John Piper: Women teaching Men

I think John Piper has now ‘confused’ the biblical manhood crowd.  I’m serious.

 

No doubt we have all heard the speeches about Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.  The lists of do’s and don’ts are constantly being added.  Some of them are indeed quite odd.  This one can be added to the oddities list.

 

Before I start I have to wonder if John Piper actually plans what he wants to say, or the message he wants to get across to people.  I honestly don’t think he does on this type of platform.    I think of all the strange things that have come out of his mouth, and I KNOW he can’t actually STUDY before he says this stuff.  To me it would be WORSE if he did!

 

The question that was presented to him, “Would a pastor who uses a biblical commentary written by a woman be placing himself under the biblical instruction of a woman.  If so, would this not go against Paul’s instruction in I Timothy 2:12?”  (I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.)

It might be.  Uh.  He may feel it that way.  And if he does, he probably’s not gonna read it.  He shouldn’t read it.  It doesn’t have.  It doesn’t have to be experienced that way I don’t think.

In other words, he doesn’t know.…I think.

Don’t worry, it gets better.  Or should I say – MORE confusing!

So, I think the point of that text is not to say that you can never learn anything from a woman.  That’s just not true.  It’s not true biblically, and it’s not true experientially, because the reason for saying that I don’t permit a woman to teach or have authority over men here is not because she’s incompetent.  It’s not because she can’t have thoughts.  In fact, the women in your church, and the woman in, the woman you are married to, have many thoughts that you would do well to know. [laughs] And to know, and learn, and to learn from.  And so the issue there is not that she doesn’t have thoughts that you wouldn’t benefit from.  Or that she can’t, uh, teach you anything.

The, the issue is one of how does manhood and womanhood work.  What is the dynamic between how men flourish and women flourish as God designed them to flourish when an act of authority is being exerted on a man from a woman.

And so I distinguish between personal, direct exercises of authority that involve manhood and womanhood.

Okay then.   This says pretty much a whole lot of nothing right?  You can tell he has heard or read some comments from women towards his past teachings of this verse.  He wants to be sure you realize he doesn’t think women are dumb.  Why THANK YOU….I think.

Now we will glance at ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ examples of women in ‘authority’.  The point is more about the ‘teaching’, but of course as we know ‘authority’ to him is the UPMOST of importance.

Because it’s personal.  She’s right there.  She’s woman.  I’m man.  And I’m being directly, uh, pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way.  Should she be doing that?  Should I be experiencing that?  And my answer’s, No;  I think that’s contrary to the way God made us.

So those two words:  Personal and direct.

Here, here would be an example of what I mean.  A drill sergeant that gets in the face and says, Hut One, Hut Two, Keep Your Mouth Shut Private, Get Your Rifle Up Here, Turn Around Like I Said.  I don’t think a woman ought to be doin’ that to a man – because it’s direct, it’s forceful, it’s authoritative, it’s compromising something about the way a man and a woman were designed by God to relate.

Now, lets put our common sense hat on for a moment!  Tell me what anyone learns from, ‘Hut One, Hut Two, Keep Your Mouth Shut Private, Get Your Rifle Up Here, Turn Around Like I Said.’  That’s not teaching – I guess we can say authoritative drills?

Yes, there is a purpose to drills within the Army.  I realize he wouldn’t be comfortable experiencing this and being pressed on like this FROM a WOMAN, and you have a way of avoiding that.  Don’t join the Army!  I mean she is ‘submitting’ to her authorities by doing her this.  She is following the chain of command.

I guess it never dawned on him that WOMEN don’t ‘flourish’ under those circumstances either – by design!  I’m not sure what he is trying to say here.  It’s rather confusing.  I’m not sure I know anyone that likes to be bossed around like that.  To be honest?  This is an example of ‘authority over’ if you get right down to it.  In the biblical or personal context  – that’s SIN!  (Yes, I took the military context out of it)

Uh. The opposite would be where she is a city planner.  She’s sitting in an office at a desk drawing which street should be one way and which street should be two way.  And thus she’s gonna control which way men drive all day long.  That’s a lot of authority, and it’s totally impersonal, and indirect, and therefore has no dimension of maleness or femaleness about it, and therefore I don’t think contradicts anything that Paul is concerned about here.

So I would put a woman writing a book way more in that category of city planner than of a drill sergeant.   So that the, the personal directness of it is removed.  And the man doesn’t feel himself, and she wouldn’t feel herself, in any way compromised by his reading that book and learning from that book.

(LAUGHS!) Yes, she can’t directly give you cooties I guess!  Sorry I couldn’t help myself. 

I think I understand WHAT he is attempting to say.  One example of a woman – of course in the extreme – that gets in the man’s face and bosses him around.  Again this would be an example of authority ‘over’ him.  How does ‘bossing someone around’ have any dimension of maleness or femaleness?  It doesn’t.

Then you have the woman as the city planner.  In reality she is following a traffic pattern, and laying out how it works with local traffic laws.  To me that isn’t authority at all.  It also isn’t ‘teaching’.  We now have two bad examples of the point he is trying to make.

Using these two examples – that I suppose your could use for his purposes – women are to be impersonal and indirect so they have no dimension on maleness and femaleness when ‘teaching’ to men.

Quite honestly that doesn’t remove the ‘authority’ he speaks of.  I mean I assume if she taught something he hadn’t gleamed prior – it was authoritative.  To Piper the ‘authority’ portion is the important part.  That is the ‘maleness’ part that women shouldn’t have.  Confused yet?

So that, that’s the way I’ve tried to think it through, so that, in society, and in in academic efforts, and in the church.

So that, that’s reading and benefitting from a woman’s exegesis in private.
Would you have any reservations about quoting from that commentary by a women in a public sermon?

I just think that’s an extension of the same principle.

You know there, here’s truth.  A woman saw it.  She shared it in a book.  And I now, I now quote it.

Uh.  Because I’m not having a direct, authoritative confrontation.  She’s not lookin’ at me, and, and confronting me, and authoritatively directing me, as woman.  There’s this, there’s this interposition* of this phenomenon called “book” and “writing” that puts her out of my sight, and, in a sense, takes away the dimension of her female personhood.

Whereas if she were standing right in front of me, and teaching me, as my shepherd, week in and week out, I couldn’t make that separation.  She’s woman. And I am man.  And she’s becoming to me my shepherd week in and week out, which is why I think the Bible says that women shouldn’t be that role in the church.

*Interposition - To place (oneself) between others or things

 

So he can learn from a women within the privacy of his own home while reading, but face to face is just too much for him….biblically.  You know the whole God’s design deal.  It reminds him of the woman drill sergeant I guess.  The book without her personal presence to teach allows him takes away her female ‘personhood’….in dimension (shakes head).  (Does he pretend she is MALE that way as well?  It won’t hurt him that way right?)

Man can have ‘indirect’ authoritative confrontation or directing, because she is only (ahem) preaching in a book.  It will allow his manhood to flourish and not be threatened by the mere fact he is reading a female author.  If she is in front of him?  WELL that might mean she could teach him again, and again and again.   That COULD make a shepherd.  Does this make anyone else dizzy?

I’m sorry but this man has some gall.  To THINK his manhood is protected by a book, because HE can take away that ‘dimension’ of being female away?  HE must separate those aspects, because otherwise its not GOD’S Design?  It’s insulting, and quite frankly I have to wonder if he hasn’t completely lost his cotton pickin MIND!  

How does that work when he is to speak at the True Women’s Conference?  Can you imagine…he is waiting for his time to get up on stage with his ears plugged saying ‘la la la la’ due to the fact a woman is on stage ‘teaching’….it’s a wonder he wasn’t diminished!

 

Okay – on a serious note:

He does realize that God’s word is NOT to be ‘indirect’ in this fashion right?  I’m pretty sure God’s word is to be ‘direct’.  Hmmm.  Maybe he can apply or not apply that interposition deal.  I guess he figures he is safe – remember that God has a ‘masculine feel’ afterall.  To me the more he talks about this biblical roles, or gender roles the more emasculated he sounds.    I never understand WHY he doesn’t realize how insecure and fearful he comes across.  Seriously.  He sounds like he is scared to death of woman.

 

What you think?  Confused yet?! Or just downright outraged?

 

MANHOOD, WOMANHOOD AND THE FREEDOM TO MINISTER
(1 Timothy 2:8-15)

John Piper’s thoughts back in 1989.

 

Additional articles on his podcast:

John Piper: “women’s books keep men safe from their direct, authoritative womanhood”

The Absurd Legalism of Gender Roles: Exhibit C – “As long as I can’t see her…”

CBMW, John Piper, Women Drill Sergeants, and Biblical Roles

Women Can Write Sermons; They Just Can’t Preach Them: Karl Barth vs John Piper

what John Piper sees when women teach

Drawing Source Used

Benevolent leadership headship authority...what?

The Big Cheese Shows Benevolence

Does anyone else get the impression when you READ some author's explanations of 'headship' it more reads as 'top dog'?  Does TOP DOG mean benevolence?

Wayne Grudem to me is a great example when attempting to explain away why Egalitarianism is 'bad'. He begins a chapter in his book about how for 19 centuries people clearly understood WITHOUT confusion Ephesians 5:22-24, and of course he also noted other passages.

If we look at those past 19 centuries the human race truly struggled with respect and dignity towards those 'lower' on the hierarchy chain of command.  Notice how he didn't bring up that point!  We can't ignore this lack of benevolence, but we do when we 'glorify' the past without those facts.

They seem to truly struggle with WHY people started to search, because something JUST didn't line up!  It could be due to claims of 'how God intended' things to be were NOT lining up with a sense of benevolence they claim to represent.

• We have all heard about the schools or organizations that took care of children or women that found themselves in abusive circumstances. 
• If you look today at articles that 'announce' pastors or church leaders that were found guilty of crimes against someone else in the church?  You find excuses as to WHY they fell, and how it was the person that the crime was committed against was at fault.  Check out just about ANY sexual abuse conviction!
• When "Christians" came to America did that they treat the Indians with this type of benevolence?
  
• Did "Christians" NOT use scripture as a weapon to keep slaves? They can chant all they wish about how you are to show benevolence towards your slaves, but we also can see from history words were cheap!
  
• Lets look at the benevolence shown towards unmarried women that had babies. The boy or man could walk away, but the woman and child were gifted so much benevolence it wasn't even funny right?

We can come up with tons of examples of how supposedly 'benevolent' leaders were far from the example they claim. Even to this day MOST won't acknowledge it unless their backs are against the wall.

Does that look like we 'understand' with no 'confusion' what passages within the bible truly mean?  PLEASE!  Give me a break!  Actions speak louder than words!

Headship - A Monster Of Their Own Making

Greetings!  My last post started at the beginning of Philippians 2, and how the nature of Jesus was described.  How we are to follow his example to the best of our ability, and how some in the headship crowd treat that portion of scripture with disdain.

Philippians 2

 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
   did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
   by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
   being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
   he humbled himself
   by becoming obedient to death—
      even death on a cross!

Jesus did not use his equality with God to his own advantage.  Yes, it seems the bible used that 'dirty' word.  Equality and Mutuality are not intended to ‘take’ or ‘give’ power.  Today it is taught, and almost drilled into people the complete opposite.  It shouldn't seen as a threat, and to often it is.  You have to wonder when they will contact the ‘dictionary’ companies to update their records.

We can all look at the world, and see humans taking advantage of a position of power when they have it.    Jesus did not use his equality with God to his advantage, and he reminds people that authority within the spiritual sense is not the same.  We don’t see him going around reminding everyone of his position constantly like the headship crowd.  You see him speak with authority most certainly, but he always showed humility in his teachings.

I have noticed that once you compare the way the world views positions of power, and compare that to Jesus?  They look completely different.  We all are able to acknowledge this.

Sadly, as a diversion tactic the headship crowd needs to remind everyone that not ALL people in power are corrupt.  They seem to have to remind others to not view them as corrupt while in their position of HEAD.

The point was more concentrating on scripture like Matthew 20:20-28, and how Jesus was speaking out about vain ambition.  The theme seems repeated in scripture like Matthew 18:1-4 as well.

¹ At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
² He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. ³ And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. ⁴ Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Most in the 'lowly' position aren't going to remind others how their power doesn't corrupt.  They seem to make this a 'power issue', and it clearly isn't.  Its speaking more of attitude, and/or a heart issue.  If we look closer?  "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

At that point they tend to ramble on about how others just like to view themselves as victims.  Next, they bring in the ‘feminism’ stand, and all the generalizations that come along with it.  You notice when you try to speak of the nature of Jesus they turn it around, and make it about them – the victims of feminism.  It’s amazing to watch at times. 

Do you notice how they skipped, jumped, and hopped over the scripture so they didn't have to deal with it? They firmly stood on the ground of 'authority', but wouldn't acknowledge the 'lowly' state Jesus states goes with that position.  Then the diversion tactics they are taught about feminism is brought in to cement the deal over not having to go there.

Feminism wouldn't stop anyone from what Jesus is calling us to do.  Its pretty clear, and he also asks us to 'change' and mentions what will happen if we do not.  Their mantra over, "Its those FEMALES you gave us..."?  It sure doesn't sound to me like this be acceptable at the entrance of Heaven.

Honorable Men

When I see honorable men rebuking the 'headship' crowd about this attitude or diversion?  They give examples of how humility works with their wife and children.  These honorable men also mention that it would foolish not to consider the wife’s input and acknowledge her strengths.  The glaring response from the headship crowd is quite telling!

They can give their wife's viewpoints a consideration, but THEIR wife know HE has the last word. 

Can we say ‘obsession’?

I don't think they can see the lack of humility in those statements.  I don't see it as a hard concept to grasp, but I do see sadly that some place their ego above the Lord.

They seem to be more worried about the ‘role’, and how someone may take it from them more than anything else.  We don’t see Christ worrying about such things.  Why can’t they connect the dots?

Lets look to God's reward for Jesus and his sacrifice and obedience to his call:

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
   and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
   in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
   to the glory of God the Father.

Boastfully stating 'someone has to be in charge' or 'I get the final say' isn't showing the humble and mature nature that God would ask of them.  Dressing it up as the 'will of God' doesn't change the arrogance, but makes it stink of 'lording it over others'.  Which it seems they don't understand is something God is against.

The circle of men that scream they must have their office of headship respected?  Their arrogance at times is almost asking for all knees to bow to them as well. 

Do they understand that they are coming off like that?  They claim you are (insert the insult of the day), and how you seem to not have a proper respect for scripture.  Do they not see their personal ambition in those words?

I think that is part that is MOST disturbing to me, because it seems they have almost been trained to not see the ‘entitlement’ that comes across in their statements.

The Scapegoat

It’s clear from the loads of articles, books, and websites that the fear of feminism is put forth.  If something goes against the grain for them?  It seems they have their scapegoat to lay the blame on.

If people believe differently than they do?  They have feminized mindset.  If other places of worship view scripture differently than they have in mind?  THAT church is feminized.

They have women’s studies that SPEAK OUT against the feminist’s agenda.  Heck the True Women’s Conference that I wrote about twisted and turned parts of history around to make it sound more evil to make their points.


What THEY don’t see is the fallout from the men or women that tend to truly make their ‘views’ look foolish.  I won’t say organizations like CBMW don’t acknowledge them, but they sure don’t seem to realize how much damage they do to their views of scripture. 

If they did?  Wouldn't we see the 'all out attack' like we do against feminism?  Why would 'acknowledgment' be ENOUGH in this case? 

The headship crowd have picked up their feminist rant, and are using it to their advantage.  They have created a paranoia within their midst, and yet they don’t seem to address this issue at all.  To me they have created a monster!

Those that misuse the ‘headship’ concept  - compared to the way they claim it is intended  - are handed a scapegoat to justify themselves.  These men hide behind their ‘superior’ attitudes, and most can see their outright contempt and fear of females.  How women can ‘take’ something away from them that they claim God ‘entitled’ them to.

Its funny how much ‘power’ they hand females with this fear.  I mean ‘females’ can take something away that God gave to someone?  To me that concept is completely silly, but that is the monster they have created.  

THEY have people actually BELIEVING IT!

Does Complementarianism plan on addressing this?  Sadly, from past history they tend to ignore it and hope it goes away.  Meanwhile, they allow the fools to speak for them.

What does that say to others?  Our fear of feminism  needs to take center stage due to the fact they are tearing apart families.  The men full of entitlement?  WELL, we will acknowledge they are over handed at times.  Their attitude is a direct result of feminism, and they are acting out to show the fear of the damage it has caused.


Sadly, they refuse to address the monster of their own making.

Sigh!

Hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore

I was writing about Mary Kassian presentation, "You've come a long way Baby!" from the '08 True Women's Conference.  Part Four I am going to breeze through quickly.

Part One , Part Two, Part Three

She used a good example of what Consciousness raising was.  That is where she left off the last time.

Consciousness-raising was actually a political technique used by the revolutionary army of Mao Tse-tung. His slogan was, “Speak bitterness to recall bitterness. Speak pain to recall pain.” To promote discord and instability in a village, his political revolutionaries would call the townswomen together and get them to talk about their hurts. “Come tell me about the hurts that you've experienced.”


So the women were encouraged to speak bitterness and pain, and the initial reluctance gave way to collective anger as woman after woman told stories of being raped by landlords, being sold as concubines, or physical abuse. As women vented their bitterness, they experienced a newfound strength and resolve that empowered them to corporate action.

For example, in one village, a peasant man was physically pummeled to a pulp and attacked by an entire group of women because he hadn't been treating his wife well. Together, the women found the strength to act and to confront their situation and the resolve to be active in forcing change, and that is how Mao Tse-tung got his revolution.

The man in the story about getting plummeled by a group of women made headlines.  Being raped by landlords, sold as concubines, or being physically abuse doesn't.   

Yes this makes the point of how things were very one-sided very well I thought.

The one-sided entitlements were also spoken about here with Consciousness-raising groups, and just like the army of Mao Tse-tung were aware of this circumstance (why else would he use it) it was also brought to light here.  Its very true it grew like wildfire just like the Faberge commercial.  "And she told two friends...and she told two friends...and so on and so on and so on".  Men, Women and Children started to talk about why things were so one sided, and what Mary Kassian doesn't seem to speak about is how everyone KNEW it as well.

The Second WAVE..for Mary Kassian

We will move on to Part Three of Mary Kassian's You've Come A Long Way Baby.

Part Two is HERE.  
Part One is HERE


She now gets into what some people consider the roots of the 2nd rave of Feminism.



The Revolution

She continues by speaking of Simone de Beauvoir. In 2009 her book The Second Sex was revised, and released as an anniversary issue. It was revised because there was huge chucks of the book that was mistranslated, and it was not true to what her points were.  Please note: I'm not sure that was available at the time this lecture was given.

In the chapter "Woman: Myth and Reality" of The Second Sex, Beauvoir argued that men had made women the "Other" in society by putting a false aura of "mystery" around them. She argued that men used this as an excuse not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy. She wrote that this also happened on the basis of other categories of identity, such as race, class, and religion. But she said that it was nowhere more true than with sex in which men stereotyped women and used it as an excuse to organize society into a patriarchy.

Kassian wants to describe this as:

She argued that in the relationship between men and women, women were the second class and men were the ruling class. They got all the perks. They had the power. They had the authority, and they got to say what the world looked like.

De Beauvoir argued that in order for women to live as full human beings, they needed to demand their rights, collectively rebel against men, and overthrow all of the societal structures that men had constructed to keep women in a state of servitude. Most specifically, de Beauvoir encouraged women to get out of the home and deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage and motherhood and morality.

I may not agree with de Beauvior on every count, but she does not encourage women to deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage, motherhood, and morality as the basic theme of her book. She may not have lived the lifestyle that Christians would consider proper, but again she isn't asking people to live as she did.

I look at this part: not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.

That's history, and that is what has happened all over the world.  This happened to men and women, people of different colors, races, and faiths.  Is that the Judeo-Christian ideal?  If she thinks so we have a different idea of what the bible says.  The bible is very clear about what God feels about those that do not help those they know need help for example. 

Ms. Kassian states the underlying message of Feminism is:

We—women—need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth. We need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth. 

I understand we can take this one or two ways.   I'm sure Ms. Kassian is coming from the position of God is our true authority.  That's fine!  I agree!  I realize she also is coming from the Complementarian position, and they look to their husbands as the authority as well.

When they speak about trusting 'authority' in the context of what de Beauvior is trying to get across?  She was speaking about 'group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.'  We are talking about the 'ruling class' at the time.  That is an entirely different can of worms.

They didn't understand the lower group, nor could they relate to their issues.  The ruling class did make the rules for the society, and did so without the type of 'loving and benevolent' leadership that the Complementary position speaks about.   The ruling class did not care about their 'personal truth' of their lifes, nor did they care to learn about them.  If you look at it that way?  Those men and women of the lower group truly have no incentive to TRUST the higher group in the hierarchy.

Its not a slam - its history!

Be June Cleaver not Murphy Brown!

I wanted to move to the Next Video from a previous True Women's Conference.  The last portion I spoke about Part One - You've Come a Long Way Baby!

Mary Kassian states that the Leave it to Beaver had been replaced by The Mary Tyler Moore show.

By the late 1960s, the image of June Cleaver being happy at home in her role as wife and mother were gone by the wayside, replaced by the 1970s Mary Tyler Moore image of a pretty, single woman in her 30s pursuing a career at a television station. The show was lauded as a breakthrough because it had the first, independent, attractive career woman as the center.

It discreetly implied that Mary was single. She was on the pill. She was also sexually active, but the focus of the show was on her career, not on her association with men. She truly was on her own, without a recurring father or husband or boyfriend or anyone looking out for her. Every episode, the theme song proudly alluded to her autonomy. “You're gonna make it after all.” Okay? A lot of you women remember that. You remember that. You're shaking your heads.

YES Mary came to Minneapolis after her engagement fell apart, and applied for a Reception position yet was offered a producer job instead.  The theme song for the show was called, Love Is All Around.  If we stop and think about the line 'your going to make it after all'? It makes sense!  I'm sure she came to that town totally broken hearted, and wondered where her life was going to go at that point.

It was upbeat, and truly nothing ominous about it.  I don't mean to be a negative nelly here, but it was a good show at the time.  Its focus wasn't on any of what she mentioned, and I don't understand why she brings this show up for her points.  I mean if the engagement didn't break down?  Maybe she would have been another Mrs. Cleaver.

Murphy Brown

In the 1980s, we're introduced to Murphy Brown, an investigative journalist and news anchor for FYI, a fictional TV news magazine. In contrast to the gentle sweetness of Mary Tyler Moore, this character, Murphy Brown, has a loud mouth, is rash, driven, self-assured, self-absorbed, and highly opinionated. She is a divorcee and a proud atheist, and during the course of the series, Murphy becomes pregnant but chooses not to marry her baby's father. A man would cramp her style. She has the child none-the-less and leaves the baby in the care of a revolving door of nannies so she can pursue her career. The child is merely a side in the plot that revolves around Murphy's self-actualization in the workplace.

There are alot of people in power - and she was powerful - that had that power corrupt them and others.  That's hardly a gender factor if you look at history.  I can understand why she picked this character, because Murphy Brown seems like the character they use to show you how 'feminism' is bad.  The problem comes that most of us don't live the Murphy Brown life.

Being someone that has a loud mouth, is rash, driven, self-assured, self-absorbed, and highly opinionated can be tagged to most of the broken world.  They may or may not be so in your face about it as Murphy was, but these traits for humans were present - and were alive - well before any movement started.