It is disturbing thing to Piper, that a man should follow a woman. It is disturbing that women should fight to defend men. It is disturbing that contemporary feminists would seek to deny nature.
In Piper’s interpretation of the human psyche, he identifies some kind of natural “hard wiring” which inclines men to take risks on behalf of women:
God created man first in order to say that man bears a primary burden for protection, provision, and leadership.
He cites contemporary research to point out that this truth is not merely confessional, but biological. Feminists then are not only in opposition to organised religion, but to nature itself.
So what about the research which contradicts these opinions? What about science which seems to imply genetic causes of homosexual desire? Or findings which indicate the evolution of humanity from a common ancestor with apes? I experience an intense, innate desire for material goods and the existential security consumption provides. Is this God’s natural way too?
What I see in this article is an abysmal engagement with contemporary thought. It is self-refuting since in one instance it affirms “what we all know”, namely:
Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women, period. They are hard-wired to get in front of their women—between them and the bullets..
Yet in the next, calls people to dispense with their natural desire for equality and fairness (which are the origins of the Feminist movement).
So accoring to their natural desires, men are protectors and relate to women as provider and nourisher.
It is no surprise then that for a woman to walk out onto the battlefield is repulsive to Piper.
Yet he does not begin to attack the issue of war itself. It is a given that men go to war with men, just as much as it is a given that men lead women and that nation-states are how we ought to organise human society.
For, that is the cause of war. The defence of the nation-state from the aggression of other groups or nation-states. I would like to see John Piper attempt to justify this economic arrangement beyond the basic pragmatism of it. It certainly is not Biblical. The predominant government there are autonomous city-states overarched by huge empires.
Men are not hardwired to follow women. Apparently. But they are hard wired to march out to war to defend the amoral nation-state which just happened to be the place they were born.
I’m starting to think there’s something crossed in the wires. There is certainly something crossed in Piper’s hermeneutics. One moment denying aspects of culture, the next moment affirming with apparently arbitrary methodology.
I submit that the reader of culture return to Jesus as The Man for us. Jesus is perfectly human, and his acts as an individual and a community-former might offer a vision for the church as she seeks to be an outpost of reborn humanity in this dying world.
The formation of the tradition he and I share is precisely in this kind of engagement with Scripture. Believing it to be the true hope for the world, they began to attempt to live out all they saw in it, even when it set them at odds with all their culture “knew” about the way it ought to be.
And, for those who see this as my enevitable deviation from predestination, I do not think I chose to be a Christian. But I certainly CAN choose not to be part of this train-wreck neo-Calvinist movement.