Politics in the pulpit
By Bruce Keisling August 7, 2006
Keith, I don’t know why I didn’t reply to your question the first time, but I can’t pass it by this time. If you, Greg, or Aaron preached the sermon that Piper did from that text I would rebuke you sharply. Murder isn’t the main point of that text. Murder is but an example of the outcomes of the impure desires and as such, abortion should only have been discussed as one example of the outcomes of evil desires today. I may still quibble with that though. Taking the life of the unborn is really not done because one desires what the unborn has. James seems to be describing situations where conflict and “murder” arise because of conflicting desires between parties that can combat each other. I guess one could say that the desire for life on the part of the baby is conflicting with the desire for freedom on the part of the parents, etc.
The principle that I would assert and that Piper violates is that the main point of the text is really not the main point of the sermon. He has taken one possible present day application and made it the main point. That is unacceptable to me and I would not countenance that in a church where I had oversight. I am not saying that a preacher shouldn’t address present day ills/sins, but don’t make them the main point when they are not.
Furthermore, did the people at Bethlehem Baptist in 1998 struggle with wanting to abort their babies? Didn’t that text have anything to say to the people in the pews that he was looking at, versus the folks — out there — somewhere who were aborting babies? It is a tiresome thing to hear sermons railing against sins that no one in the congregation is likely to commit. Again, I would grant a role for societal applications from a text, but it shouldn’t be the primary application of the text. The primary application of the text is for the poeple who are there listening. My guess is that those listening to Piper’s sermon that day weren’t struggling with a desire to abort a fetus, but were struggling with some form of envious desire that may have caused difficulties in their fellowship. I could say more, but are you satisfied Bro. Goad?