59. jack says:

    Piper sounds like he is of the same spirit at Lot.

    Make a sacrifice of innocence because he is too big a coward to defend innocence.

  60. The Question says:

    @ Dave

    “How to turn a hoe into a housewife”

    LMAO. I need to finish my drink before I read comments that.

    I do want to point out the article is apparently written by someone else.

    The related articles below it also ignore the consequences of marrying a person, especially a women, with a sexual past. As others have shown, statistically a girl with more than one sexual partner has a substantially higher risk of divorcing. How much of a buyer beware warning do churchies give to young men about to walk down the aisle?

    So many problems could end overnight if boys and young men in the church were taught to only marry virgins and the church leaders backed them up on this. A girl would know full well as she entered adulthood that delaying marriage and “finding herself” in her twenties would result in “finding herself” unable to find a sucker to marry her after she hops off the carousal in her thirties. TradCons and SoCons would no doubt scream it’s being “legalistic” but we are facing the imminent downfall of our civilization because we keep comprising our standards across the board in order to make everyone the exception to the rule. We don’t want anyone to suffer, so everyone will suffer each in their own way.

    @Gunner Q

    Isn’t it interesting that there is little to no focus in the Epistles about pastors specifically, but on elders and deacons? I really do think the idea of having one person preach semi-exclusively would have been a foreign concept to Paul or any other apostle.

  61. jack says:

    Also, seems like Piper almost has a quasi-attraction to bad boyz since he wants to “missionary date” them by proxy using his innocent family as cheap bait.

    Every day, the evango-puss types like him become ever more homoerotic in their words.

  62. cam says:

    All would say if someone was attacking my wife is-“Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.”

  63. Kaminsky says:

    The whole issue of women and the draft is such a kick because women get to condemn men for each possible outcome. If women were called upon to decide for themselves that might draw the harshest vitriol of all. I expect the issue to linger for a long time because it gives feminists the payoffs they need every time. Every take, every angle provokes vibrant outrage. This is the feminist issue version of the sorcerer’s stone.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    HamOnRye, Dalrock’s is the first place I have heard of Chandler, but Piper and Keller are big names among many of the Protestants that I know. Mostly people over 35 now that I think of it. Having viewed some of Piper’s video I now hear his voice if I read his text, which is torture.
    In a previous thread someone commented that many pastors are Gammas (Vox definition I assume), and I’m pondering that. Certainly Piper looks and writes in a Gamma way.

    Deti, I’ve accidentally stumbled over the cult of “Friends First” via a co worker. A daughter is engaged. He’s tickled that her fiancee “was a friend first”. He points to another man we know who married a divorcee with kids – “they were friends first! See how it works?” as a success story. This is apparently The Way It All Works, so far as their church group is concerned.

    From what I can tell it is not a complete statement – they are Friends (with Benefits) first but everyone pretends that nobody is screwing prior to the wedding. Pace’ Slumlord’s work, those chuchgoing women who are marrying with an N < = 3 are surely in better shape than any carousel rider, and I'm happy for them. Pretending that the were Just Friends first, though, is hypocritical.
    I write this as someone who ignored the whole Friends First notion for years, and so I come to see it with the glasses on. I’ve been around enough couples, both married and unmarried, both LTR and STR and ‘walk of shame” ONS down my hall…I know what a couple look like when they are sexing each other up. They don’t look like “friends”, just for a start.

    But come to think of it, I’ve known some low T Gamma churchgoing men, and they probably were friends first with their future wives. Friends…for a long time. Years…

    At least the “Friends First” people I know don’t advocate long engagements – 6 months is typical. So that’s one count in their favor.

  65. eyesofsamson says:

    True to cuckservative form, Piper claims to conserve something while actually giving it away.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    Well, here’s part of the problem: Piper was born in 1946, so he’s a leading edge Boomer, like GW Bush and BJ Clinton. Some of the biggest pedestalizing White Knights I have known are or were leading edge Boomers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Piper_%28theologian%29

  67. Kirk Parker says:

    In Arm Themselves however Piper does leave open the possibility of calling the police should someone attack himself or his wife. Piper believes a husband shouldn’t defend his family with violence, but he isn’t above calling upon someone else to do so.

    What disgusting hypocrisy! Hey Piper, hired violence is still violence. Real pacifists don’t call the police!

  68. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    The older cops are in on the game. They want the worst for you. The younger ones are mostly blue pilled white knights who will fuck you over to feel special in the eyes of any woman.

    Very few are waking up. Most cops are hard core white knights and are frankly, pathetic All of the awakened guys quit because we are forced to listen to talks about how BLM calls for our murder with president chimp’s full support. Our own president wants us to be murdered. So there is no reason to try to support the “law and order” of insanity.

    I have no idea what to do. Give up? That’s what I’m doing.

  69. Mistral says:

    “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”

    There is only ONE answer to this: “BLAM!!”

  70. @The Question

    “but we are facing the imminent downfall of our civilization because we keep comprising our standards across the board in order to make everyone the exception to the rule.”

    That is very profound and quite true.

    Look at the competing religions. Islam gives men the illusion of ‘masculine empowerment ‘by using violence to quash that thirst for vaginas. Compare that to Christianity which offers men a weekly ‘gelding’ to appease the old female raisins who really run the church.

    They can lower the standard further and to demand the Bible be more like Marvel Comics and have more ‘strong empowered females’. There will be the ‘Apostle Paulina’ or Jessica and the ‘Battle of Jericho’. I wouldn’t worry too much because like Marvel Comics these empowered characters wouldn’t sell many copies and end up having to be changed back to men.

    You are right about the collapse of civilization. There is no defender of the faith. Maybe the Pope should sell some of the vast Vatican property and hire a 21st century Charles Martel to push back the Islamic hordes overrunning Europe. The Pope has made it clear he doesn’t like walls to control populations, well except for the ones around the Vatican.

  71. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    gunner451: a retired assistant police chief that blamed the Rodney King riots on that, because of being forced to hire women they had to get rid of hight/weight requirements

    A while back — in the 1970s? — some group sued the NYPD over height/weight requirements because Latinos and Asians are statistically shorter than Africans and Europeans, so height/weight requirements led to racially disparate hiring.

    As for these manginas who don’t want women to serve in combat — I suppose they’d be equally outraged if their daughters were denied the chance to attend West Point, or any of the other military academies.

    Women want the right to wear uniforms and collect medals, but without any risks or heavy lifting.

  72. Spike says:

    Pastor Piper can call from the rooftops that “Men need to protect women at all costs” as much as he likes. The problem is that the feminist genie has been let out of the bottle, and only a drastic decline in civilisation is going to get genie back in.
    The Cologne New Year’s Eve assaults and the spike in rapes in Sweden, Norway and other Western countries has been met with indifference by Western men. There is no reason to expect that when the violence becomes civil and women police begin getting assaulted and killed in numbers, that anything will change.
    Feminism is the root cause of this indifference, which has two sides.
    One: Effeminate men deliberately separated from manhood, that can only identify with assaulted women by marching in high heels and mini skirts, but can make no counter to the threat of violence.
    Two: The rest of men who, previously ignored by women and told for their entire lives by women that there is something wrong with them, who have simply gone, “Meh” with a shrug because they don’t see their women as fundamentally worth protecting.
    And, judging by the appalling record of women documented on the manosphere over the years, they would be right.

  73. Piper’s “Love Without Expectation of Return” is a hoot! Such a lot of vacant expression. No expectation of anything in return. Notions of honesty, being faithful, any expectation of loyalty, of solid intent, or of any notion of submissiveness are completely missing from these tomes. To whom does Piper direct these emotions? Men? Women? A sewing circle? So what is Piper’s point? Are we as men who want children and a wife and a home to “forget” a woman’s 15-20 years on the carousel, on hormonal birth control? How do I as a man of 30 (who could never get these women to settle down and start a family at 20) ignore that many years of nights out with the girls, at the clubs, the alcohol abuse, the sheer numbers, the traffic on her body and spirit? Not that we’d ever get the truth, how about the dozens or hundreds of sexual partners? I am to forget all that? No expectations? Again, without the notion that women are truthful, who knows how many sexually-transmitted diseases a woman with this history has sustained? I am to marry this woman and any questions I might have are none of my business? With all her risk factors, I am to marry this woman and attempt, at her late-stage epiphany, to have children with a woman with all this traffic on her body, her womb and frankly, sorry ladies, her vagina? Really? Jesus, a man really has to stow a lot of notions to sleep with these women, let alone consider planting his seed and attempting to have children.

    I’m 59 now, I am off the “make-a-new-family” market, my questions are rhetorical, but all the traffic-on-her-body considerations still stand for me and so I don’t date American women. But a young man from age 25-35 thinking of family has got to be looking at the women the “market” offers him, especially the gents a little older, 30 or so and get the creeps at what is available to him, assuming his eyes are open to what women have been doing indeed, from 8th grade/middle school onward, let alone college.

    And our hypothetical man, he is told by Piper and society in general, ignore ALL of it, all of what women have done and become, it is none of your business and oh, by the way, give your love, your life, your finances and resources, “with no expectation of return”. Jesus, or someone, please help me with this! Maybe I’m just an old prick and I just don’t understand?

    Could be.

  74. Opus says:

    I am a Boomer and so I have lived through the changes, but perhaps having remained single and looking somewhat younger than my years (you’ll just have to take my word for that – and that even as recently as Wednesday this week the fairly attractive twenty-something from the bank next-door was punching my arm in the way women do when they are keen to sleep with you) I am – I hope – conscious of the change in female behaviour that cllearly have occured since I reached the age of reason. Not that all women are awful (one young’un opened the door for me as I was entering and she leaving a concert hall last night) nor that even back in the day there were no nutters, women with Ns in triple figures, false rape accusers or women achieving strong empowerment by turning lesbian, but frivorce was only just coming in, marriage for six months did not mean a massive payout – whether the woman had a top job (few did) or no and the police were not over likely to take stories such as the following with any seriousness, perhaps because Rape meant P-in-V and in those days they were allowed to make life miserable for Cottagers and others who were homosexually inclined:

    England is a one city state – London is eight times larger than the next largest city – if it does not happen in London it doesn’t matter – and with a population of some eight million or more is surrounded by eight or nine railway (road) stations. One of the largest is named (after the battle and presumably to annoy French visitors) as Waterloo. The concourse is always busy indeed such was the case I observed as I passed through last night at about seven o’clock. A woman claimed to have been raped on the concourse and without this extreme act being otherwise noticed and the allegation was merely that a man had digitally assaulted her. The CCTV revealed that a man had passed her but had not even broken stride as he passed – perhaps there had been a slight collision. This lack of evidence stopped neither the police nor the prosecution pursuing an unfortunate sixty-six year old man on a charge of Rape nor his being committed for trial. Happily the case was thrown out in Crown Court. The woman will face no sanction for her lie nor, if she is delusional, will she be sectioned.

  75. Well, that was last week. They now know she lied her arse off. What do you think they’ll actually do? They KNOW she lied. If they don’t legally and criminally prosecute this woman and others like her, it gets to the point (Like here in the States on the campuses) where no one ever believes any of these women. He said/she said “rapes” are nearly always a lie by the woman. And probably wishful thinking on the woman’s part in any case.

  76. Dave says:

    And our hypothetical man, he is told by Piper and society in general, ignore ALL of it, all of what women have done and become, it is none of your business and oh, by the way, give your love, your life, your finances and resources, “with no expectation of return”. Jesus, or someone, please help me with this! Maybe I’m just an old prick and I just don’t understand?

    Even God did not give His best with no expectation of return.

  77. DrTorch says:

    And our hypothetical man, he is told by Piper and society in general, ignore ALL of it, all of what women have done and become, it is none of your business and oh, by the way, give your love, your life, your finances and resources, “with no expectation of return”. Jesus, or someone, please help me with this! Maybe I’m just an old prick and I just don’t understand?

    It’s not just Piper, that’s the advice that many are giving from pulpits, “Christian” books and radio.

    It’s absolute heresy. From the most basic of ethical commands re: behavior Matt 7:12, to the directives to be honest in your speech Jam 5:12, and your actions Prov 11:1, to the explicit commands of how a Godly wife behaves toward her husband, ALL of these are being ignored, no, actually replaced by the opposite.

    It’s a perversion in the most literal sense. It is why the MGTOW movement has some justification. Basic economics, people aren’t going to keep getting involved in overtly bad deals. Even worse, it’s responsible for the large decline in the Western Church. Men haven’t been welcome in churches for several decades. And in the past 3 or 4 decades, they’ve faced outright derision, scorn and re-programming. And the decline in attendance of Christian churches makes it clear there’s a problem.

    It’s disgusting, and I certainly believe that the leaders who have promoted this will pay for it in eternity, but for the here and now, they need to be rebuked and rejected. Kudos again to the host for providing well researched, tangible analytical bases for doing so.

  78. Disillusioned says:

    They are creating a straw man. I have yet to meet a man that openly is asking women to fight for him.

    This guy is a coward and is using twisted theology to justify it.

  79. Coastal says:

    So I’m going through that Piper article on dating someone through a sexual history:

    If you’re a person who does not have an extensive sexual history, you also may not be ready to date. You may not be mature enough to walk with someone gracefully and helpfully who has a sexual history (or any other kind of history). There is a real chance that the one without a sexual history is the weaker brother in the relationship (Romans 14:1–2).

    What? That scenario has nothing to do with Romans 14:1-2…

  80. Kevin says:

    @HamonRye

    Well said. Maybe God wants some men to do that but in the context of the unabashed constant reminder that huge life changing, begging for mercy before God change is necessary.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    Coastal, one way to read that text is “Players should marry carousel riders”, or more bluntly “cads should marry ho’s”…d’ya think that’s what Piper meant to say?

  82. The Question says:

    @ Disillusioned

    I have to agree. It is cowardly to call out “cowards” who don’t exist because you refuse to criticize the womenfolk out of fear of how they might react.

    It’s actually really obvious what they’re doing. Any intellectually honest person would conclude that the only reason a woman joins the military right now is because she wants to. We’re not at war, there is no draft at the moment, and there military isn’t short of people. Women aren’t required to register and there are plenty of other jobs they can do.

    It is so blatantly evident that I have to chuckle at them for saying it.

  83. Dalrock says:

    @The Question

    I have to agree. It is cowardly to call out “cowards” who don’t exist because you refuse to criticize the womenfolk out of fear of how they might react.

    It’s actually really obvious what they’re doing. Any intellectually honest person would conclude that the only reason a woman joins the military right now is because she wants to. We’re not at war, there is no draft at the moment, and there military isn’t short of people. Women aren’t required to register and there are plenty of other jobs they can do.

    Doug Wilson argues that this is literally a form of crossdressing, and I can see no fault with that argument:

    “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Dt. 22:5).

    This verse is a prohibition for cross-dressing when it comes to men. But the restriction placed on women here is not simply the reverse of that. When a man is getting kinky in the way described here, it is a straightforward transvesite problem. But going the other way, we should notice a different problem. Notice the odd construction — “that which pertains to a man.” The Hebrew underneath is keli geber, and should be read as the “gear of a warrior.” Whether we are talking about a man in fishnet stockings, or a woman decked out in full battle regalia, we need to recognize that God finds it loathsome. So should we.

    In this youtube video he elaborates on the meaning of keli geber, explaining that while the literal meaning is gear of a warrior, it could also pertain to a man’s toolbelt. I can understand why the CBMW would stay away from the clear biblical argument; it is absolutely radioactive to Christian feminist (including complementarian) sensibilities.

  84. Bdawg16 says:

    Dr. Torch says:
    “It’s disgusting, and I certainly believe that the leaders who have promoted this will pay for it in eternity, but for the here and now, they need to be rebuked and rejected. Kudos again to the host for providing well researched, tangible analytical bases for doing so.”
    Dr, and all of God’s people said “AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

  85. Disillusioned says:

    I am a single guy. What I am finding out is most single women are loose, have ridden or riding the carousel and are selfish. So what is the church to do? The solution has been to justify who they are and their actions. Most guys I find to be doing the same thing as well with regards to their wives.

    So the church is forcing down our throats this philosophy which goes contrary to the righteousness of God. They dont want any dissent in this. The last thing they want is someone to point to them the truth of the matter and it only takes one to bring the deck of cards down.

    Rmember that most young pastors now have married born again sluts. They dont want ti be reminded of that.

    The solution for men is not to marry a slut. Period. Dont celebrate or nothing like that. Yes Rahab was one but she truly repented.

  86. OKRickety says:

    Coastal said on February 19, 2016 at 10:58 am
    So I’m going through that Piper article on dating someone through a sexual history:
    If you’re a person who does not have an extensive sexual history, you also may not be ready to date. You may not be mature enough to walk with someone gracefully and helpfully who has a sexual history (or any other kind of history). There is a real chance that the one without a sexual history is the weaker brother in the relationship (Romans 14:1–2).
    What? That scenario has nothing to do with Romans 14:1-2…

    Note: Although the website is primarily Piper (“belongs” to him?), this article is by Paul Maxwell.

    Paul Maxwell, in my opinion, does not write well. In this article, he seems to switch between addressing the one with little or no sexual “history” and the one who has more “history”. He also seems to reference scripture that is weakly related to a given statement. He does this often, perhaps believing it makes his writing more believable.

    I am amazed at the sentence I highlighted. Out of context, it is perplexing, seeming to imply that you need extensive sexual history to date.. Even in context, it’s hard to see his intent. If he had concluded it with “to date someone with a sexual history.”, it would be okay.

    And suggesting that the one without the sexual history is the weaker brother? Possible but unlikely.

    The whole article is basically just another “man up” exhortation, teaching that the one with the lesser history is likely weaker spiritually than they think, and the one with the extensive history is spiritually stronger from having sinned, receiving God’s grace, and returning to Christian living.

  87. OKRickety says:

    Maxwell’s article could be said to be a “woman up” exhortation, too, as he does not seem to state the sex of the two parties. Even in the “woman up” perspective, it is still a poor approach to a relationship.

  88. feeriker says:

    In this youtube video he elaborates on the meaning of keli geber, explaining that while the literal meaning is gear of a warrior, it could also pertain to a man’s toolbelt. I can understand why the CBMW would stay away from the clear biblical argument; it is absolutely radioactive to Christian feminist (including complementarian) sensibilities.

    I’m just surprised that they haven’t retorted with the “that’s-old-covenant-law-that-applied-only-to-the-Israelites-not-to-modern-Christians” line.

    Funny how the evangelitards LOVE to delve into the Old Testament to bolster their false teachings on warmongering and dispensationalism, but then avoid it like the plague when it gives very clear direction from God on things anathema to their modernist exceptionalism.

  89. feeriker says:

    Paul Maxwell, in my opinion, does not write well. In this article, he seems to switch between addressing the one with little or no sexual “history” and the one who has more “history”. He also seems to reference scripture that is weakly related to a given statement. He does this often, perhaps believing it makes his writing more believable.

    It is important to remember that the primary readership base for guys like this consists of biblically illiterate churchians who wouldn’t recognize the contents of the Bible from the contents of Rolling Stone magazine. He doesn’t have to be clear, coherent, or even accurate in his writing because he knows that no one of any import will ever call him out on it. His readers don’t care; they want tasty pablum, however devoid of substance, and he’s happy to deliver it to them.

  90. seventiesjason says:

    If i was a married. If I had a wife and family that I vowed to protect. Children. If someone broke into my home to cause them violence, harm, rape……….intruder / perpetrator would meet a “real man of God” armed not only with a steely-eyed confidence to tell him to back off and get out……but a weapon that would “gently encourage” the intruder / perpetrator to do so quickly.

    if man refuses to “protect” his wife, family and progeny in this matter if indeed the situation called for this…….and is going to “call the police” to wait for someone else to provide this protection?

    Piper has zero business talking about any form of “manhood” Biblical or otherwise.

  91. crowhill says:

    It’s also possible he hasn’t thought it through as carefully as you have.

  92. Kevin says:

    Regarding the article on sexual history and the stronger member – that feeds into an entire false doctrine that we come to know Gid through sin and are strengthen by sin and repentance. This is try- we are strengthened by repentance but by not sinning we have greater character and godliness and we grow closer to God faster. If there was a version of us that never sinned he would always be closer to God than the sinner we realistically are.

    Paul sort of addressed this by rebuking the stupid idea that we should sin so grace abounds. No we should not. No, you are not stronger by wallowing in sexual sin. Repentance heals, but the person who never wallowed was close to God the whole time you were out debasing yourself.

    Even women who repent of sexual sin will be far far behind spiritually of righteous women who stayed chaste and in order to catch up will need to work incredibly hard.

    If Maxwell/Piper are teaching this they are being dumb. Is it true of other crimes? No, it’s just always girls finding themselves that needs to be forgiven, hidden, none of your business.

  93. Pingback: Crossdressing and the military. | Dalrock

  94. Mad Kalak says:

    @Rollo and his picture:

    No doubt, the one on the left is who I’d prefer to have as my partner. But don’t always paint with such a broad brush. I’m 5’10”, 180, which is average, and that dude would tower over me like any NFL player would. When they started letting women be cops in the late 1960s, the biggest reservation was that women couldn’t stand up to any big tough dude in a fight, but big tough dudes go down from a 9mm. And frankly, I used to beat the cops up at a Judo club I used to train at. I am sure there are cops that take their martial arts more seriously, but I never met them. Point is, the average cop is not a scrapper, but to be fair to your point, I’d get some extra training and start carrying a back up gun in an ankle holster if the woman on the right was made my partner.

    From my internships in criminology, I learned that women corrections officers are effective in de-escalating verbally, both between inmates and between inmates and the rules of the facility. Though the sociology behind that, which nobody wanted to talk about, is that most of these men were raised by single moms, and the instinctual desire to please women that all men have.

  95. MarcusD says:

    “A Woman’s Guide to Loving a Man–Catholic Style,” an Article.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1000108

  96. mrteebs says:

    @MarcusD

    I clicked over to the article itself on ignitumtoday.com.

    http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/08/08/a-womans-guide-to-loving-a-man-catholic-style/

    The list? Fantastic. The comments? Mostly good, but a few were priceless – in a bad way – from women loudly proclaiming “that’s NOT what men like.”

    Imagine a blog on childbirth, explaining how labor pains feel. Numerous women comment by saying, “She nailed it. That’s EXACTLY what it feels like.” But sprinkled throughout the comments are a couple of men, smugly proclaiming that the poster and the commenters have it all wrong.

    Kinda like that.

  97. Gunner Q says:

    Mad Kalak @ February 19, 2016 at 3:42 pm:
    “When they started letting women be cops in the late 1960s, the biggest reservation was that women couldn’t stand up to any big tough dude in a fight, but big tough dudes go down from a 9mm.”

    This is a problem. Big, heavy officers don’t need firearms for routine police work. I want my local cops to have options between “polite conversation” and “officer-involved shooting”.

  98. Pingback: Sunday Morning Cartoons | Dalrock

  99. Micha Elyi says:

    I am a single guy. What I am finding out is most single women are loose, have ridden or riding the carousel and are selfish. So what is the church to do?
    Disillusioned

    Your congregation should do what it should do for all its sinners (i.e., everyone): call for them to repent their sins then to go and sin no more. Then all must forgive* the penitent, seven times seventy-seven times a day if the penitent should stumble so often while trying to return to The Way, and help the fellow sinner through prayer and works, especially works of helping the sinner avoid the near occasion of sin.

    By the way, ‘forgive’ does not mean ‘pretend like it never happened’. A sinner who wants a clean reputation post-repentance (and we all should) will have to earn it by ones works (conduct oneself accordingly) and others will have to see ones faith in ones works.

    The solution has been to justify who they are and their actions.

    I assume that by ‘justify’ you mean ‘excuse’. If a teacher in your congregation has been teaching this to others, gather some witnesses of this excuse-making for scandalous actions and together confront this teacher about this false teaching.

    Most guys I find to be doing the same thing as well with regards to their wives.

    Those men have a heavy cross to bear. It is not your place to make the scandal in their marriage public. Recall also that God hates divorce. Help those men as you can to avoid enabling their straying wives in their sins against their God, their man, and their marriage. And remember that some demons can only be cast out by prayer and fasting.

    So the church is forcing down our throats this philosophy which goes contrary to the righteousness of God.

    Consider that this congregation you worship with isn’t the Church. If it isn’t, God may be calling you to bring this congregation home to His Church or for you to leave this congregation and bring yourself home to His Church. This you must discern for yourself.

  100. Snowy says:

    Was it Adam’s job to protect Eve in the garden? I thought God made the woman from man, for man. If anything, Eve was neglecting her job, and nothing has changed since. Why is everything upside down in Satan’s world?

  101. nick012000 says:

    @Gunner_Q: “This is a problem. Big, heavy officers don’t need firearms for routine police work. I want my local cops to have options between “polite conversation” and “officer-involved shooting”.”

    That’s what literally tasers are for.😉

Leave a Reply

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