There's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' says John Piper: 'It's dishonorable and shameful'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The sexual union of two men or women is not “gay marriage” — it’s no marriage, biblically — and when they come to Christ, that former relationship has no binding authority, John Piper has said.
In a recent podcast , Piper, chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota, weighed in on a question from “Cameron,” who asked whether same-sex couples living together and practicing homosexuality should remain in that relationship once they come to Christ.
“No, I would not recommend that two men or two women living together, practicing homosexuality, remain in that relationship,” Piper responded. “The reasons are several.”
He explained that while it’s possible for men and women to enter into a marriage wrongly, a prohibited heterosexual relationship can become a consecrated and holy one.
“I conclude that while it was an adulterous act to marry under the conditions that Jesus disapproves of in Luke 16, nevertheless, it’s called a marriage,” he explained. “A marriage is a matter of covenant faithfulness between a man and a woman. Therefore, I would encourage that couple to repent of what they did wrong and to ask for forgiveness and to consecrate their union, which, though it should not have happened, may nevertheless be holy before the Lord.”
But the same principles don’t apply to same-sex relationships, Piper contended, because two men or two women entering a relationship of sexual union with promises is not a marriage.
“You can’t consecrate a marriage that should not have taken place if it is not a marriage at all,” he said. “The union of two men and two women is not gay marriage — it’s no marriage. I don’t like the idea that so many people are willing to use the term gay marriage instead of calling it so-called gay marriage , because there is no such thing in the universe as so-called gay marriage.”
“That’s the main reason one relationship can be consecrated as a holy marriage and the other one can’t,” he said. “One is a marriage and the other is not a marriage — no matter how many thousands of times legislators and laws and judges and news commentators say that it is. It isn’t. That’s the first difference.”
It’s impossible, Piper continued, to make honorable what God has said by nature is dishonorable.
“In other words, homosexual behavior is not wrong just because it’s commanded that we don’t do it. It’s wrong because, by nature, it is dishonorable and shameful,” he said. “In other words, sexual relations between a man and a woman are not, by nature, dishonorable and shameful.
No amount of repenting, faith, or consecration can turn that which is by nature dishonorable and shameful into an act that is holy or pure or honorable, the pastor explained.
“That’s why I would encourage two men or two women involved in such acts to renounce the sin, repent, ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus, and no longer make any provision for the flesh, as Paul says in Romans 13:14 ,” he concluded.
According to a comprehensive new religious freedom and pluralism report released by the Barna Group this year, nine in 10 pastors (90%) believe it is a major part of their role to help Christians have biblical beliefs about specific social issues.
However, half of Christian pastors say they frequently (11%) or occasionally (39%) feel limited in their ability to speak out on moral and social issues because people will take offense.
“The stakes are high in the public square,” the researchers wrote. “The issues pastors feel most pressured to speak out on are the same ones they feel limited to speak on,” with LGBT issues and same-sex marriage at the top.
Bruce Miller, pastor of Christ Fellowship Church in McKinney, Texas, and author of Leading a Church in a Time of Sexual Questioning: Grace-Filled Wisdom for Day-to-Day Ministry , previously told The Christian Post that while the Church needs to hold fast to the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, it must nevertheless “go overboard” in communicating their welcome to homosexual persons, considering the history.
“What’s really hard to convince someone of is that we really love you, that we really want you to come and hear about the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said.
“We’ve got to bend over backward to show the unconditional love of Christ and the amazing love and grace of the Father to hurting people.”
It’s important to be clear about one’s theological convictions but at the same time, “it’s important that we don’t throw stones at each other and give each other the grace to sort this issue out,” he noted.
“People get really nervous that love is going to compromise truth and it doesn’t,” he said. “Hugs don’t compromise theology. We can love people unconditionally without diminishing truth. It’s not that we want to push truth down to have more grace … Jesus came full of grace and truth. We need to have 100 percent of both.”
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
123 visitors
Well, the SCOTUS has said there is gay marriage. So Mr. Piper is wrong. And marriage in this country is a civil matter and function, where the religious aspect is merely ceremonial and neither required or necessary. Even some denominations of Christianity and other religions recognize, accept, and support gay marriage.
Historically, marriage has always been primarily an expression of property. "Marriage for love" is a very recent notion, from the late Middle Ages.
For most of human history, laws were not very permanent. Each new ruler could do... whatever. The best way to give a law permanence was to cloak it in religion.
Today, any link between marriage and religion is obsolete.
Indeed. In fact, religion was not widely involved in marriage until the Middle Ages.
Sure it was.
The Church rose quickly to supreme power under Constantine (ruled in the first third of the Fourth Century).
The Church was the guarantor (fires of Hell for breakers of marriage vows!) of the commercial transaction that was the essential of marriage.
Time to get over it.
But do not worry, nobody is going to go back and update the Bible. The Bible will continue to be, as always, a reflection of mores & values of ancient men.
And therein lies the problem with it.
Unfortunately for Mr. Piper and his fellow bigots, his religion does not decide such questions for non-adherents, and his pronouncement is therefore untrue. His hypocrisy is also apparent, declaring adulterous second marriages to be "consecrated and holy" when according to his Messiah, they are not.
What a nosyparker.
Love is love, Mr. Piper. Get over it.
Not all Christians agree with him on what marriage is, so he is arguing a No True Scotsman fallacy.
The fact is, marriage existed long before Judaism or Christianity.
"The best available evidence suggests that it's about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children." "marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion."
" Marriage's primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man's children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man's property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: 'I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else."
The attempt by religious conservatives to misappropriate marriage has failed. They did not invent it, they do not determine who can and can't marry, they have no authority over what is or isn't a 'valid' marriage. They have their pointless, tired, bigoted opinion which they can shout from the rooftops if they wish, that's their first amendment right, and it's the rest of our right to shake our heads and ignore them.
There's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' says John Piper: 'It's dishonorable and shameful'
Oh my goodness, call a special session of Congress we must correct this horror. I am sure had they known Mr. Piper would not approve, they never would have such a LAW.
Regardless of what this Pie Eyed Piper may think it is the law of the land.
The law and commonsense would disagree with this statement
As would any rational thinking individual too.
True. There is legal marriage and fake holy matrimony. One is a legally binding contract issued by the state you are getting married in. The other is....meaningless.
There's so much here that is laden with imagined gravitas but ultimately doesn't have any meaning. I know that's a mouthful, so I will elaborate.
It's not? Two people promise before God to love and be faithful to each other. Seems like a marriage. Seems biblical.
What is that supposed to mean? What authority is tied to marriage? I don't even want to contemplate what would go down if I tried to explain to my wife that I had some kind of authority over her.
What does it mean to "practice" homosexuality? It's not medicine. It's not darts. It's just something you are. Practicing homosexuality is like practicing being bipedal or practicing sanity. No one is trying to be gay or straight. "Congratulations mate! You're a homosexual. All that practice finally paid off."
So King David sends his best friend to die so he can get with his wife and that's ok, but two harmless gay men getting married? That's outrageous? WTF? Seriously?
What is "homosexual behavior?" Is it loving someone? Is it taking care of someone? Is it holding hands? Going for a walk together? Kissing? Buying property together? Is it just "doin it in da butt?" Cuz then the ladies might have a loophole.
What is natural about concepts like "honor" and "shame?" I'm pretty sure those are inventions of human culture. If you're in a heterosexual relationship with someone, how much of your commitment is about intentionally complying with concepts of honor? How much of it is to avoid shame? Quick, go break it down for your significant other and let us know how that goes for you.
I mean what a romance, huh? "I love you because if I loved someone else, I would be shamed." Who is in that relationship?
So you want to tell people they should never have sex? God doesn't require that of straight people. Sounds unhealthy.
Except for the part where you hate what they are. That might be why the convincing is going so badly.
A great example of that would be to stop setting conditions like no marriage, no sex, and no pastoring. Those are conditions.
Excellent post.