It’s not the first time I’ve disagreed with John Piper. But this week, he declared that God’s intention for Christianity (never mind that the Bible tells us that we cannot know his intentions or reasons) is for it to have a “masculine feel,” the Christian Post reported this week.
I am a Christian in spite of this kind of nonsense. As I mentioned in a comment on the report, Genesis 1:27 draws a clear parallel between two key phrases: “image of God,” and “male and female” –the unity of men and women reflects the unity of the Trinity. Understand–I think John Piper is sincere in his effort to follow Jesus. I just happen to think he’s absolutely wrong on this.
In just a few minutes, Dr. Piper did so much damage to the kingdom. What scares and saddens me is that at this big conference, hundreds of people (mostly men) nodded their heads in agreement, and perhaps resolved to keep half the church from using their gifts to God’s glory. This is not okay.
I loved the response of Rachel Held Evans, who shared some excellent thoughts, but then asked Christian brothers to send her blog posts in response.
For a very thoughtful, scholarly but quite readable response from a Christian man, check out this post on the Radical Femininity of Christ at the Disoriented Theology blog.
Click over and read the Christian Post article, and tell me–do you agree or disagree with Piper? And then: what do you suppose motivated him to speak on this topic?
Huh. And here I thought the church was the Bride of Christ. Sounds pretty feminine to me.
Tim
Exactly, Tim. Did you see that Rachel Held Evans asked for men to respond with blog posts? If you want to write something I’d be glad to post it here.
Keri, I’d be honored to try my hand at an article. Please drop me a line at my email so I know how to get it to you, and I hope to write it up within the next couple of hours.
Tim