Press is unfair to John Piper on homosexual marriage
The particular spin put upon John Piper’s current handling of the marriage definition amendment vote in Minnesota is not entirely fair. Sure, he could be a bit bolder in encouraging his flock to support it, but his actions don’t necessarily warrant this report from StarTribune.com:
Influential preacher and theologian the Rev. John Piper came out against gay marriage during a sermon Sunday but did not explicitly urge members of his Minneapolis church to vote for the amendment. . . .
[. . . and thus what follows is a fallacious argument from silence---in other words, an assumption based on the fact that he did not say something. . . .]
Religious observers say the lack of formal backing from the two influential figures could signal that evangelical leaders in Minnesota are taking a less active role in supporting the amendment — a marked departure from evangelicals in dozens of other states where similar amendments have passed.
“Don’t press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism,” Piper said during his sermon, posted on Bethlehem Baptist Church’s website. “Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative mandates, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word.”
But writing last year after the legislative efforts had succeeded in sending the amendment to referendum, Piper was very clear that in regard to marriage, a legislative mandate is necessary and that Christians should support it. Piper affirmed both:
The legal significance of marriage makes a statutory definition necessary. . . .
It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Now it is somewhat unfortunate that he is not giving the same powerful expression as fully as before, but this does not necessarily mean his views have changed or that this is a “marked departure” from other evangelicals. I think his further reasonings on the issues are confused, but that’s another matter.
One thing, however, is clear: at least you can see the confusion and halting that “two kingdoms” theology causes in these situations.
My further thoughts on two kingdoms and homosexual marriage here.