Yesterday, I wrote a post that neither praised, nor condemned Dr. Piper’s take on the proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution.  In saying that I neither praised, nor condemned him, that is not to say I did not critique him.  At least part of that critique, I will stand by.  There was some incomplete wording that, I think, should Dr. Piper read my post it’s my guess he would likely agree with me (or so I hope).

But, he has specifically written today to quell the thought that he was sitting this one out or not instructing his people to take a stand on this issue.  I’m very glad for this post and hope Dr. Piper will continue to clarify and carefully instruct his congregation in this matter.  Here’s what Dr. Piper said:

First they say, “Key Minnesota pastors opt out of marriage fight.” I didn’t opt out. I opted in. What is at stake more than anything else is the meaning of marriage and how important it is for the common good and for the glory of Christ. That was the main burden of the message. Marriage is the sexual and covenantal union of a man and a woman pledging life-long allegiance to each other as husband and wife. There is no such thing as so-called same-sex “marriage.” That is clear in God’s word.

The second mistake is to say that I “have not encouraged members to take a stand on the issue.” That is, in fact, the opposite of what I was saying in the last two points of my message (points 7 and 8).

The aim of point 7 was to help our people know how to vote on the marriage amendment. The question for all of us is, Which of our beliefs about what is good for the common good should be put into constitutional law? I gave four guidelines. The aim of those guidelines was not to discourage our people from “taking a stand” but to help them take an intelligent one.

The aim of point 8 was that over the long haul Christians will take clearer, stronger, more effective stands for justice and righteousness and the common good if pastors and preachers speak powerfully and faithfully and biblically to the moral and spiritual and ethical and theological issues surrounding political issues, rather than advocating particular candidates and laws. I gave several historical illustrations of how this has worked.

Therefore, I encourage all Christians to think this through, and to take a stand, and to be as active in the political process on this issue as their conscience dictates. [emphasis original]

I would also encourage you to listen to, watch, or read the sermon that is in question.  Very instructive.

It may be convenient if Dr. Piper actually said, “vote for this” or “vote against that,” but is that prudent?  What he has done is basically to suggest that the Christian position is that marriage is only to be defined – at home, in church, or in law – as the union between one man and one woman.  He then leaves the inference to be made that Christians ought to vote for the amendment.  So, by implication, I suppose, he has made an endorsement.

But – and this is important – Dr. Piper should be commended for taking a thoughtful approach here.  To say, “vote for” or “vote against” is easy.  It’s also authoritarian.  And, it may not serve his sheep well.  Rather than do the thinking for them, Dr. Piper has taught them.  He has taught them in the way that my law professors taught me, via the Socratic method – a teaching method that brings the student to that, “Aha!” moment when, after walking through the logic of the question, the answer is plainly before you.

This serves his congregation well by encouraging them beyond what lever to pull in the voting booth and toward how to defend their vote as a part of their worldview.  It now leaves the proponents of the marriage amendment primed with followers of Dr. Piper who have listened to this instruction and now must be motivated to exercise their gift of self-government.  It’s that latter point that I still hope Dr. Piper might clarify (you can see why I mean by reading yesterday’s post).

About Jeremy Dys

Jeremy Dys is the FPCWV's President and General Counsel. In addition to his duties of providing strategic vision and leadership to the FPCWV, Dys is the chief lobbyist and spokesman. Dys is regularly featured in local, state, and national print, radio, and television outlets. He lives close to Charleston with his wife and growing family.

• Web
|
• Twitter
|
• Facebook
|
• LinkedIn
|
• Vimeo
|
• YouTube