To start, I don't appreciate Piper's irrational emotional appeal for writing this book:

[T]here is another way to commend the vision. A person also wants to know, Is the vision beautiful and satisfying and fulfilling?... Commending Biblical truth involves more than saying, "Do it because the Bible says so." That sort of commendation may result in a kind of obedience that is so begrudging and so empty of delight and hearty affirmation that the Lord is not pleased with it at all.... Not only must there be thorough exegesis, there must also be a portrayal of the vision that satisfies the heart as well as the head.... This little book is meant to fit mainly into the second category. (15-16)

The Bible contrasts the mouth (what one professes) and the heart (which really means the whole person--the true, inner self--not just emotions) rather than the head and the heart. This is why Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me'" (Mark 7:6). The modern psychological distinction between head ("intellect") and heart ("emotions") is unbiblical, which leads Piper to overemphasize emotions and create a false dichotomy between obedience and desire. Much of what John Robbins said in his review of Colson's Loving God applies to Piper's book as well:

...in your [Colson's] book and tapes you attack creeds and philosophies and emphasize the Person and cross of Christ. You contrast a “magnificent philosophy” with a “living truth,” and “academic theory" with a “living Person.” But the Bible makes no such contrast. Indeed, it teaches the opposite: As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. Christ said, “My words are spirit and they are life.” The words are the Spirit. The Gospel, the truth, the words are powerful. There is no contrast in the Bible between words or teaching or doctrine or philosophy and Christ. There is a contrast between profession of belief and actual belief, but not between Christ and his words. The contrast is a figment of modern psychology. We know Christ only insofar as we know about him. One cannot know Christ, or any other person, except by knowing propositions about him. Knowledge is always knowledge of a proposition. Saving faith is always assent to one or more Biblical propositions. Therefore, please do not disparage knowledge or teaching or doctrine, for by doing so, you are disparaging Christ. As Calvin put it, we owe to Scripture the same reverence that we owe to God. (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=187)

Jesus also said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:21). Believers keep God's laws because God said so. Period. Not because we find them "satisfying." "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31). "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3). A true believer desires to obey his heavenly Father because he's been forgiven by Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Law of God is only burdensome and "empty of delight and hearty affirmation" to unregenerate sinners because it condemns them. We don't need to somehow be emotionally convinced in addition to "thorough exegesis": "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord" (Isaiah 1:18).

Piper also confused me when he, seemingly referring to Emil Brunner and Paul Jewett--who were liberal theologians--claims that "our best Christian thinkers claim not to know what masculinity and femininity are" (20). But anyone who studies the Bible can know exactly what true masculinity/femininity are.

Moreover, the book's misleading subtitle is "Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible." I disagree. He defines manhood and womanhood as the following:

At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man's differing relationships.

At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman's differing relationships. (22)

A more appropriate subtitle would be "Manhood and Womanhood defined in relation to each other." Although Piper is a complementarian (20-21), his definitions of manhood and womanhood overlook the fundamentals: God's order and creation roles. And why does a woman, according to Piper's definition, seem to have more than one head? 1 Corinthians 11:3-13 reads:

I [Paul] want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.... For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Piper doesn't explain that man was made for God and woman for man. And although spiritually "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), Christ explains why there is a prescribed natural order:

The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

So in this life, God institutes an order for us to follow until the resurrection comes because we are still in the flesh and marry and have kids...and die. Women should "have a symbol of authority on their heads because of the angels"--i.e., a woman's "hair is given to her for a covering" (Eph. 5:16), and the man also covers her because even though women are spiritually equal to men and to the angels in heaven, they are still in the flesh, so they must "submit to [their] own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" (Ephesians 5:22 ff.). This order won't be necessary for believers after the resurrection because they will no longer marry and die, and because there will only be one marriage in heaven: Christ (the Husband) and the church (the bride, Revelation 19.7-9). This also shows why God has historically destroyed societies that embrace homosexuality: it violates God's natural order and unravels the moral fabric of society; the most fundamental institution of society is the one that God Himself established first and foremost--marriage.

Piper also argues that "It is not primarily the responsibility of women to build procedural and relational guidelines to protect themselves from the advances of ill-behaved men. Primarily it is the responsibility of mature manhood to establish a pattern of behaviors and attitudes" (45). It is primarily the responsibility of both! Not just the man's! A woman's only head is her husband; she does not need to rely or depend on any other man to "establish" boundaries. Piper later on claims that "the natural expression of...womanhood will be hindered by the immaturity of the man in her presence" (55). This makes no sense. True womanhood is affirmed by God and the husband and is only hindered by other immature men if the woman is insecure. But even a mature married woman, according to Piper, "will affirm and receive and nurture the strength and leadership of men in some form in all her relationships with men" (59). These comments make me very uncomfortable, for the only man a woman needs to "affirm and receive and nurture" is either her father if she's single or her husband if she's married! Not every "worthy" man she comes across!

Lastly, Piper believes that men and women should be "totally committed to ministry" (73) but seems to disassociate ministry from family. Family is ministry. Every parent is a youth pastor. "For if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3:5, cf. the entire book of Proverbs). Your kids are your responsibility, your legacy, your purpose, your calling, your ministry. You had 'em, so raise 'em!

The book had some helpful points, but overall it confuses rather than clarifies biblical manhood and womanhood. I would recommend Gary Smalley's If Only He Knew, Pastor Tommy Nelson's teachings on marriage and the Song of Solomon (http://dbcmedia.org/), and Pastor G. Craige Lewis' teachings on creation roles (http://www.exministries.com/true-church/) instead. ( )

Still a greatly helpful book by John Piper, although printed in 1990. He lays out clearly the ways that men and women are different. I think he is careful to not make it merely gender roles as typically thought, using the illustration of his own mother.

This is a quick read to get someone started on thinking Biblically with regard to gender, sexuality, roles, and more. It does not get bogged down by the deep philosophy of some larger works. ( )

I generally like Piper a great deal, and my criticisms of this book are more due to the topic than his arguments. I simply don't think he is entirely clear on the differences between the sexes. The reason I say that this criticism is more about the topic is that I don't think anyone has been very clear about it. And I can't really complain about Piper here because I don't think I can do any better.

The roles of the sexes is one of the most complicated and misunderstood topics in Scripture. On the one had the rules seem very restrictive, and on the other, very freeing. It is not as simply as just saying, "Women can never teach," because that is not at all true. But the New Testament does set down these guidlines of what is appropriate for men and women to do within the church, and we're still arguing about how that translates into a Christian life.

And it doesn't help that most people are scared to look into this topic for fear of being labled a sexist. That doesn't really help anyone.

I (and Piper, obviously) see something wonderful in the differences between men and women, something complementary. Piper does about as well as I have seen to explain that. I'm not sure that I can, except that I often recognize it when it is happening properly, and I certainly recognize it when it is thrown aside. ( )

Shepherd's Grace Church; Women's Study Year One