Denny Burke points out how a local newspaper in Minneapolis distorted Piper's message. It seems to me that Lydia McGrew distorted him also.
Burk makes a great statement - "Support for the amendment is the necessary implication of the sermon." I also don't see how anyone can miss that.
"It is true that Piper never says in so many words, “Vote for the amendment.” But anyone who thinks that Piper’s position on the amendment is unclear has either failed to listen to the sermon or is being unfair to the content of what he preached. Support for the amendment is the necessary implication of the sermon. In fact, until I read the Tribune article, I didn’t even notice that he hadn’t explicitly endorsed it.
The Tribune article so misrepresented Piper’s sermon that Piper himself has issued a response, “What the Star-Tribune Got Right—And Wrong.” Piper says that “The part that they got right was that I did not give a public endorsement for any legislation or candidate.” The part they got wrong was the idea that he had opted out of the same-sex marriage fight and that he had encouraged members not to take a stand on the issue.
I would add another thing that the Tribune got wrong. They clearly wanted to give the impression that Piper had withheld his opinion on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. That impression completely mischaracterizes Piper’s sermon. Anyone who listens to the sermon will understand where Piper stands on the issue, even if he doesn’t say so in so many words. For this reason, the Tribune article was badly done.
If you haven’t done so yet, take some time to hear Piper’s sermon for yourself." From Denny Burk's excellent article.
Piper also has 4-5 follow up articles to his sermon in question; and others at the Desiring God blog have written further articles on how the gospel of grace and power of God have changed some homosexuals into new creatures in Christ.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "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."
I think the newspaper is accurate in this part of its article.
Yeah, I read it more closely now and I see that. I was skimming I admit.
I just don't get the same conclusions that she is drawing.
I think the greater issue underlying this, it seems to me (and yet I could be wrong), by Piper's point # 8; is that churches and pastors that focus on doctrine and the gospel and sanctification, don't want to be side-tracked into being another "moral Majority" or the late D. James Kennedy's focus on "Re-claiming America" and constantly quoting the American founding fathers(which I always enjoyed, but for someone outside of his church, that seemed to be THE focus of his ministry in later years), type of thing where all their focus is on the culture war, and that could give the impression that one becomes a Christian by moral standing/position/good works, rather than by the gospel of grace and faith alone.
The way I understood point 8 of Piper's sermon is for the laypeople to go out and do the grass roots level type of work of changing society - don't expect a busy pastor to always be preaching on that subject or involved in marches and protests and letters and petitions and going to abortion clinics. Piper did Pro-life, operation rescue type of things in the 80's and he was arrested for it; so he has lived out the grass roots level kind of cultural activism. I respect him greatly for that.
John Piper's extensive list of sermons on Abortion. He preaches on the issue at least once a year for some 25 years +/- And he was arrested before in the 1989 for a kind of "Operation Rescue" type of thing.
http://www.dennyburk.com/a-newspaper-misrepresents-john-piper/
ReplyDeleteDenny Burke points out how a local newspaper in Minneapolis distorted Piper's message. It seems to me that Lydia McGrew distorted him also.
Burk makes a great statement - "Support for the amendment is the necessary implication of the sermon." I also don't see how anyone can miss that.
"It is true that Piper never says in so many words, “Vote for the amendment.” But anyone who thinks that Piper’s position on the amendment is unclear has either failed to listen to the sermon or is being unfair to the content of what he preached. Support for the amendment is the necessary implication of the sermon. In fact, until I read the Tribune article, I didn’t even notice that he hadn’t explicitly endorsed it.
The Tribune article so misrepresented Piper’s sermon that Piper himself has issued a response, “What the Star-Tribune Got Right—And Wrong.” Piper says that “The part that they got right was that I did not give a public endorsement for any legislation or candidate.” The part they got wrong was the idea that he had opted out of the same-sex marriage fight and that he had encouraged members not to take a stand on the issue.
I would add another thing that the Tribune got wrong. They clearly wanted to give the impression that Piper had withheld his opinion on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. That impression completely mischaracterizes Piper’s sermon. Anyone who listens to the sermon will understand where Piper stands on the issue, even if he doesn’t say so in so many words. For this reason, the Tribune article was badly done.
If you haven’t done so yet, take some time to hear Piper’s sermon for yourself." From Denny Burk's excellent article.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/there-is-no-demilitarized-zone-in-the-issue-of-homosexuality
ReplyDeletePiper also has 4-5 follow up articles to his sermon in question; and others at the Desiring God blog have written further articles on how the gospel of grace and power of God have changed some homosexuals into new creatures in Christ.
Lydia also comments on Piper's response to the newspaper article. And she listened to the sermon.
ReplyDeleteMinneapolis Star-Tribune: "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."
ReplyDeleteI think the newspaper is accurate in this part of its article.
Yeah, I read it more closely now and I see that. I was skimming I admit.
ReplyDeleteI just don't get the same conclusions that she is drawing.
I think the greater issue underlying this, it seems to me (and yet I could be wrong), by Piper's point # 8; is that churches and pastors that focus on doctrine and the gospel and sanctification, don't want to be side-tracked into being another "moral Majority" or the late D. James Kennedy's focus on "Re-claiming America" and constantly quoting the American founding fathers(which I always enjoyed, but for someone outside of his church, that seemed to be THE focus of his ministry in later years), type of thing where all their focus is on the culture war, and that could give the impression that one becomes a Christian by moral standing/position/good works, rather than by the gospel of grace and faith alone.
The way I understood point 8 of Piper's sermon is for the laypeople to go out and do the grass roots level type of work of changing society - don't expect a busy pastor to always be preaching on that subject or involved in marches and protests and letters and petitions and going to abortion clinics. Piper did Pro-life, operation rescue type of things in the 80's and he was arrested for it; so he has lived out the grass roots level kind of cultural activism. I respect him greatly for that.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/by-topic/abortion
John Piper's extensive list of sermons on Abortion. He preaches on the issue at least once a year for some 25 years +/- And he was arrested before in the 1989 for a kind of "Operation Rescue" type of thing.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-day-john-piper-was-arrested