Comments on: Better to Be Silent than to Tweet

By: WillAdair

WillAdair — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:39:35 +0000

I agree that was his intent. My problem is not with his ends. My problem is with his means. The whole problem is that tweeting provocative tweets allows for way too much to be taken out of context. When we speak or write people can isolate a line or phrase and do that but the rest of the context clarifies what is really said and meant. I do not believe it is obsessive to guard against speech in a particular medium that may not be the wisest for sensitive issues. I respect the intent greatly. The disagreement is not the abstract intention but the limited linguistic means in this particular case in how it was delivered. I hope that helps clarify. Thanks for commenting Jace.

By: Jace

Jace — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:44:57 +0000

I guess that goes back to the question, if you give an alcoholic a bottle of Jack Daniels, come back an hour later and the bottle is empty, and they're drunk, should you have the right to complain?

I think it's really that simple.

I believe that a reasonable person can understand that the main topic Piper was trying to address was enableing others can rob a person of their objective position. In fact, I'm on the borderline position that if someone makes an argument against that, they are almost intentionally taking it out of context so that they can have something to argue against. Unfortunately that happens often in todays culture. Should we guard ourselves obsessively so that such forced missunderstandings don't happen?

By: Olivia

Olivia — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:57:10 +0000

I've shared these thoughts elsewhere- but I do think it was oversimplification. Such a complex issue should not be addressed in 140 or less, but even more than that, I do take issue with his statement that the wives shouldn't complain. Piper's point is very valid and I agree with him in essence. However, b/c he did it in 140 characters or less tends to imply that the wives shouldn't comment on their husband's sin. Granted, if the wife is not willing to repent of her sin (deliberately watching movies/television/etc that cross the line) but continuously wants to call her husband out, then there are big issues there. But b/c of the way Piper delivers this message, there is not room for explanation or further discussion (with him). Getting people to think and touching a nerve for the cause of Christ is awesome and not done enough in these days of feel good theology, but again, this was oversimplifying. Too many women are made to feel (or naturally feel) that their husband looked at pornography because of something they did (or didn't!) do. They aren't attractive enough, pretty enough, attentive enough, etc. Piper's tweet may have hit on those issues (for the women at least) without the benefit of further explanation. Wives shouldn't tempt their husbands by asking them to watch things with sexually explicit content, but what about when they are unaware of what is in a movie (which is why I personally read detailed reviews before viewing)? Or what will be included in a television show that has (in the past) been pretty clean? I know Piper was likely referring to when wives are aware, but again, there isn't room for elaboration in the way he shared his opinion (an opinion with a great deal of truth in it!) Just my thoughts.

By: Chris Canuel

Chris Canuel — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:00:09 +0000

I don't see why everyone is so upset about the tweet..I don't see it as being legalist, or insensitive, perhaps a bit over-simplified. I think most people got upset because it offended them and touched a nerve that they are uncomfortable with, because we don't like people telling us our entertainment choices are bad and because these days Christians look much more like the world, than a people set apart as they should be. This applies to husbands and wives, and it goes way beyond hardcore porn... Feel free to check out my blog for my stance on the situation... http://is.gd/7QVR1

By: Jace

Jace — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:05:57 +0000

It's kind of like giving an alcoholic a bottle of jack and leaving the room. It's just bad juju. It doesn't make it right, and he isn't trying to justify it. He's just telling wives to not enable their husbands.

Almost everything save the most bland of topics are oversimplified on twitter. They have to be to fit in 140 characters, and I would have to get someone elses view on how this particular tweet was legalistic.

By: Jace

Jace — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:05:52 +0000

I'm not sure I agree with your perspective of the tweet. I'm normally pretty savvy of controversial religious tweets and it wasn't until very recently that I realized a bunch of people were up in arms about it. I still havn't really looked too much into it (forgive me) so you may have to fill me in if I've missed something in particular, but to me the entire comment was about not being an enabler.

You can't hold your husband to a specific standard, but then actively help him break that standard by authorizing the temptations that he is going through. You can't be ok with, and go with your husband to a movie which incites lust and blatent sexual activities and then act surprised when he falls to that temptation.