Two key conservative evangelical leaders in Minnesota are not endorsing the marriage amendment or directing followers to vote for it, marking the first time during debate over the measure that major faith leaders have not encouraged members to take a stand on the issue.
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.
The Rev. Leith Anderson, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's longtime pastor, also said this week he does not plan to take a public side on the amendment, which would change the state Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
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...
"There are powers given to the mega-family (ie the state) that are not given to the nuclear family, and vice-versa. It is helpful to remember here that the state, as a tool for resolving disputes, is essentially a system of appeals courts. The rationale of the Moses-Jethro organization of Israel in Exodus 18:17-27 is not to center authority in one man who would then make all the decisions, but rather the reverse: to free up Moses so that he would not have to consider every little problem."
"I conclude, therefore, that state authority is essentially family authority, developed and extended somewhat by the demands of number and geography. Thus I believe we may eliminate from our consideration the views of the Lutherans and Meredith Kline, as well as others, who see the state as a distinct institution ordained by God, with powers and responsibilities different from those of the family. We may also set aside the Anabaptist view that the state is essentially allied with Satan, without denying, of course, the possibility of Satanic states, or at least of Satanic rulers of states" (John Frame)
Common sense is not the final rule of exegesis, and it is not infallible. But it would certainly be a shame if we dispensed with it altogether. (John Frame)
what a state we are in wrote: "State" is not a biblical category in the sense that "family," "people of God," "Israel," and "church," are biblical categories. God established the family at creation (Gen 2:24). In Exodus 19ff., God established Israel as a nation, as the people of God.
So God established Israel as a nation in Exodus 19. From whence did he draw them out? Out the the nation of Egypt - a fully developed, organized state.
"State" is not a biblical category in the sense that "family," "people of God," "Israel," and "church," are biblical categories. God established the family at creation (Gen 2:24). In Exodus 19ff., God established Israel as a nation, as the people of God. The church is, in one sense, the whole people of God from Adam to the present, and in another sense a fresh historical expression of that community based specifically upon the apostolic confession of Christ (Matt 16:18ff.). But in what passage did God establish the state?
Some have found divine warrant for the state in Genesis 9:6, where God commands Noah's family to return bloodshed for bloodshed. But this is a command given to a family. There is no indication here of any new institution being established. And in the law of Moses, the execution of murderers was carried out, not by the state as such, but by the "avenger of blood," kin of the murder victim (Num 21; Deut 19:12). The family, here, is the instrument of justice. We have no reason to believe, therefore, that any special institution beyond the family for the establishment of justice was created in Genesis 9:6.
What we see in Scripture, rather, is a kind of gradual development from family authority to something that we would tend to call a state." (John Frame)
Now if John Piper also agrees with this, not Christian --who doesn't have the roles of the Church and Government reversed would have it completely right.
Gil Rugh wrote: If the government should ever require a Christian to do something directly contrary to Scripture, the Christian must refuse to do it. That is the only condition in which a believer is justified in God’s sight for disobeying a direct command of the government. Jesus explicitly told the apostles to take the Gospel to the whole world (see Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8). Not to do so would be disobeying the command of Jesus. Similarly, if the government ever commanded us to do something directly contrary to Scripture, we would have to refuse.
"Two key conservative evangelical leaders in Minnesota are not endorsing the marriage amendment or directing followers to vote for it"
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Do they have the backbone to take up the sword and contend for the faith?
it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ
10 ... my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
"My job is to feed the saints with such meals that they go out strengthened and robust and able to do the study and do the courage and do the action needed as salt and light in this world. And that will go away if you insist on the church and the ministry being the political leaders. It will and we can point to many where it has." -John Piper, "Your Pastor Is Not Your Political Activist"
So when two homosexuals ask you to marry them, you refuse but the SCOTUS requires you to, what have you just suddenly become? In other words, Rome has six members making policy for the rest of us. Who's the wiser: The guy in the bunker or the one with his finger on the button?
lets hear and speak wrote: The 'entire' Bible is about Christ. Don't be afraid of speaking the whole counsel of God. Don't leave specific verses out in case they are not men-pleasing! Remember we are to seek to save the sinner not stand back and allow him to go to hell.
Quite so. It is amazing when you consider the portions of scripture which God has used to bring sinners to himself.
But somewhere down the line, a sinner has to hear of the laws he has broken, and the one who has paid the debt on his behalf.
The ultimate thing is to be led by the Spirit as to what to say to sinners, as individuals, just as the apostle Paul did. Alas I do not have such a discerning spirit as Paul.
John UK wrote: Surely the preacher's work is to preach Christ, and to lead people to Christ? And how are sinners led to Christ? By the preaching of The Law. Everything needful is in the scriptures, and nothing apart from the scriptures is needful.
The 'entire' Bible is about Christ. Don't be afraid of speaking the whole counsel of God. Don't leave specific verses out in case they are not men-pleasing! Remember we are to seek to save the sinner not stand back and allow him to go to hell.
But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
if not now, when wrote: One of the two top Reformed Baptist pastors in the world
lets hear and speak wrote: How shall they (the community) hear without a preacher. Rom.10.
Surely the preacher's work is to preach Christ, and to lead people to Christ? And how are sinners led to Christ? By the preaching of The Law. Everything needful is in the scriptures, and nothing apart from the scriptures is needful.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Muslim countries--there but for the grace of God go I--or any other American. The Foolishness of Preaching the Gospel
Johnson/MacArthur seems to be saying that we cannot have a statement to make about culture and society - if it has a political angle!!! What is he a chicken??
Jim Do you expect all Christians to stay politely mute about the society we live in and its sinful ideologies just because politicians get involved???
If we were to be like that then we would say nothing Biblical about society or our circumstances.
The Bible tells us what sin is - AND what is sin!! If we are to make sense in our evanglising efforts then we must explain these points to sinners, to society who don't know the Biblical position.
"How shall they (the community) hear without a preacher. Rom.10.
Piper is heavily influenced by the emergent new Calvinist movement. He is deep into being " relevant and hip, with the culture". As is his buddy mark Driscoll. They should be closely examined. Beware.
Muslim countries--there but for the grace of God go I--or any other American.
Phil Johnson wrote: ...some Christians, have even made the same mistake I made, before I became a Christian, and that is, they think the solution to society's moral decline is a political agenda, and they have thrown all the energies and their resources into trying to redeem society through politics, which this passages teaches us is an utterly futile undertaking. Our pastor, John MacArthur has had much to say about this over the years---if you have been listening, you know that, because as the energies of the Evangelical Movement have been diverted more and more away from evangelism and the preaching of the gospel, and invested more and more in political lobbying, public protests, and in some cases, all out war on American culture--as we've seen that happen, John MacArthur has spoken out in favor of preaching and evangelism instead. He has consistently said what this passage says, and that is that sin is what ails modern society and so the gospel is the only effective remedy. But that message isn't popular with everybody, even among our evangelical friends.
Jim Lincoln wrote: ---Why Government Can't Save You"...author John MacArthur illustrates through Scripture that, regardless of the numerous immoral, unjust, and ungodly failures of secular government, believers are to pray and seek to influence the world for Christ by godly, selfless, and peaceful living under that authority, not by protests against the government or by acts of civil disobedience...."
John MacArthur can freely express these thoughts because a long time ago, some colonists thought protesting with action was the right thing to do. And God instituted new government. Funny how things work.
If they opt out of picking particular candidates these pastors do well. You will note that the Apostle Paul never went into tirades about the Emperor Nero.
In, Why Government Can't Save You"...author John MacArthur illustrates through Scripture that, regardless of the numerous immoral, unjust, and ungodly failures of secular government, believers are to pray and seek to influence the world for Christ by godly, selfless, and peaceful living under that authority, not by protests against the government or by acts of civil disobedience...."
Matthew 19 3 And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?-NASB
There has been a legal definition of "marriage" per Black's Law dictionary and common law since the beginning of time. To advocate passing an amendment is to grant something that is not true, i.e. that "marriage" can etymologically or legally mean something other than what it always has, the solemnizing of wedlock between a man and woman of legal capability (not of immediate family or incest, not coerced, of lawful age, not of the same sex, between male and female humans not beasts). It should not be granted that there is any other meaning, period, and if any states or municipalities perform such they are void of any lawful recognition and cannot be considered as such (and that includes the "marriage" of Mary Cheney recently).
Any "marriage" pretended that does not meet legal definition is null and void, and not recognized by law or jurisdiction. (E.g. Attempts to marry another in polygamy render the new marriage null and void, etc.)
It has never been defined legally as consisting of any other deviation from this in any civilization since the beginning of time. It cannot therefore mean something new today, nor is any amendment required, except to REDEFINE IT from the norm, which would never pass! Not even did Sodom and Gomorrah redefine marriage.
Paul Washer | 2/17/2011
COMMENTS | 
would have it completely right. 
