Silly, silly boy.
J.R. Daniel Kirk points out that the Bible does not let Christians claim that God is a boy.
Sarah Moon notes that folks like Piper don’t seem to know much about women [fixed].
Paul at Disoriented-Reoriented notes that Piper also doesn’t seem to know much about Christian history.
(Those last two links via Dianna E. Anderson.)
It’s conventional to note that John Piper is a respected theological scholar. Albeit one who seems not to know much about the Bible, women or history.
And it’s also conventional to point out that Piper is probably not motivated by personal animus when he argues for a hierarchical arrangement that keeps half of the world submissive and subservient to the other half. Just because someone is arguing for a power-dynamic that just so happens to privilege him doesn’t mean that we ought to question his motives.
But when someone ends up where Piper has ended up — arguing for his own power and privilege, and making a career out of defending that privilege as innate and unquestionable — then no matter how devoutly sincere his motives may be, we still have to note that his doctrine and his career have tangible, real-world consequences.
Which is to say they have victims. Which is to say that he, John Piper, has victims.
Half the church. Half the world.
Mistreating half the church and half the world is wrong. It’s a bad thing to do. It’s not something that good people normally want to do.
And that needs to be said whenever this “controversy” about “the role of women in the church” comes up. So-called “complementarians” like Piper want to keep this all abstract and theoretical, that way they’re not held responsible for the consequences of their theories and abstractions. But they are responsible, whether or not they ever own up to that responsibility.
(P.S. Piper wants the church to have more of a “masculine feel.” The Bible says that the church is “the bride of Christ.” Can we conclude, then, that Piper has reversed his opposition to same-sex marriage?)