In a recent article and interview, prominent pastor John Piper addressed the topic of sexual abuse allegations in light of the #MeToo movement, framing his response through the lens of complementarian theology and patriarchy. This perspective, advocating for male leadership and female submission within the home, church, and society, has sparked considerable discussion and critique. This article delves into Piper’s arguments, offering a critical analysis of his views and exploring why his proposed return to patriarchy as a solution to sexual abuse is not only misguided but potentially harmful.
Piper’s complementarian stance posits that patriarchy is divinely ordained, assigning men leadership roles and women subordinate positions. In his interview, responding to the widespread awareness of sexual harassment and abuse catalyzed by #MeToo, Piper suggests that a return to patriarchal structures, where men are positioned as rulers and “protectors” of women who, in turn, “submit,” is the answer. However, this response presents several critical flaws that warrant careful examination.
One of the primary issues with Piper’s argument is its ahistorical perspective on sexual abuse. He implicitly suggests that sexual assault and harassment are modern issues, stemming from egalitarian gender views that promote equality. This ignores the extensive history of abuse throughout centuries, predating modern egalitarian movements. Indeed, the Bible itself, a text central to Piper’s theology, recounts numerous instances of abuse against women like Hagar, Tamar, Lot’s daughters, and Bathsheba, all within deeply patriarchal societies.
John Piper preaching
The #MeToo movement is not indicative of a sudden surge in the occurrence of abuse. Instead, it signifies a crucial shift in societal consciousness, reflecting a growing recognition of pre-existing abuse and a collective determination to challenge it. It is a movement driven by women seeking not paternalistic protection, but fundamental respect and dignity as human beings. As Cameron Baumgartner astutely pointed out, Piper misrepresents egalitarianism by falsely claiming it teaches men to disregard care and protection for women. Egalitarianism rejects oppressive paternalism, not basic human compassion and responsibility.
Furthermore, it is notable that the impetus for confronting sexual abuse has largely originated outside of the evangelical church, the very community where Piper holds significant influence. These movements for accountability have emerged from the broader culture, often criticized by figures like Piper for its increasing gender equality. This presents a stark hypocrisy, particularly considering the strong support within white evangelical circles for political leaders who have faced numerous accusations of sexual misconduct and have even boasted about such actions. If Piper’s genuine aim is to protect women, a more pertinent starting point might be addressing the issue of abuse apologism within his own evangelical community.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Piper’s position is the underlying assumption that sexual abuse is less prevalent within patriarchal evangelical contexts compared to more egalitarian environments. This assumption is dangerously detached from the lived experiences of many women. Numerous accounts from women who have left evangelical churches paint a different picture, suggesting that abuse may indeed flourish within patriarchal systems. In these environments, women often have limited voice and recourse, leading to the suppression and concealment of abuse rather than its open confrontation. Piper’s past statements, suggesting that women in abusive relationships should initially “endure verbal abuse for a season” and even “perhaps being smacked one night” before seeking help – and even then, directing them to church elders rather than secular authorities – further illustrate this deeply problematic approach. The unfolding scandals within highly patriarchal church organizations, where abuse allegations are often handled internally by male leadership, tragically underscore the potential for abuse to thrive in such structures.
Genesis 2 passage in Hebrew, referencing the creation narrative often cited in discussions about gender roles. Alt text highlighting Genesis 2 text and its relevance to biblical interpretations of gender and creation.
Contrary to Piper’s assertion, patriarchy is not a protective framework for women; it functions to preserve male authority within the home, church, and society, often at the expense of women’s well-being and safety. This becomes further evident when examining Piper’s scriptural interpretations used to support his claims.
Piper’s use of scripture to bolster his patriarchal views is also questionable. He cites the Genesis creation narrative of Adam and Eve to argue for a pre-ordained hierarchy where men are designed to lead and protect, and women to follow and submit. He attributes the Fall to Adam’s failure to fulfill his masculine role of leadership and protection. However, this interpretation is a significant departure from a nuanced reading of the text. The Hebrew word ezer, used to describe Eve as Adam’s “helper,” is frequently employed elsewhere in the Bible to describe God Himself as a powerful intercessor and protector. Examples include descriptions of God as “helper of the fatherless” (Psalm 10:14), David’s “strong defender” (Psalm 70:5), and Israel’s “shield and helper” (Deuteronomy 33:29). Ironically, within the context of Genesis, the term ezer suggests that the woman is presented as the man’s strong protector, not his subordinate.
Piper further misinterprets scripture when he claims the New Testament household codes, which instruct wives to submit to husbands and husbands to love wives, are unique to the Bible and absent in other cultures. This is factually inaccurate. These codes are demonstrably similar to instructions found in the writings of prominent Greco-Roman figures like Aristotle, Philo, and Josephus, prevalent throughout the ancient world. The distinctive feature of the New Testament household codes is not their reinforcement of patriarchal structures, but their integration of Jesus’ model of humility into all relationships. They call upon early Christians – a diverse community including Jews and Gentiles, masters and slaves, husbands and wives – to transcend societal hierarchies and strive for a higher kingdom where distinctions of status, including gender, become secondary to unity in Christ, as articulated in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In conclusion, advocating for patriarchy as a solution to sexual abuse is fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Consider the real-world implications:
- Denying women leadership roles and silencing their voices within the church does not safeguard them; it marginalizes and weakens them, making them more vulnerable.
- Instructing women to submit to abusive husbands under the guise of biblical teaching does not protect them; it perpetuates harm and endangers their lives.
- Managing abuse allegations internally within church structures, rather than involving law enforcement, does not protect women; it shields perpetrators and enables further abuse.
- Misusing scripture to reinforce culturally biased gender stereotypes does not protect women; it imposes harmful constraints and distorts biblical truth.
In essence, calling for a return to patriarchy is not a counter-cultural solution. Patriarchy has been the dominant societal structure for centuries. True counter-cultural action lies in emulating Jesus, who, despite His divine nature, relinquished power and privilege to become human, born to, nurtured by, protected by, befriended by, and ultimately, believed by women. This radical example of humility and valuing of women stands in stark contrast to the hierarchical structures of patriarchy and offers a genuine path towards respect, dignity, and safety for all.
