Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

In this book—John Piper teaches that the very essence of femininity is submission—therefore women need to focus on being submissive to EVERY man in EVERY situation even down to “the most casual relationship with a STRANGER on the STREET.” (p. 44) That even the “housewife in her backyard” must be submissive when giving directions to a COMPLETE STRANGER so “that neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised.” (p. 50) That doesn't make any sense at all! Why is this book TEACHING women to be submissive and obedient to a COMPLETE STRANGER? Where's that verse in the Bible? Piper continues teaching that in their careers—women must avoid any jobs that give them too much direct influence over men in a work environment because that would “OFFEND a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership and thus controvert God’s created order.” (p. 51) Wait a minute—Piper just said that men being “offended” proves that women are disobeying God! Really? Jesus actually warned us that the real problem is “when all men shall speak well of you—for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26) According to Jesus—we should be concerned if no one ever gets offended with us because that’s a symptom of being a people pleaser. Like Jesus said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” John 15:18 (NIV) Going back to Piper’s words, what exactly does it mean for ALL male co-workers to “sense” their “leadership” of ALL their female co-workers? Do they just feel they are “responsible” to make decisions for their female co-workers regardless of their education, experience, and skill level? Where’s that verse in the Bible? What about all the Scriptures on sluggards? If a male co-worker chooses to be a sluggard, does “God’s order” still require all of his female co-workers to follow his “leadership?” By now you’ve already figured out that Piper is taking Bible verses on marriage completely out of context. Obviously there’s a huge difference between verses that apply to the intimate relationship of marriage and verses that apply to the professional work environment. Yet Piper still teaches that women must “think through whether the responsibilities of ANY given JOB allow her to uphold God’s created order of mature masculinity and femininity.” (p. 51) Piper explains, “A woman may design the traffic pattern of a city’s streets and thus exert a kind of influence over all male drivers. But this influence will be non-personal and therefore not necessarily an OFFENSE against God’s order. Similarly, the drawings and specifications of a woman architect may guide the behavior of contractors and laborers but it may be so non-personal that the feminine-masculine dynamic of the relationship is negligible.” (p. 51) “The God-given sense of responsibility for leadership in a mature man will not generally allow him to flourish long under personal, directive leadership of a female superior.” (p. 52) Why? Where’s that verse in the Bible? How could Piper possibly justify that? Let’s follow his logic for a moment— Piper is saying that men should feel OFFENDED if they have to take instructions too directly from a female co-worker because women must prove their femininity in the workplace by submitting to ALL their male colleagues. Now there’s several layers to this—Piper is also saying that the ONLY way women can obey God’s will is by submitting to the feelings of every male co-worker. That if women can’t be good enough people pleasers then they are disobeying God. Where's that verse in the Bible? This book is placing an impossible burden on women by demanding that we focus on taking responsibility for everyone else's feelings and become people pleasers. Yet the Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 1:10 that "if I were still trying to please man I would not be a servant of Christ." Corrie Ten Boom was a powerful example of a "servant of Christ" who accomplished great things because she didn't focus on pleasing people. Another great example is the missionary Amy Carmichael who reached many people for the Lord and rescued many children who had been sold into prostitution. When Amy Carmichael was fighting human trafficking in India, should she have followed the teaching in this book by focusing on whether she was being submissive enough to the local temple priests who were male? Weren't they the ones who were forcing small children to do horrible things? Amy stood her ground against them until India passed laws against temple prostitution. But according to this book, its more important for Amy to have been focused on being submissive in all interaction with men, than the bigger picture of rescuing children! That's not the Christianity that we know, but that's exactly what this book teaches. Remember that Jesus got upset at the Pharisees for being so focused on keeping religious rules by tithing from the plants in their gardens while missing the bigger picture of "justice and mercy." (Matthew 23:23) Does Jesus care more about "justice and mercy" than we do? Being a Christian is already hard enough without all the ways this book tries to make it more difficult for you. Let's try applying the teachings of this book to real life. What would have happened if Angelina and Sarah Grimke had read this book? Since this book has some very harsh words for what the Grimke sisters pioneered, lets take a look at the real history. The Grimke sisters were born in the 1800's to one of the most powerful slaveowning families in South Carolina. They grew up on the plantation being taught that slavery was the will of God. Fortunately, they read the Bible for themselves and realized how much God hated slavery. They would spend the rest of their lives fighting that evil in America. At the time it was considered unthinkable for American women to speak in church. When Angelina and Sarah traveled around the country telling their story, pulpits were closed to them because they were women. Pastors preached sermons about how women were supposed to be silent in church. This forced Angelina and Sarah to both write their own books defending their Biblical right to "teach" men about how much God hated slavery. That's how the feminist movement began in America. It was born out of Bible believing church ladies standing up for justice. On the other hand the co-author of this book, John Piper, actually teaches that its a sin for a woman to teach from the pulpit because the sight of her behind the pulpit would offend the masculinity of the men in the audience! That was an argument used in the 1800's to keep Angelina and Sarah out of the pulpit because they were making such a huge difference in America. On page 330-331 this book slams the work of the Grimke sisters by saying "the feminist viewpoint is destructive" and they label it as "faulty analysis." But they never define what the "feminist viewpoint" is. In the 1830's Sarah Grimke wrote the original feminist viewpoint that the foundation of women's rights is obedience to God's command. Because we are responsible to obey God, we are responsible to make our own choices in life, instead of having other people make them for us. And Sarah emphasized that southern women had a responsibility to speak out against slavery----she wrote about how hard it was for women to "rise above the pressure of circumstances that combine to crush her" when she felt lead to speak out against injustice. "Nothing can strengthen her to be a preacher of righteousness but a call from Jehovah himself. And when the voice of God penetrates the deep recess of her heart and commands her to go and speak she exclaims 'God I cannot speak for I am a woman.'" (see Jeremiah 1:6) Sarah continued "I have known many women who have not dared to open their lips but rather disobeyed God rather than enduring heartless ridicule." Yet Sarah also described the strength God had given her to face all of this opposition. She wrote "the motto of woman when working to transform society should be Psalm 27:1." (The Lord is my light and my salvation: whom shall I fear?). Sarah also wrote how God had spoken to her through the words of Christ calling us to "let our light shine before men" NOT hide that light under a bushel. (Matthew 5:16) And to "cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice, show My people their transgression." (Isaiah 58:1) Without the work of the Angelina and Sarah Grimke, women would not be able to have a personal bank account, own a house, receive an inheritance, go to college, work a job, or even drive a car. The system of patriarchy in America at that time completely denied women the ability to make any personal decisions in their own life until the feminist movement won those freedoms. Yet this book seeks to return to that system of oppression by accusing the pioneers like the Grimke sisters for "disregard for the real needs of women." Isn't having the ability to make your own personal decisions a "real need"? Going back to history----when Angelina and Sarah were traveling and sharing their testimony, there were several times that their meetings were disrupted by angry mobs. One time after Angelina's speech, the mob outside grew so upset that they literally burned down the entire building simply because she called slavery a sin. Should she have been more concerned about not offending the men trying to burn down the building or preaching the truth? That was a hundred years ago. Now Christians still get upset when women try to serve God. Heaven forbid they should preach from the pulpit. When Elizabeth Elliott spoke in chapel at a Christian college they moved the pulpit so she could speak without "teaching" any of the men in the audience. Apparently it wasn't a sin as long as there was no pulpit in front of her. But then again maybe the Apostle Paul dragged a pulpit around with him because he was only "teaching" when there was a pulpit! That's the glaring double standard in this book. On page 451 they emphasize that "God in His wisdom has said that one of qualifications for TEACHING and governing over a church is TO BE A MAN." (where is that verse in the Bible?) But on page 394-399, they allow a woman to "teach the church" because she is Elizabeth Elliott. She teaches on page 398 that the role of every woman is "surrendering her will." Now think about that for a moment. Elizabeth Elliott is teaching that women are to have no will of their own, no ability to make personal choices to serve God or pursue your God-given destiny, but that the "essence of femininity" is "to receive" what others decide for our lives but not be able to make our own personal decisions. She even says that this applies to both single and married women (page 398). Hang on a second. Jesus said in Revelations 2:23 that every one of us would be judged for our personal choices in life-------what we chose to do with what God gave us. How could God hold us accountable if we are not allowed to make our own personal choices? Did Jesus say that we would be judged for the decisions that other people made for our lives or our own personal choices? Why is it so easy that believe that God spoke to Balaam through his donkey, but God would never speak to the church through a woman? Why do we believe that the highest role of a mother is to teach her little children who are too young to discern between right and wrong, but God would never call a woman to teach grown men in the church who are mature enough to easily discern truth from error? There is plenty of Biblical support for women having leadership roles and speaking in the church. First of all, the Apostle Paul never limited the pastoral ministry to men. Look at all the verses in the Bible about pastors in the church and you will find NO MALE OR FEMALE pronouns in the Greek. Some people try to say that since 1 Timothy 3:2 gives a qualification of being "husband of one wife" that pastors must be male. The problem with that logic is that it would disqualify both Jesus and the Apostle Paul from leadership since they never married! Paul was addressing the cultural custom of polygamy and rampant immorality of his time. Besides, the original Greek in Titus 2:2-3 refers to female leadership in the church----but the Bible translators couldn't accept what they were reading so they twisted the verse to sound like it was discussing the wives of the pastors. That's not what the Apostle Paul wrote! In fact Paul told the early church to help the female church deacon named Phoebe with the work she was doing for God. (Romans 16:1-2). He also wrote about how much he appreciated the female Apostle named Junia (Romans 16:7). But since this book can't accept women being Apostles in the Bible they try to change the gender of Junia! On page 79-81 they write that they think Junia was a man----and then they try to make her accomplishments insignificant just in case she was a woman! However on page 80 they admit that the early church father John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.) clearly referred to Junia as a courageous woman. Read the Apostle Paul in the original Greek NT and you will find that he supported women's rights-----he advocated for women to receive an education in a time when they were denied education. So when Paul suggests that they "learn in silence" (1 Tim 2:11) first of all this was pro-women because Paul was opening a door to female education and secondly, that word translated "silent" is the same Greek word in the verse about earning your bread in "quietness." (2 Thess 3:12) If Paul was telling you to earn a living working your job in complete silence then you can say that women are to be totally silent in the church. If you'd like more Scripture on the subject consider this---the Apostle Paul actually answered the question of whether women should be silent in the church in 1 Cor 14:36-40. When the Corinthian church asked that question, Paul responded "WHAT? Did the Word of God come only to you?" In other words, Paul told them that they didn't have a monopoly on speaking in church but that everyone (including the women) should "covet to prophesy" as long as "everything was done in order." Then in 1 Cor 14:26 and 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul specifically ALLOWS women to teach in church. He just doesn't want them teaching false doctrine (see the research on 1 Tim 2:12 in the original Greek in the book Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:12 or the book Anatomy of a Prohibition.) There's a lot of Biblical foundation for women's involvement in the church if you take the time to find it. Reading through this book, it was funny how the authors will say that certain verses "hint" or "suggest" their opinion! Well--that's a creative way of saying that they can't find verses to prove your point so they have to make certain verses "hint" their point! And then there's the chapter in this book that says that since men and women are biologically different, women must be inferior to men. We haven't found that verse in the Bible yet. In fact that's the exact philosophy that Thomas Jefferson tried to use to justify slavery when he was confronted on the fact that he had written the Declaration of Independence while holding other human beings in bondage. Jefferson wrote the book, Notes on Virginia, trying to justify that when two people are biologically different, one should be controlled by the other. Yet even Jefferson knew that he was wrong. He wrote in that book that he knew slavery would bring God's judgement on America---Abraham Lincoln would quote that comment from Jefferson during the Lincoln/Douglas debates when America was on the verge of Civil War. Yet somehow these theologians have forgotten that history and are back to using the same proslavery philosophy to justify putting women in the bondage of legalism. There's so many more crazy things in this book we could point out but its just better for you to read the Bible for yourself and form your own conclusions. We all need to stick to what the Bible actually says and stop letting religious sounding books keep us from fulfilling our God given destinies. Its much better to follow the footsteps of Christ than the footsteps of Christians.