What does that mean, embraces the sovereignty of God ? Does that mean you accept that God is still in control or that everything is the will of God?

No offense, but it seems there can be some extremes in some views of Calvinism. Perhaps that is not the case here?

Just what the world needs. God doesn’t love everyone. Is the author of sin… I feel evil even typing the accusations they make against our real Lord
Born in poverty among the animals & rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.. Humble & lowly.
Arrogant men going beyond what is written… For what? Clap clap clap.

John Piper was right to report any criminal threat to the police; Christians recognize civil authority. Besides, the work of the police operates under the full sovereignty of God.
As for celebrity pastors, I can only say (speaking as a British subject) that John Piper, John MacArthur and Tim Keller conduct themselves in a modest and unassuming manner.
Mr MacArthur is outspoken, but only on behalf of Biblical truth, and not as outspoken as the self-regarding celebrities in the music industry and Hollywood.
I wish we in Scotland had more pastors who were not ashamed of the Gospel.
Here in Glasgow we have a foolish Episcopal priest who is praying that Prince William’s son grows up to be homosexual.
Read about it on the internet. This is how low liberal Christianity has fallen.
And our spineless politicians are playing along with it.
Hard to believe this is happening in the land of John Knox and the glorious Scottish Reformation.

good point

Righteous anger is anger that is directed at sin. As a Christian woman who formerly identified herself as complementarian it was because of things written directly by Piper and his cronies that drove me to the scriptures to double check if their brand of it was really what the bible says. Surprise, surprise. They tweak, word dance and play fast and loose with far too much with their “proofs”. This explains the crud seeping from their closet. If you tamper with scripture on one topic you are highly likely to do it in others. They are shining the signs of self serving hypocrites. Wearing the clothes of those who crucified Christ not the clothes of those who serve Him.
Real men have the balls to admit they were wrong. Admitting you are wrong is apparently a worse sin than denying Christ so it never happens.

The only denominations, of major import, that have real firewalls against neo-Calvinista, are the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Interesting isn’t it?

But don’t you think that Romans 9 shouldn’t be read in isolation from the rest of scripture let alone the rest of Christian history (prior to the 1500s?); that instead of viewing all of scripture in light of what you found in Romans 9, you should read Romans 9 in light of the rest of scripture? Just a thought. There may be room for either a less confident conclusion (which is the Calvinist position) and more room for understanding, at least, that there is a level of mystery in God’s election of Israel in the OT and Christians in the NT (and today) and leave it at that. Doesn’t that seem more honest?

I couldn’t help but notice your comment. You may have missed Harold’s point about intellectualism. He’s not saying he lacks the intellect to understand Piper, but that Piper’s views are hugely influenced by the philosophical movement in which a great deal of Calvinistic (and Reformed) thinking was formed. That is what has been called intellectualism.

When I was first converted, when I read Rom 9 I almost accepted limited atonement–but, I didn’t think that the truth staring me in the face was “fair”. Now, years later. I accept it, TULIP, and basic Reformed theology. Life can push you back to where you started from.

I like this comparing and contrasting of the old Calvinism vs. the new Calvinism at Dr. Hart’s site. Nails it I think. You state that this list of new Calvinism is not prescriptive, I don’t buy that. For the new Calvinist it sure is. If the old Calvinism is efficient why does it need to be hijacked and redefined by Piper devotees and fellow new Calvinist’s?

Anglicanism does not put up a wall against Calvinism, but does have things set so that Calvinism is not the only thing represented. Calvinists, Arminians, Anglo-Catholics, etc… all can find a home there.

Well, speaking as a neocal and as a preacher, I don’t have any problem with the idea that God used Deborah powerfully, and that he chose to do so. I’m not sure that means the entire complimentarian view point can be swept away though.

“Sensible”,

Just because you can echo my turns of phrase doesn’t mean your questions necessarily carry the same weight. To put it simply, that’s why I haven’t responded – because I felt your question was utterly irrelevant. I’m honestly not trying to be rude. It’s just that I can’t possibly fathom how *my* response to that situation is in any way pertinent. What’s in question here is whether one can charitably read *Piper* as ordaining domestic abuse. And, put simply, you can’t.

(Although, if you want my answer, it would be two-fold: first, yes of course you would be ‘allowed’ [the Scriptures don’t speak explicitly about this situation and so it boils down to your own wisdom rather than right/wrong]; second, I would still encourage you to contact your pastor and seek refuge.)

Sadly, I think you are very mistaken.
The churches in Northern Virginia, The Falls Church and Restoration for example,
are heavily influenced by “Reformed” theology. (Reformed with a capital R being
a polite word for Calvinist.)
The preaching, the music lyrics, the instruction material in fact the entire experience
is galloping toward a full on Presbyterian type experience !

NL,

I could make the case that in spite of your own verbose attempts to critique Eagle’s “verbosity,” you did not answer my question: what if I do not want to wait for a “moment” to be slapped by my husband…am I allowed to call the cops (not my pastor) immediately? I know what my pastor’s off the cuff answer would be…and I wish you luck in carrying the “greatly cumbersome burden” of that question.

Have a good evening.

Real men get angry that children are molested…not speak at the church of CJ Mahaney who covers it up. Real men take responsibility for their mistakes not stand by and exonerate folks like Mark Driscoll who frauded the New York Times bestseller list. Real men act like men and own up their mistakes and not hide behind ridiculous doctrine while ignoring the least of the these as Mark Dever has done. What good are the 9 Marks when CJ Maheny flees discipline and his church membership at Covenant Life Church and hides behind Mark Dever’s skirt?

A faith system that protects and elevates celebrity pastors at the expense of the least of these is a faith system that is worthless. And as a man and Christian I am angry to have this garbage being perpetuated. Curtis do a heart check…you’re faith is far from healthy if you’re holding up the corrupt Pharisees.”

Yes! Thank-You Eagle for Naming it like it is. Curtis can bury his head in the sand by insulting you, but the facts speak for themselves!

Curtis,

Eagle is the last person who needs to get some spiritual & mental health help. He was almost ruined in faith by the teachings of Piper, but God had another plan for him. He isn’t angry, unless the truth hurts you Curtis. Eagle is a truth teller.

“John Piper fails to mention that Neo Calvinists must be arrogant, corrupt, cover up criminal activity (like SGM has done….) and that one must create a culture of celebrity pastors.

So have at it…practice your “Gospel Centered Plagiarism” as Mark Driscoll has done. Practice your “Gospel Centered Blackmail” as CJ Mahaney has done. Keep giving ammunition to the Richard Dawkins of the world as you practice this “Gospel”

Oh and Brother John you truly don’t believe in God’s sovereignty. Why? A while back you wouldn’t have reported that threat you received to the Minneapolis police. The Lord gives and takes away and in your determinism… (cough,cough) I mean the Lord’s sovereignty you would have submitted to your death. Instead you rebel against God and go to the police. Yup….you believe the Lord is sovereign. Just remember tornado season is around the corner can you just stay quiet?

Thank-You Eagle for telling the truth!!!!

Now here’s a question: are women in “error” when they decide not to endure physical abuse for a “night” or even a “moment” from their husbands, but instead choose to immediately call the police (not their pastors or elders)? Are they subjecting their husbands to the improper form of “discipline”?

John Piper’s theology is intellectualism run amok.

In other words, you’re unable to grasp it. You don’t provide any examples but wish to disparage the man’s ministry. Got it.

These twelve statements try to justify a New Calvinism that is error at best and heresy at worst.

Can you provide a single example of heresy, that is specifically anything Piper said in these statements that violates the historic creeds and confessions?

The sad truth of the matter is that no new convert to Christ would ever by himself and his only book a Bible come to embrace TULIP

The truth is that before the SBC existed, the concepts defended at the Synod of Dort were widely held and taught. Just because you deny them doesn’t make them less Biblical or historic.

I preached at the SBC, a few years ago, I am wearied with having to try to mend non-Calvinist churches who were almost damaged beyond repair by a disciple of Piper or adherent of reformed theology

So many fallacies. I’d name the ones you’re committing but you’d accuse me of being overly intellectual.

Nothing as far as i can tell.

Did Piper provide financing for therapy for the woman who had to ask her husband to go from one room to the other, even the bathroom? He heard her story, how her husband got his ideas from Pipers sermons. Did Piper offer her any reparation at all? Or are abused women totally to be disregarded by Piper? Does Piper list all the things that a woman is allowed to do without asking permission? Does Piper really care about the damage done and would he in any way make restitution for women who have lost a lifetime in bondage to men who “misunderstand” Piper’s teaching of submission and deprive their wives of normal human rights.

I had to pay the bill for my own therapy and therapy for my children. No church offered to help. Piper doesn’t ask churches to set up funds for therapy for women driven insane by submission to men’s unedited demands.

Amen…it’s funny, I grew up in the SDA church, and while they had their share of praise for their “prophet” Ellen White, it was piddly compared to what I have lately been hearing about Calvin…

Eagle,

Thank you for your lengthy reply. Despite your verbosity, you didn’t respond to my reference to the Biblical command to maintain gentleness + graciousness, nor did you provide a reason why the sin of Piper/Driscoll et al *necessarily* communicates failure in the NC/YRR movement. You also failed to substantiate your gross hyperbole, that the NC/YRR movement has done “nothing” but promote greed, decadence etc. Neither did you defend your original statements regarding Piper + domestic abuse. Rather, you have given me anecdotes of how Piper’s message has been received negatively. This does not and cannot substantiate your original statement.

So, there’s quite a lot that you missed. Turning to your reply:

1) As Ross has made clear, you have an erroneous understanding of Reformed theology regarding the sovereignty of God. Consider Acts 2:23 – Christ was crucified according to the predestination of God. However, Peter also notes (in the same verse no less) that Christ was handed over according to the “lawless[ness]” of the Jews. Here you have two truths held together in the same breath: first, that God’s was meticulously sovereign at Golgotha, and second, that those killing Christ were committing a lawless act for which they are culpable.

Let’s translate this to your examples:
-> If my child is molested, the Scriptures promise me that God is sovereign over that event – He’s working it for good (Rom 8), He’s making all things new (Rev 21), He’s gathering it all up in Christ (Eph 1), etc. The Scriptures, however, would also promise me that something sinful and therefore grievous has occurred (Rom 1 etc). Whilst mourning such a tragic event, I would also have confidence and joy that Christ is still on the throne, and that He will work it for good. Nothing inconsistent there.
-> Brother John is sent a death threat. He is promised in the Scriptures that in this world there will be trouble (John 14-16), and so he isn’t surprised at this, but he is also promised in the Scriptures that lawlessness is curbed by God-given government (Rom 13). He is therefore acting in obedience to the Scriptures, and in accordance with the means of God’s providence, to seek legal action. It’s not Piper’s job to second-guess the providence of God (something he has been rightly criticised for when it comes to certain events); but it IS his job to act according to Scripture in submitting lawlessness to the appropriate God-given authorities. Nothing inconsistent there.
-> Matt Chandler got a brain tumour. He recognises from Scripture that the human body is under the sovereignty of God (e.g. Job..!), but he also recognises from Scripture and from biblical reasoning that God’s providence is such that we have wonderful medical treatments available. He avails himself of these treatments, all the while asking God that he rejoices in his sufferings (Col 2) and is relieved from them if the Lord wills (James 4). Nothing inconsistent there.

I imagine that you blunderbuss these examples as a way of getting the Reformed participants here to admit the sort of ‘determinism’ that you seem so opposed to. Of course, you should know (and likely DO know) that Reformed theology is *softly* deterministic, in that it is compatibilistic – it still gives room for inter-mediate means. The type of Calvinism you’re critiquing is hyper-calvinism and you’d do well to fine-tune your comments accordingly.

Nevertheless, if the Scriptures say that the worst evil in human history (i.e. the rebellious murder of the Son of God) was predestined and sovereignly purposed by God, all the while holding accountable those involved, then I too am going to say nothing is beyond the victory + sovereign reign of the Lord.

2) You know nothing about me, so don’t presume to think that I exist ‘in a bubble’. As it happens, I have very intimate knowledge of domestic abuse scenarios. But that’s not the point right know and you’re merely obfuscating. The question WASN’T whether Piper’s words have been mis/interpreted and ab/used for nefarious purposes. The question was whether Piper was advocating domestic abuse. And you’ve done nothing to show he was.

3) Piper’s interview is not necessarily connected to Driscoll’s “Real Marriage”. That he says he “loves Mark Driscoll’s theology” does NOT necessarily constitute an endorsement of every word written in that book. And besides, we’re not talking about the merits of that chapter. Stop throwing out red herrings.

4) Driscoll’s apology is not illegitimate just because he fails to detail reconciliation with Petry + Myer. He does note in the apology that he’s personally sought reconciliation with a fair number of individuals and wants to keep doing so. Unless information becomes available either way, neither of us are in a position to comment.

Nevertheless, I’m glad that you admit you hold Driscoll up to YOUR standard, YOUR praxis, and you’re so quick to defend YOUR own righteousness. Again, “Eagle” – it speaks volumes that you laud your own virtues, but are so unwilling to even grant that another brother’s apology might be genuine. You quite clearly consider yourself The Arbiter when it comes to these things.

I wish you luck in carrying that greatly cumbersome burden.

There are many who don’t believe in the exhaustive ‘meticulous’ deterministic sovereignty proposed by Piper, & many of the things Eagle speaks of are not ignorance, they are the logical out workings of such a view, irrespective of what kind of intellectual sleight of hand people use to try to deny that.

Calvinism prides itself on the Scriptural basis for its rational system, this seems to be what draws many people to it in fact. But it chooses to ignore some of the rational out workings of what it claims Scripture says clearly (i.e deterministic sovereignty) at will, whilst heavily pursuing others (such as limited atonement in the sense that God only really wants to save some, not all). This seems inconsistent, at best.

The concept Eagle (& countless others) have of sovereignty has always been around in Christendom, & how it works is well expressed in books like Scot McKnight’s Long Faithfulness ( http://www.amazon.com/Long-Faithfulness-Case-Christian-Perseverance/dp/1629214698/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1395176328&sr=8-10&keywords=scot+mcknight). He holds the NT position formerly held by Don Carson, which shows not all high level scholars hold to meticulous sovereignty. You many also want to look at others such as Udo Middleman’s work (Francis Schaeffer’s Son in Law): The Innocence of God (http://www.amazon.com/The-Innocence-God-Does-Ordain/dp/B00D9TV6KC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395176466&sr=8-1&keywords=Udo+Middleman.

There are others, but suffice to say meticulous sovereignty is NOT held by all thinking Christians, far from it.

Your understanding of sovereignty is ignorant and wrong. While I do not and cannot know the complete sovereignty of God, I do know that he is sovereign and he would not want his people to delight in evil which is the extreme you have concluded. You clearly assume that there is no room for responsibility for man if God is sovereign.

I would like to know if you believe that God is sovereign and how that works with your worldview.

As for the other points you make let’s discuss them.

1. John Piper loves to talk of a sovereign Lord, Sovereignty of God and how God is in control of things. So here is up talking about how every tornado and the I-35 bridge collapse is God’s will and a result of the Lord’s sovereignty. THEN you have this John Piper who teaches of this sovereignty who when he gets death threats in Minneapolis goes straight to the Minneapolis Police Department. My reaction of hearing this is the following..”Brother John..don’t you believe the Lord is sovereign? Don’t you believe like Job is told that the Lord givith and taketh away? Why have you resisted the Lord’s will by going to the Minneapolis Police? Don’t you know that by your actions you have shown that the Lord is not sovereign over all creation? Brother John doesn’t that sovereignty apply to you? Since the Lord wanted to take you life, why didn’t you submit and recognize that it was time for you to be taken away? Its not just John Piper, Matt Chandler showed that he doesn’t believe in the Lord’s sovereignty by seeking medical treatment for his brain tumor. CJ Mahaney showed that Sovereign Grace doesn’t believe in the Lord’s sovereignty by fighting a lawsuit. If the IRS comes down on Mars Hill Seattle like a load of bricks for violating their 501 (3)(C) status and Mars Hill cannot recover will you believe the Lord is sovereign? Likewise when your wife is killed by a drunk driver will you praise the Lord that the intoxicated driver was a tool of the Lord to accomplish his will? If your child is molested by a Sunday school teacher then really that molestation against your child is an act of glory and an act of worshiping the Lord since it was foreordained by the Lord. Can I recommend taking the molester out, buying him a drink and praising the Lord together that he was obedient to the will of the sovereign Lord. The hypocrisy from you guys stink in how you randomly apply sovereignty. Since all your brand of sovereignty is but nothing but determinism…can I recommend that you just submit to whatever life deals. For example…a gunman walking through an elementary school and killing 26 elementary school students is obviously the Lord’s will. A 767 tearing through 1 World Trade leading to thousands of deaths, again the Lord’s will. Or a serial killer in Milwaukee who murders, cannibalizes and has sex with corpses…again its’ the Lord’s will, so praise the Lord for every evil act that comes forth as its foreordained. Not only that but since your sovereignty is more Islamic than Christian and belongs more in a Mosque in Karachi, Pakistan than a Baptist or Evangelical Free Church in the US.
2. That video by John Piper on domestic abuse. Can I recommend you step out of the bubble and stop drinking the kool-aide? Also remove the IV that is pumping the kool-side into your system. That video has been the ire of domestic abuse counselors and counselors in homeless rescue missions. I know this because I have heard this from someone who works in a homeless shelter that takes in abused women fleeing domestic abuse situations. They are livid that Piper recommends a woman endure domestic abuse “for a night” and endure emotional abuse for a season. How do you define “for a night”? How do you define a season? To what extent should a women just submit? And since when did John Piper become the expert on domestic abuse situations? Have you run this video by domestic abuser counselors? Please enlighten me on this subject.
3. When it comes to John Piper talking about women not doing perverse things, I must ask you, have you read the infamous Chapter 10 of Mark Driscoll’s “Real Marriage” the chapter that says, “Can we?” So all the glorification of anal and oral sex per Driscoll’s whim. But WAIT…John Piper says he loves Mark Driscoll’s theology, so even if a man forces his wife into “Gospel Centered Anal Sex” than its okay because it’s Biblical? Correct? So why the hypocrisy? If John Piper says about women not doing perverse things then why speak out of another side of his mouth and celebrate and hold up someone who publically proclaims such teaching?
4. You’re naïve NL if you think that apology is legitimate. He says nothing about what he did to Paul Petry and Bent Myer. He’s made no effort to contact the Myers and Petry’s and make things right. Did he contact Tyndale or Crossway and take back his plagiarized works? No. He’s still publishing them. Has he approach DA Carson at TED and ask him for his forgiveness and offered to do whatever it takes to make it right? No. This is part of the reason why I wrote about my forgiveness and all that I have done. If Mark Driscoll were serious his efforts would show and he’d do it in a way that would show a change in behavior. Repentance is not saying I am sorry. Repentance is admitting and changing and offering to do whatever it takes to make it right. Mark Driscoll NL is sorry….he’s sorry that he was caught and sorry that his Industrial Complex has been threatened. Remember what Deep Throat told Bob Woodward during Watergate. Follow the money…this is about “Gospel Centered Capitalism” and not about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is another Gospel that Paul encouraged people to reject because it is not the Gospel that he has taught.

I am glad that you don’t care I’m an egalitarian. It is refreshing to hear that (sometimes egals are not extended that sort of “Christian charity” that is extended to Piper, Mahaney, et al.). Now what if I do not want to wait for a “moment”…am I allowed to call the cops (not my pastor) immediately? I know what my pastor’s off the cuff answer would be…

I don’t care whether you’re an egalitarian or not.

My point to “Eagle” was simply this: that the most charitable interpretation of Piper here, seeing as [a] he’s speaking ‘off-script’, [b] he immediately talks in terms of refuge, and [c] he elsewhere speaks of contacting the authorities on occasions when there has been abuse, is that he’s saying a woman might suffer a moment of abuse (i.e. “for a night”) and then seek help, protection, justice + safety. Any other interpretation of the above-linked interview is not only profoundly uncharitable, but it would also ignore other salient facts pertaining to Piper’s Church.

This is the important question. Given the camber of Piper’s response and what he actually said, if you were to endure domestic abuse tonight and immediately left to seek refuge with an elder from your Church, do you believe Piper would insist you return home and come back in the morning? OR, do you think he would say, “well done, now we’ll protect you and keep you safe”?

I honestly don’t believe you can say, with any degree of honesty or Christian charity, that it’s anything other than the latter.

Sorry: “And that sort…”

So if I’m married and my husband smacks me, are you saying that I don’t have to listen to Piper and endure it for one night?

And sort of discourse is why I am a single egalitarian…

The problem is, Eagle, when you conveniently + self-servingly designate your anger as “righteous”, as well as speak of how you’ve “reconciled with nearly 140 people” and attended “the largest Atheist rally in the United States”, it just smacks of the same Pharisaic attitude you’re bent on critiquing. We don’t need to know of your ‘righteousness’ and the fact that you’re so keen to tell us about it speaks volumes.

If you’re a real man, talk with Christ-like tenderness about the facts. As Paul says, you have a right to be angry – but you’re commanded not to sin in your anger (Eph 4:26). You’re also commanded to keep your speech gracious (Eph 4:29), and to show gentleness and tenderness (Eph 4:32). Can you honestly say that you’re innocent here?

So, calm down a little. Disabuse yourself of the notion that [a] we care about all your ‘righteous’ deeds, and [b] that your anger is somehow ‘pure’ and that your analysis is always accurate.

Now, more calmly. Some points to consider:

1) If you have a problem with theological determinism / the Calvinistic teaching on sovereignty, then talk about that. Yes, Piper et al teach it. But your concern should be to search the Scriptures and have that debate properly. Don’t passive-aggressively snipe like you have done here. If you have a problem with that kind of theology, then be a man and take up arms in the proper forums and in the proper way.

2) You’re mistaken when you speak about Piper on domestic abuse. You’re undoubtedly referring to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM. Let’s make some observations:
[2-A] Piper makes the careful observation that abuse comes in different forms, and so should be responded to in different ways. This seems reasonable – we would jail a man who physically abuses his wife, although we would probably consider it an abuse of justice if he were to receive the same sentence ‘only’ for insulting her, however heinous that still is.
[2-B] Piper then makes another ‘foundational’ kind of comment, that whatever our conclusion regarding this issue, we must not abandon the scriptural truth that a woman is to submit to her husband.
[2-C] Piper states that a woman should not do what her husband says if he is getting her to do perverse or harmful things.
[2-D] Piper states that if a woman endures a season of abuse, whether verbal or physical, she should seek help + protection + safety from the Church, who she should then expect to discipline her husband.

Your comment was that Piper teaches women should “submit to domestic abuse”. According to this video, that’s wrong. Piper never says that women should submit to abuse. Rather, he makes some careful distinctions, some careful observations, and then says women should be protected from abusive husbands by the Church, who should discipline the abuser. He doesn’t comment either way on police involvement but from other videos (such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsQgGqdGX1k, see 4 min 8 sec mark) we know that Piper’s church *does* involve the relevant authorities when necessary.

So, you have misspoken concerning Piper here. He’s not a perfect man (thankfully God uses sinners like you and me and Piper to make straight lines). But I’d suggest you’re mistaken.

3) You are right to be outraged concerning institutions + individuals involved in blackmail, or covering up criminal activity, etc. But I see no reason why this must *necessarily* reflect on the New Calvinist movement as a whole. Many YRRs that I know wouldn’t even recognise Mahaney’s name. What’s the logical connection between “someone involved in the NC movement doing something bad” and “the NC movement being bad”? That strikes me as a genetic fallacy.

4) You write that the Reformed movement has “done NOTHING but spread greed, corruption, and decadence”. I understand you were being hyperbolic, but this is patently nonsense. For a start, anecdotally, I know many YRRs who have grown in their faith in Christ and love Him more dearly. Immediately, your statement is shown to be wrong. And then, more concretely, you’ve got the growing numbers in new Reformed churches. Are you honestly going to suggest that ALL the people in Acts 29 churches / MH churches / New Frontiers churches [etc] are doing “NOTHING” but imbibing “greed, corruption and decadence”? What nonsense.

5) Concerning Driscoll and the NYT bestseller list, go and read his recent apology letter. It’s very clear, both from what he has said and what MHC has gone on record as saying, that [a] they were unaware of the extent of the marketing program in question, [b] they have promised never to use it again, [c] they have also promised to remove all references to the bestseller status. You can question Driscoll’s sincerity in all this, but I’d suggest that this would illumine your own cynicism more than it would his failings.

So, brother, I’d return the charge. Do a check on your own heart – look for a log rather than a speck. I’m not saying that you’re wrong for opposing the Reformed view on God’s sovereignty (although, personally, I would say you are). I’m not saying you’re wrong for condemning institutional abuse and/or neglect. But the way you’ve spoken here is out of order and mistaken on several counts.

John Piper is BAD! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhLCus0tsmw

Exactly!!! It should be that simple….Christ thought it was.

Curtis-

Actually I repented of agnosticism and sought forgiveness and reconciled with nearly 140 people this past year. In the process I put my name, and financial reputation on the line. My anger is more of a righteous anger. Its an anger at the corruption that exists that is perpetuated by John Piper and his fan boys. Jesus was angry at the money-changers in the temple, and the Reformed Industrial Complex has done nothing but spread greed, corruption, and decadence.

Several years back I went to the largest Atheist rally in the United States here in Washington, D.C. I was driven by my involvement in this corrupt theology. So much so that when atheists ranted about how angry they are about fundamentalist preachers who teach women to submit to domestic abuse I thought of how John Piper does the same thing.

Real men get angry that children are molested…not speak at the church of CJ Mahaney who covers it up. Real men take responsibility for their mistakes not stand by and exonerate folks like Mark Driscoll who frauded the New York Times bestseller list. Real men act like men and own up their mistakes and not hide behind ridiculous doctrine while ignoring the least of the these as Mark Dever has done. What good are the 9 Marks when CJ Maheny flees discipline and his church membership at Covenant Life Church and hides behind Mark Dever’s skirt?

A faith system that protects and elevates celebrity pastors at the expense of the least of these is a faith system that is worthless. And as a man and Christian I am angry to have this garbage being perpetuated. Curtis do a heart check…you’re faith is far from healthy if you’re holding up the corrupt Pharisees.