Piper and Masculine Christianity

John Piper, a hierarchical theologian, “draws out the eleven elements of the goodness of God's design of  "Masculine Christianity"” in an article posted on CBMW’s website. Let’s take a look at these eleven elements.

(Read the whole article at http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/sweet-blessings-of-masculine-christianity/)

According to Piper Christianity should be masculine, because masculinity is equivalent to courage, strength, risk-taking and a willingness to sacrifice oneself in the service of a majestic God. I actually agree with Piper. Christianity should be masculine for all those reasons and all men and women who exhibit masculine traits should become preachers.


I have a feeling that this isn't what Piper means with his "Masculine Christianity," for Piper thinks women should be properly feminine, although he writes:

“Men are freed to have feminine traits without being effeminate and women are freed to have masculine traits without being tomboys. (The most admirable women have masculine traits and the most admirable men have feminine traits: Lopsided masculinity and femininity are not as admirable.)”

Men should be masculine and feminine, and women should be feminine and masculine, but men should be more masculine than women, for masculinity is essential for leadership, and only men should lead. The key here is that men fear becoming effeminate, which in Piper’s view refers to being dominated by a woman. This must be avoided at all cost, for a man who is dominated by a woman will not be able to feel his call to lead, protect, and provide.

And what about women? Women, Piper tells us are “more properly drawn to a Christian life that highlights the proper place of humble, strong, spiritual men in leadership.” In other words, men shouldn’t dominate either, but take the initiative without being domineering. This will free women to be strong and courageous, and prevent men from feeling threatened by women who are effective in ministry.

But if women should be strong and courageous, why are they not considered properly masculine and therefore able to lead the church? In Piper's view, women should be strong and courageous, but only as long as they are not stronger and more courageous than men, for it would compromise the “biblical vision of complementarity.”

This "biblical vision of complementarity" will include a “clear definition of manhood” that will help men accept their responsibilities, and youth leaders and parents “will catch a clearer definition of how to answer the question of a boy: "Daddy, what does it mean to grow up and be a man and not a woman?" And a clearer definition of how to answer the question of a girl: "Mommy, what does it mean to grow up and be a woman and not a man?"”

However, this clear “definition of manhood” isn’t found in the Bible, for the Bible tells us how to become God-like, and God isn’t a man. Piper has to begin with the idea the men should lead. Hence we find that Piper’s “Masculine Christianity” is an edifice that is imposed on the Bible instead of a theology that is found in the Bible. In other words, men shouldn’t lead because they were born masculine; they should lead because, well, because men should lead, and because men should lead, little boys must be taught how to become properly masculine and little girls have to be taught how to become properly feminine. What they will learn depends on their teachers, and it is here that things get tricky for Piper, for if men are men and not women, why do men need to be taught how to become men?

In addition, if men and women should be both masculine and feminine, why does a man have to be more masculine than feminine? Who decides how much is enough?

The last elements in Piper's list give us a clue. Piper writes that the “God of the Bible is overwhelmingly powerful and authoritative and often violent. He is Lord and King and Master and Sovereign and Father and Ruler.” Piper equates this list with masculinity,

Not surprisingly, Piper equates femininity with tenderness, gentles, patience, and nurturing, and he writes that women need men to portray God’s grandeur in order to be properly feminine without having a need to “work to create the ethos of God's grandeur.” In essence Piper believes that if we don’t see God as a strong, violent God, we won’t see his gentleness, and because of this fear of his, men must be masculine. Piper goes as far as saying we must have a “wartime mindset and a wartime lifestyle.” I wonder what Jesus would say about that one.

Piper is also fearful that strong preaching will vanish, and it is here that his whole edifice finally collapses. For if preaching must be a “forceful acclamation of the greatness of God” and an expression of the “full range of the way God is,” why not let women talk about God once in a while too? God is, after all, tender, gentle, patient, and nurturing too.

The most troubling aspect about Piper's "Masculine Christianity" is that nothing in the Bible tells us that being powerful and violent is a masculine trait, nor does anything in the Bible tell us what femininity is all about. So where does Piper get his definitions from? From the same place everyone else: from his parents, culture, movies, books, which is why little boys and girls must be taught how to be properly masculine and feminine.

In a final analysis, Piper's "Masculine Christianity" is nothing more than a cultural package adorned with a cross.