Marxism, in a nutshell, pits people against each other by classifying people according to their status as either “oppressors” or “oppressed.” We’ve seen this play out in modern society through different schemes employing different types of classifications from race, gender, religion, and even sexuality.

But, in recent years, the Marxist rhetoric in the Evangelical Church has seen a drastic increase and leftists are exploiting Christian principles in an attempt to push Christianity to the left.

It seems to be working–and working well. Critical Race Theory has been at the forefront of mainstream Evangelical debate recently, particularly within the Southern Baptist Convention. Cultural Marxism has captivated much of the denomination even to the point where its leadership is willing to compromise on their own integrity in order to advance the cause. Most recently, Ed Litton–who was exposed for intense serial plagiarism spanning many years of his career as a pastor–now serves as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention largely unaccountable for his crimes. Why? Because he was willing to advance the Marxist cause by fighting the denomination’s imaginary epidemics of “sex abuse” and “racial injustice.”

But this is what we would have come to expect from these men who seek the praise of other men.

On the other hand, John Piper–a well-known and well-respected theologian of many years–should know better. To be clear, this author wrote John Piper off a decade ago. While Piper’s doctrine of hedonism in and of itself is a flirt with heresy while perhaps falling just shy, his coziness with false teacher Rick Warren and his association with The Passion conference should be enough to leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who loves God.

Still, Piper is a seasoned theologian and should know better than to employ the tactics and ideologies of the secular left and apply them to Scripture. In one of Piper’s recent podcasts at Desiring God, he argues, just like the feminists who employ the Marxian “power structure” dialectic, that David raped Bathsheba in the Old Testament.

How does he make this argument? He says:

I think there are pointers that David exerted a kind of pressure on her to warrant the accusation of rape, and I don’t say that because I think the act couldn’t be consensual given the power dynamics at play. It is possible for a woman to be sinfully complicit in committing adultery with a very powerful man. I don’t see any evidence for that in this text.

Piper argues that he sees no evidence that Bathsheba was guilty of adultery. Yet, he appears to overlook the fact that God held her accountable too. God killed their child. The thing is, there is nothing in the text to suggest that Bathsheba was not complicit in the adultery. Nothing. In fact, there is as much textual evidence that Bathsheba was seducing David as there is that David “exerted power” over Bathsheba.

Piper goes on:

On the contrary, I see two indications that David threw his weight around — threw his power, his influence, his position — in such a way as to force her, apart from and against her commitment to her husband, to have sex with him. So, here’s the first pointer that I see in the way the story itself is narrated.

The accusation of “rape” is one of the most abhorrent accusations one can make against another human being. These emotionally charged terms, in recent years, through the use of the Marxist philosophy, have been employed in order to move the Overton Window closer to societal acceptance of Marxism.

To be clear, the idea of power rape is new. The historic definition of rape–that David would have forced himself upon a fighting and unwilling victim–is not supported in the text, at all. Using this newly defined idea of rape would, logically, eliminate almost any possibility of consensual sexual relationship, even within a marriage. In nearly every case, a man is stronger than a woman and by this very virtue of having more “power” would automatically make the woman a victim.

This reasoning is not grounded in sound biblical exegesis, but rather reading into the text through a secular lens something that is not there. John Piper should know better, but he chooses to go down this path anyway.