Tags
The Bold Mistake(s) of Barnabas Piper
Christians from across the country have rallied to support Chick-fil-A in light of the CEO’s stance for the biblical definition of marriage of one man, one woman. Good for them. Unfortunately, some highly visible professing Christians are doing what they can in order to not only smear the Word of God, but to encourage tolerance of homosexual sin.
Think I’m exaggerating? I give you the son of John Piper, who says that supporting Chick-fil-A is a ‘bold mistake’.
In an article on WorldMag, Barnabas Piper has this absurd, unbiblical lecture:
Homosexuality is one of the most defining, contentious, and complex issues facing this generation of the church. We cannot sacrifice our biblical convictions but neither can we sacrifice the church’s ability to serve people of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles. The 452,000 people supporting Chick-fil-A are delivering more than one message, and the message the homosexual community and its supporters see is “us versus you.” The event also sends a message of separatism and territorialism in the “reclaiming” of those restaurants that are being boycotted, a collective action easily seen as a shaking of the fist or a wagging of the finger.
Convictions, especially biblical ones, will divide people. That is inevitable, but not desirable. The separation of believers and unbelievers, when it happens, must be a last resort or an unavoidable result. Actions to the contrary, those that clearly promote an “us versus them” mentality, are most often unhelpful. There is a time for Christians to engage in boycotting, such as when a business deals in obviously immoral areas or is clearly unethical in its methods. But for a mass of Christians to descend upon Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country tomorrow to support the leadership’s view on this issue is, I believe, a bold mistake.
Terribly wrong, Barny. You drag the truth of God’s Word through the mud. You should be ashamed. Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to be.
Let’s get some things straight, brethren:
1. Homosexuality is not defining or complex. It’s intentional sin against the infinite God. It’s only contentious because some give way to those who contend for it. God’s Word is defining – everything!
2. The Church is not called to ‘serve’ (read tolerate and cajole] those of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles, but is called to communicate to all those outside of Christ to repent and believe the Gospel. We are not to cater to homosexuals but to love them enough to inform them that they face the future of eternal damnation if they continue as is.
3. The message of supporters of Chick-fil-A is spot on target. Piper says the message being sent to homosexuals is ‘us verses you’? Close! It’s God and us verses them – and they are sin, inherently. We desire that they repent and come to Christ for salvation and deliverance from their rebellion, but there is no false line being drawn here, no false opposition, it is biblical.
4. Barnabas, the entire Word of God encourages Christians to be separate from the world and its lusts and culture! What are you thinking? [Don’t answer that].
5. Biblical convictions do divide people, and that’s a good thing! God desires His people to be separate! Division is not ‘desirable’? Oh yes it is! The separation between believers and unbelievers is God’s command, not the last resort. Mercy, I thank God you are not taking over your dads position.
6. Barnabas, the only bold mistake are the ones you have made in your article. Clearly, you put ecumenical, emergent, fru-fru, worldly, compromising thinking ahead of God’s clearly communicated and unequivocally firm demands on what it is to be a Christian.
RELATED ARTICLES:
5 Pt. Salt 
Thank you for responding to this pseudo-spiritual obfuscation with biblical clarity.
Thank you for sharing, and God bless you. I wrote a piece on this subject a few days ago: http://scottsholar.com/2012/07/29/support-chick-fil-a/
Wait — so he has a son named Abraham and a son named Barnabas?
What is wrong with this man?
Thirty-five years ago, I did not know anyone claiming to be a Christian that would take young Mr. Piper’s point of view. Now, many “Christians” do. Question – where do we get the notion that anyone is excluded from fundamental biblical morality? “Christians” may be going weak in the knees (and backbone) under the pressing assault of God-hating pro-homosexual pressure, but God’s Word has not changed, nor His moral standard, nor His disdain for homosexual wickedness.
Brethren, the homosexual radicals are not going to give up to you and I are jailed or killed for standing with God opposed to their evil.
you are spot on in your conclusion…soon it will cost something to be a Christian in USA
I think the question is how does the recent demonstration of support for the Chick-Fil-A company that was witnessed today communicate to those involved in homosexual sin what Christ has done to save repentant sinners who trust in Him? How much concern was shown for the display of the gospel, which is should be our central aim, compared to wanting to make a statement in favor of “free speech?” (When John and Peter are told they are no longer to speak in the name of Christ in the book of Acts, we do not witness them lobbying the Sanhedrin to grant them the free speech to do so. Instead, we see them continuing to preach the gospel as God commanded.)
I’ll be honest with you. My flesh strongly desired to go to Chick-Fil-A and be a part of this . . . and I don’t even like the food of Chick-Fil-A that well! I wanted to stick it to the hypocrisy of those who promoted the gay agenda. But I realized that it did not advance the gospel.
God bless!
Lee
Lee – I wonder, is the gospel simply John 3:16 and kindred verses? I also wonder – if I remove the word “gospel” in your statement…
“But I realized that it did not advance the gospel”
and replaced it with – “the cause of God and Truth” – I am curious, how do you feel about advancing THAT?
“But I realized that it did not advance the cause of God and Truth.”
Is there neutral ground here, because the “gospel is not advanced??” I have never eaten at Chic-Fil-A in the past, but I intend to in the future.
Can’t say I agree with the eternal damnation part, but other than that (as always)
I enjoyed the post 🙂
Doesn’t John 3:17 say Christ did not come to condemn the world, but that the world through HIM might be saved? Doesn’t Mark 10:45 say the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give HIS life a ransom for many? Are we not to be imitators of Christ? Is He not our ultimate example of evangelism? Christ never sacrificed the truth of the Gospel He was fulfilling, but He did not shun the lost because of their unbelief, nor continuously harp on their sin. His method was mercy, going to where THEY were, and fellowshipping with THEM. Remember who got mad at Him? The RELIGIOUS. What did the religious think of the lost? Us vs. Them. You are preoccupied with an US vs. THEM mentality and you get it wrong when you say it’s us and God vs them.
I generally don’t respond to blogs but after reading the article and responses I felt compelled to. The display of people who went to Chick-fil-A or did not go did not communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ. The response above is simplistic. The support of Chick Fil-A was affirming our ability to communicate the gospel THE TRUTH, without it being forced to be refined or politically correct. While you may say making a stand on same sex marriage is not the gospel, the issue was freedom to state his position.I am not an American but I am SADDENED by the wishy washy attitude towards a Holy GOD. We don’t have to be rude but MERCY to stand behind a man who stood for God’s word and then was attacked by governor’s and leaders for freely speaking God’s truth is being in question by others in the body? By the way, I don’t know if everyone’s attitude was to stick it to the Gay Agenda but stand behind someone who simply stated God’s principle.
Pingback: TWITTER UPDATES « apostledianehedgman
Pingback: Gay Theology: Did God Really Say, “You must not…” « Minkyweasel World
I know I’ve come to this party late but I want to thank you for this proper response to the gobeldygook in Piper’s article.