This Fall, voters in November will vote on whether to define marriage as between one man and one woman as the governing, constitutional law of their state.
Through a series of blog posts and a recent sermon, Dr. John Piper has been discussing the issue of homosexuality and, at least off-hand, the marriage amendment campaign. It’d be hard for him not to. Such amendments always capture massive media attention and proponents of them would welcome the endorsement from a pastor of Dr. Piper’s stature and following.
Still, there is something bittersweet about Dr. Piper’s announcement that you can read here on his blog.
Photo Cred: DesiringGod.org
It’s different from what we’ve seen elsewhere. It’s not an endorsement. It’s certainly not a, “vote against” statement. It is instructive, thoughtful, and careful. Perhaps too careful? I’d encourage you to read the whole thing, but here are his main points:
- There is no such thing as so-called, “gay marriage.”
- Same-sex sexual relations are sin.
- Not all sins should be proscribed by human law, but some should be.
- 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.
Those are each given some explanation by Dr. Piper and one has to commend him for his plain commitment to instruct his church as to what Scripture teaches.
One could make the criticism that Dr. Piper should endorse the marriage amendment. I’m not one to force that position. I would say that pastors have that right and I would defend their freedom to so speak, but that is a matter left to the church and it’s elders, deacons, or governing leadership. There is something in me that is a bit disappointed by Dr. Piper’s decision to come to the edge of an endorsement, but not go the full way. Not only does his church look to him, but so do many pastors across Minnesota, the nation, and the world.
Yes, I’m grateful that Dr. Piper took a very Biblical stand on the definition of marriage and homosexual behavior. But why not go forward? It’s my prayer that God will use this post (and other posts and messages by Dr. Piper) to motivate voters to the polls this November in favor of the amendment. Experience could suggest otherwise, but Dr. Piper is, at least, correct to rest in God’s sovereign plan – even over constitutional amendment discussions.
There is, however, one bone I’d like to pick with Dr. Piper, if I may do so humbly.
It comes in his third point when he says,
But where to draw the line on which unethical actions are made illegal is a judgment call that in our system of government is made by elected legislators. It’s a pretty good system that balances the freedom of the human conscience (Luke 12:57; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Acts 17:11) with the rights of government to make laws and use force (Romans 13:1–4).
Did you catch the problem there? Yes, government has been instituted by God to make laws and use force. Yes, it’s a good system that we have wherein we delegate certain responsibilities to our elected leaders. Yes, at times, we give them the right to draw such lines.
But, when it comes to issues like an amendment to the constitution, we can no longer punt to elected leaders. The problem Dr. Piper makes with this statement is that he assumes that government is “them” and not “us.” In our system of government, it is the citizens who retain ownership of our government. We retain the rights and only lend a few of them to a central government for careful stewarding.
Nowhere is this more clearly seen then in constitutional measures. In effect, what the Minnesota legislature is saying to its citizens is, “Hey, your representatives cannot make this call. You limited our authority and our lawmaking stops at the preamble to the state constitution. The constitution belongs to you. Do you want to define marriage as between one man and one woman within your state constitution?”
When government is viewed this way, Dr. Piper is punting to a team who is not permitted to catch the ball. In other words, his statement that our leaders should settle the issue is addressing the wrong question. They cannot or will not settle the issue, nor should this issue be settled by legislators or judges. It is a decision properly made by the citizens.
What he may have though of adding to this paragraph is one more sentence which would read, “And, since in this country God has graciously permitted a system of government whereby you and I as citizens retain the rights and responsibilities of good government, it falls to you as citizens of Minnesota – and not lawmakers or judges – to make this constitution-altering decision.”
Again, I hesitate to offer too much criticism. I respect Dr. Piper immensely and am thankful for his constant pointing of his congregation (and those of us watching from a geographically warmer distance) to the greatness of our God and the glory of Christ.
I am certain that I will join him in praying that God’s perfect, sovereign will will be accomplished this November.
What do you think? Did Dr. Piper make the right call?
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.
I think Piper took exactly the right tone in refusing to explicitly endorse a political position; I think his view is exactly right that the power of the pulpit is decreased by that sort of politicking.
If anything, I think he went a bit too far in pushing his own view of government (as existing for “the public good”). Many, many believers have other views of the role of government, and thus come to different conclusions about which sins should be outlawed. I, for instance, think the main role of government should be the punishment of the use of force by one citizen against others, and because of that viewpoint, I don’t think the government should outlaw same-sex “marriage”, even though that is a nonsense term by Biblical standards.
Mainly, I think it is far too easy and far too common for believers in this country to get bogged down in politics, though that has no eternal significance.
[...] comments Yesterday, I wrote a post that neither praised, nor condemned Dr. Piper’s take on the proposed amendment to the [...]
Peter, thanks for your comments. We appreciate you taking the time to read our articles and respond. I would like, if you don’t mind, to share a couple thoughts of my own in response to your response.
First, Be sure to read our most recent post on this topic, as Dr. Piper has clarified what he wrote yesterday in order to make sure there is no confusion on his position. I believe you will find it interesting.
Second, I have no doubt that many people have a particular view of government, somewhat like we have a view of which car is the best (Ford, Chevy etc.). But those views, if they stand in opposition to our Constitution, are irrelevant. The Constitution is the foundation and framework to our country and must be protected and defended. Communists and Socialists have a view as well, but we would not advocate those. And we certainly would not use them as a framework for how to shape public opinion or policy. However, the Constitution is a document with rich biblical principles that was intended by our Founding Father’s to be used in conjunction with Scripture to shape public policy. To this end the founders even admitted that the Constitution would not work in a society without the Bible.
As a Christian I cannot accept same-sex “marriage” because it is unbiblical and pushes people further from God rather than to him. To legalize it, as a Christian, is to sanction and affirm it; this is something the Bible forbids. Just as we allow people to drink alcohol, but have laws against being drunk – for which there are penalties. So we have laws for marriage that reflect a Judeo-Christian foundation rooted in Scripture. So as a believer I cannot do anything else but to follow the principles of Scripture and advocate for policies that do the same.
The fact is, if Christians are not involved in politics then that leaves only non-believers to shape public policy that will directly affect all of us. The security of religious freedom – to say the least – would be at stake. Though I am a citizen of heaven, I am not there yet. And until I am called home I have a duty as an American to be actively engaged in the processes that govern the country I live in, for my children’s sake and my grandchildren’s sake. I don’t want to be so apathetic that the country left behind when I am gone is one that my kids cannot freely worship in.
Lastly, there are many things that have no eternal value – golf for instance. Yet I still play. Television, washing my car, going to the movies, on and on the list goes. If we eliminate everything with no eternal value then very little is left. However, though politics has no eternal value, unlike golf and other recreations, it has immediate earthly value. If I must choose to spend my time doing something I would rather do something that has earthly value than something that has no earthly or eternal value (though I confess I do enjoy golf).
I doubt anyone would tell William Wilberforce that he was wasting his time politicking for the end of slavery. Or that Martin Luther Jr. was wasting his time politicking for civil rights. The fact is, if more Christians were engaged, many of the battles we now face would not exist because this silent majority would roar so loudly the vocal minority would not be heard.
Truthfully, when public policy reflects biblical values it will draw people to God far more than when sin is advanced. Christians should be active, engaged, outspoken advocates for public policy that reflects their biblical values and beliefs; not for policies that violate their beliefs. That is certainly why I do what I do.
Thanks again for stopping by to read and respond to our articles. I truly hope my comments were presented with truth and grace and humility. We hope you stop back again.