Shortly after posting a critique of Jennifer Hatmaker’s response to the World Vision event as it related to gay marriage last year, I was asked by a reader to explain my view on homosexuality and how I find support for that in Scripture.
I haven’t done so before now because I thought others were articulating it better than I and because I wanted to give it careful thought.
Now in light of the SCOTUS decision, Christians again are asking questions about marriage. Some are asking, “Am I on the wrong side of history?” Like some pop-Christian authors and preachers, some Christians are buying into a redefinition of love that finds its meaning, not in God or Scripture, but in self-fulfillment. Other Christians chide fellow Christians for speaking up in any way negatively about the issue because they, too, have bought into a different understanding of love — that is, to put it negatively, love doesn’t offend nor does it hurt feelings, or, to put it positively, love is accepting and non-judgmental.
As it relates to the meaning of love, Christians who want to be faithful to Scripture, must ask how Scripture defines and lives out its definition of love. We must ask ourselves if our definition of love squares with Scripture. Was God’s message to Nineveh through the prophet Jonah, loving? Were any of the prophets’ messages to the nations and even to Israel considered loving? Why were God and his prophets so concerned with other nations? (Imagine doing evangelism like the prophets! And read the prophets if you haven’t already.) Was Jesus loving when he told Peter, “Get behind me Satan”? Was Jesus loving when he rebuked his disciples for not letting the children come to him? Was Jesus loving when he overturned the tables in the temple? Was Paul loving when he rebuked the Roman, Corinthian, and Galatian Christians or Peter? I could go on.
Make a test. Use the world’s definition of love (or even perhaps your own) and see whether God (in the Old Testament) and Jesus and his disciples in the New fail or pass your love test.
If the basis of love is truly self-fulfillment, then same-sex marriage is right before the eyes of God. However, this is not how the Bible defines love or marriage. Scripture speaks unanimously that practicing homosexual behavior is a sin. There are never any exceptions to this in the narrative.
But just because we oppose same-sex marriage doesn’t mean we oppose people. Love both corrects and welcomes. We welcome people (whoever they might be!) into our homes; we share with them the gospel of Jesus; we get to know them and have dinner with them. We can do all these things while at the same time teaching that Scripture teaches that practicing homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin.
We also do not teach that marriage is the end-all nor do we teach that one finds ultimate fulfillment in marriage. We do not separate the married from the singles as the haves and the have-nots. Instead of offering an institution as the savior we offer Jesus as the savior.
So how should we understand marriage, our culture, the SCOTUS decision and what our response should be?
Again I refer to others who speak on this better than I can. Over at First Things magazine, a number of “male and female, gay and straight, Christian and Jewish, Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox” contributors give their answers. I highly encourage you to read each response. The following quotes are some that really stood out to me, and I hope they are helpful to you as you process a Christian response and a biblical view of marriage.
For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.
The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.
Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. — Ryan T. Anderson
When a culture treats the family primarily as an arena for self-fulfillment and self-expression rather than first and foremost as the sphere dedicated to the education of future generations, that culture manifests a weakening of its faith in the abiding value and imperative power of its core beliefs. That this spirit of “negation and despair” has corroded liberal Western culture, to its detriment, is an old story. Justice Alito’s dissent notes the rate of illegitimate birth, and nobody is shocked at the routine acceptance of marital infidelity and instability. All this is ominous for the sustainability of Western civilization. To outsiders, however, it appears inconsistent and selective to judge practicing homosexuals, for whom same-sex impulses are usually deep-seated, more strictly than wanton adulterers. If the bonds of faithfulness have frayed, a 5-4 vote in the other direction would not have reversed the ravages of the sexual revolution, the fruit of chronic secular despair under the progressive commodification of late capitalism. — Shalom Carmy
However, there is one thing that, tempted as we may be to expect it, will not happen, either in our lifetime or beyond: Marriage will not go away. The Gospel-imaging union between a man and a woman as a sacred testimony to Christ’s pursuit of His church will never be scrubbed from our culture, as if it were a coat of paint on our social consciousness. No, marriage is not merely a cultural accessory, it is a cosmic, spiritual, and deeply human reality is embedded into the creation itself. No amount of same-sex marriage in the twenty-first century will change this, just as no amount of blue-collar, Bible-belt divorce culture in the late twentieth century changed it then.
The Sexual Revolution always promises fulfillment but betrays its followers bitterly in the end. Even as we brace for a generation’s worth of confusion and enforced conformity, we must also stand fast in holding out hope to the refugees from the Sexual Revolution who will come to us, being wrecked by the fantasy of autonomy and self-creation. We must keep the light lit to the old paths. We must point out why marriage is rooted not just in nature and tradition but in the gospel of Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:32).
Marriage is resilient because it is God-created, not another government program. That’s why hand wringing and siege mentality has no place among those who want to champion traditional marriage. Marriage does not exist thanks to humanity, and so it cannot be unmade thanks to it either. Even in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling, we know this to be true. Let’s be compassionate, confident, and, like the institution we care about so deeply, let’s be resilient. — Russell Moore
Bruce Jenner has become a celebrity because his decision “to define and express” his identity as a woman epitomizes our reigning view of freedom. It’s our national religion now, the religion of Me. Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said, “Every country gets the government is deserves.” We’ve gotten the Supreme Court decision we deserve. …
We’re part of the culture that now embraces the religion of Me and it’s perverse view of freedom. Our first task today is do differentiate ourselves from this false religion—and to do so with clarity. This means speaking forthrightly about matters of moral substance.
We need to speak about sexual morality. We need to demand marriage equality. Why do the rich today get married, but the poor don’t? Why is our supposedly progressive culture fixed on the luxury good of gay marriage while ignoring the collapsing family culture elsewhere in our society? We need to talk about the complementarity of men and women, something political correctness tries to prevent us from doing. We need to sin against the religion of Me by speaking of God—and God’s laws.
In traditional Islamic societies, non-Muslim’s are dhimmis. They are allowed to exist, but they live under severe restrictions. Islam alone is permitted to define the public square. Over time, dhimmisinternalize their subjugated status, accepting their subordinate roles.
The greatest challenges we face will not be legal. They will be cultural. We will be tempted to submit, tempted to remain silent. We will be tempted to reorient our efforts, trying to find a way to survive in an American regime governed by the religion of Me.
We must fight against this temptation. We must resist dhimmitude and its false path of self-imposed submission. Now is the time for truth-telling. We need to find our footing in today’s cultural landscape so that we can speak boldly about the goods of marriage, the sanctity of life, and the true nature of human freedom. — R.R. Reno
There are many ways that we can respond in these coming days: prayer, conversations, posting articles that reflect truth, writing letters to congressmen, teaching our children truth, etc.
Here are my two concluding thoughts:
1. We should not shame each other for believing and standing up for traditional marriage. Nor should we shame each other for speaking up that nationalized same-sex marriage will have negative repercussions for our children. We believe traditional marriage is the best for our society, and working toward a betterment for our society isn’t wrong or shameful.
2. Should we shout and defame people? Should we cry and stamp our feet? Should we be rude to others? No. Whatever side you are on that kind of behavior is wrong. Rather we share the truth (notice that part) in love. A love that is patient, kind, not arrogant or rude. A love that rejects and warns against false teaching, which leads to death, and upholds truth, which leads to life. And even when people reject the truth, when a nation redefines the institution of marriage based on a new definition of love, we do not despair, because “our hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.”