The Hypocrisy and Immaturity of John Piper

The recent uproar over John Piper’s answer to the question, “What should a wife’s submission to her husband look like if he’s an abuser?” (See http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/08/21/john-piper-on-submission-in-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-7071), has largely focused on biblical principles Piper’s recommendations violated, as well as his seeming ignorance about the dynamics of abusers, their behavior and their relationships, and the effects of the abuse as well as the behavior of those the abuser targets—usually his wife and children. The comments did not compare what he said in his answer with what he has written elsewhere.

In the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which he co-authored with Wayne Grudem, Piper’s views are radically different from his answer to The Question. Piper wrote Chapter 1, “A Vision of Biblical Complementarity: Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible.” Piper believes “Mature masculinity expresses itself not in the demand to be served, but in the strength to serve and to sacrifice for the good of women.” He goes on to explain that leadership is not a demanding demeanor, but rather moving things forward toward a goal. He emphasizes that the husband is to love his wife like Jesus loved the church when He gave himself up for her. (Italics are Piper’s.) Piper apparently classifies abusive husbands as immature, since they demand slavery from their wives and consider it unmanly to be anything but the top dog,.

His 3rd point defining mature masculinity is that it “does not presume superiority, but mobilizes the strengths of others.” Piper’s definition again classifies abusive husbands as immature, since they are notorious for exalting themselves and abasing their wives.

His 5th point, “Mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance,” also classifies abusive husbands as immature, since they are known for demanding the final say in the most ridiculous instances and some demand the final say in every instance.

His 9th point is that “mature masculinity recognizes that the call to leadership is a call to repentance and humility and risk-taking,” and his explanation emphasizes that a responsible man must be careful and humble in his leading. Here again, Piper's definition labels abusive husbands as being immature, since their carefulness is to manipulate, deceive, lie, demand, or whatever it takes to be in control of their wives. And humility is non-existent. Except perhaps for an abuser’s occasional show of repentance when he fears he will lose his reputation or even lose his wife. He may be “humble” when he asks other controlling and abusive men how to win over his wife in a particular area, but it is not a true humility since one of his core beliefs is that he is superior to his wife, even if she outshines him in every way.

Another point Piper makes is that “At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women…” He states that this sense of responsibility is for “women in general, not just for wives or relatives.” Piper uses the illustration of a man walking along the street with a woman, who may be his wife, his sister, his friend, or a total stranger, and “an assailant threatens the two of them with a lead pipe. Mature masculinity senses a natural, God-given responsibility to step forward and put himself between the assailant and the woman. In doing this he becomes her servant. He is willing to suffer for her safety. He bestows honor on her. His inner sense is one of responsibility to protect her because he is a man and she is a woman.”

Since abusers fail the mature masculinity test in the above statements, we have to conclude Piper considers them immature. But why would he refuse to do anything to address the issue? Why would he tell wives to endure for a season, until their abuser “smacks” them? On the one hand he seems to deny that a pattern of “verbal unkindness” is domestic abuse, but on the other, his mention of a husband “smacking” his wife suggests he does know that “verbal unkindness” sometimes escalates into physical violence. According to Piper’s own view of mature masculinity, his refusal to protect the wives in his congregation until AFTER a physical attack from their own husbands, classifies him with those whose masculinity is IMMATURE.

If Piper really believes these statements that he wrote, he should be telling abused wives to alert him as soon as they recognize abuse so that he can confront the abuser with training on how to be a mature husband. Instead of drawing the line at physical abuse, he should teach his congregation that unkind verbal assaults are absolutely NOT ACCEPTABLE. But he doesn’t. Instead he allows the abuse to go on and on and on—apparently for as long as the abuser does not resort to hitting his wife. He does NOTHING to protect her until AFTER she has been assaulted.

Piper’s own written words when held up next to his answer to the question, “What should a wife’s submission to her husband look like if he’s an abuser?” classify him as one with immature masculinity. And his written statements along with their implication that HE is a mature man who would step in to protect women, when put side by side with his spoken answer, expose his hypocrisy.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Scripture Abuse: Evil Feminist

Someone, who calls him/herself "Anonymous" left an example of scripture abuse on my “Hijacked Christianity” post (Feb. 15, 2009). I re-read the post to see what was so threatening. Basically, the post says that biblical manhood is self-sacrificial and that biblical womanhood does not put husband and his demands ahead of God, that doing so is idolatry, or as Jocelyn Andersen calls it, "husbandolatry." Remember that when a husband uses this type of scripture abuse against his wife, it is a form of domestic violence, since in trying to control her, he is demeaning her and violating her. This form of abuse can easily lead to physical violence. Instead of publishing it on the comment form, I chose to publish it in this post.

“You take away and add to scripture, you are aligned with satan and must seek forgivenness, for women are to be submissive to man and man treat women like Christ treats the church, this is why your evil feminist perspective is part of the destruction of the family and you are in great delusion or are a planted wolf, i shake the dust from my feet and rebuke you. May Jesus forgive you.”

I wonder who Anonymous is. His/her comment is fascinating. On the one hand she/he appears to agree with me, except I would say WIVES are to submit to their HUSBANDS and HUSBANDS are to love their WIVES self-sacrificially as Christ loved the Church, instead of referring to them as men and women. On the other hand, the writer says I am aligned with satan and have an “evil feminist perspective.” Considering that I at times quote scripture and at other times misquote it to show how others misinterpret it, the writer’s condemnation is extreme. Reread the post yourself. http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2009/02/hijacked-christianity.html
It is pointing out that Christian teaching about husbands and wives is out of balance, that if we are going to have a doctrine that teaches wives to submit to their husbands no matter what, then we must have a companion doctrine that teaches husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially no matter what. Otherwise, wives are put into bondage and husbands make themselves into gods, which is hijacking Christianity.

Notice the name-calling that the commenter embedded in action phrases: “aligned with satan,” “evil feminist perspective,” your…perspective is part of the destruction of the family,” “you are in great delusion,” “or (you) are a planted wolf,” “I shake the dust from my feet and rebuke you.” All of them are either popular phrases used from the pulpit or by husbands to control wives. All of them either suggest or outright declare damnation for the woman who believes scripture teaches that the biblical command to husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially as Christ loved the church, has at least the same level of submission and surrender required from the husband as is required from his wife, and perhaps more (as some men, like Paul Hegstrom, claim).

The husband in my novel “Behind the Hedge” used such phrases, calling his wife Jezebel, and suggesting she was rebelling, which is as serious as using witchcraft. The aim of the comments like this is to coerce women/wives into giving up their God-given authority in the family structure. Yes, authority. I Timothy 5:14 “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” The Strong’s Concordance says “guide the house” means to be “head of the family.” Unlike Ephesians 5:23, Strong specifies that “head” in the definition of I Tim 5:14 means “rule.” The term comes from another word that means “master of the house” or “goodman of the house.” The word “head” in reference to husbands in Eph 5:23 does NOT mean rule.

In addition, as a previous commenter pointed out, the word “keeper” is referring to “guard” or “guardian,” and is not referring to cleaning and cooking. So when wives are told to be keepers at home, they are told to take an authority position.

Apparently the person who commented above, using condemning scriptural terms and hot-button words to express him/herself, feels threatened when scripture is rightly divided and the result is that wives and women are raised to a place of equality beside men, or men are lowered to a place of equality beside women.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com