84 Sermon Illustrations on Homosexual Marriage

Same-sex marriage is not an idea that emerged from a vacuum. The project of normalizing homosexuality has deep roots and ideological momentum.

________

Why does same-sex marriage make sense to so many people? The momentum toward the full legalization of same-sex marriage seems to intensify with every passing month — or even faster. The moral divide in this nation is now seen most clearly in the distance between those for whom marriage is exclusively heterosexual and thus a settled issue and, on the other hand, those who honestly see the legalization of same-sex marriage as a moral mandate required by justice.

Given the venerable status of marriage and its universally established heterosexual character — at least until very recently — the burden of argument falls on the need to explain how such a movement for a moral revolution gained credibility, cultural mass, and momentum. How did this happen?

A culture does not consist only of ideas and ideologies, but no culture exists without them. Given the complexity of any culture, a comprehensive map of these ideas, moral intuitions, and philosophies is impossible to create. Nevertheless, some patterns are clear enough. We can trace the acceptance of same-sex marriage to at least three major ideas that have been shaping the modern mind for some time — and are held to some extent by both social liberals and conservatives.

One of the ideological engines of our social revolution is the idea that history reveals a progressive liberation of peoples who have suffered oppression. In this view of history, one prejudice after another has fallen as we have come to terms with the demands of justice. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

In other words, history reveals an inevitable, though tortuously long, arc toward justice and fairness. Over the course of history, innumerable superstitions and prejudices have been discarded. Slavery, once considered a social and economic necessity on both sides of the Atlantic, was overcome in Western democracies. Women demanded and were granted the right to vote. The world of Jim Crow gave way to the world of racial integration and civil rights. The mentally disabled are no longer put away in asylums. The Irish and Italians, once oppressed as the unwashed and unwanted immigrants of the Gilded Age, have risen to prominence in every arena of American life. America has elected its first African-American President. History marches on.

For obvious reasons, the movement to normalize homosexuality attached itself to this idea of historical progress. This was a natural and inevitable development, and those who formed the strategy for this movement used the most powerful tools at their disposal. The progressivist vision of history was there for the taking, and the gay rights movement took it up with enthusiasm.

Americans are naturally drawn to this understanding of history. It plays to our belief that our generation is in some way morally superior to the generations who preceded us. Liberals feast on this understanding of history and make it their main argument in any number of debates. But conservatives are shaped by this narrative, as well. Conservatives accept the undeniable fact that history, both long and short, tells a story that we should celebrate at countless turns.

But the problem with the progressivist understanding of history is that it cannot stand alone. It cannot be the only narrative. There has to become means of identifying what is truly a manifestation of oppression and what is a structure necessary for human flourishing. If the only story we have is the narrative of liberation from oppression, then, as Karl Marx understood, all that remains is an unstoppable revolution that dissolves all bonds of relationship, kinship, tradition, and moral order. Should children be liberated from the authority of their parents? Should all prisoners be liberated from their cells? Should human beings be liberated from the obligations of family and kinship?

The progressivist understanding of history must be checked by a recognition that liberation from oppression is not the only true and compelling narrative. The affirmation and preservation of moral obligations and commitments must be the companion narrative. But, in order to understand why so many among us see something as morally revolutionary and socially subversive as same-sex marriage to be something to demand and champion, consider the fact that many of our friends and neighbors see same-sex marriage as only the next logical step in overcoming prejudice and discrimination. It is the only story they know, and it is powerful.

A Radical Individualism

Paired with the progressivist understanding of history is a vision of individualism that is virtually unprecedented in human experience. An affirmation of the importance of the individual is written into the fabric of modern thought. Our understanding of human rights, of individual liberty, and of personal responsibility are central to the American self-consciousness. Add to this the fact that the rise of the therapeutic worldview has recast human experience as a continuous project of individual self-discovery and self-definition.

But, if individualism was central to the American experience from the beginning, the current form of this idea is far more radical than previous generations could imagine. The current form of individualism includes the claim that we can define ourselves even in terms of gender and sex. This individualism is titanic in its reach, producing what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton once described as the “Protean Man.” We demand the total right to define ourselves.

Once again, we must recognize that the opponents of same-sex marriage have also been drinking heavily at the springs that feed this powerful idea. Many conservatives have bought into their own form of expressive individualism, taking refuge in the structures of social order only when convenient, bending moral codes to our own individualistic demands, forfeiting moral obligations when they conflict with our favorite project — ourselves.

The control on the destructive force of expressive individualism is the reality of moral obligation and the goodness of true self-knowledge. As Christians know — and must always remember — we are known before we ever emerge to know. Our Creator knew us before we even came to be, and he established our identity before we came to know ourselves. True happiness can come only by embracing with gratitude the identity we are given by the Creator. This idea — now reaching even to sex and gender — is anathema to the modern mind.

The Claim of Moral Autonomy

Throughout most of human history, moral principles were considered to be objectively true and inviolate. The universe was understood to be ruled by a moral law established by a divine Lawgiver and Judge. That understanding has given way to the belief that most, if not all, moral principles are the products of social construction — we make them up as we go along.

While most criticisms of moral relativism are directed at individual conduct, on the larger scale, the entire society is increasingly convinced that moral principles must give way to new understandings, findings, and insights. When this idea is added to the progressivist understanding of history and the radical form of modern individualism, we have a recipe for moral revolution.

And, as with the other ideological factors we have considered, this one is also affirmed, to some degree, by both liberals and conservatives. There can be no doubt that some understandings of moral principle were indeed shaped by prejudice and ignorance, leading to great human suffering. Laws against interracial marriage were prime examples of this prejudice, and there are many others. Fear of minorities, including homosexuals, has led to scapegoating and hatred, cloaked in the language of moral rectitude. These things must give way to moral progress and be denounced with moral fervor.

But, once again, not all moral principles are examples of oppression. To the contrary, human life is only possible within the context of enduring moral laws and principles that liberate all human beings to their true humanity. This is where those who support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it face each other across a huge gulf of understanding. One side sees a moral mandate to liberate marriage from its heterosexual limitation. The other side sees natural marriage as a liberating, God-given institution for human flourishing. There is precious little shared ground in this debate.

Same-sex marriage is not an idea that emerged from a vacuum. The project of normalizing homosexuality has deep roots and ideological momentum. The elites, the entertainment culture, the news media, and the educational establishment celebrate all three of these ideas as central to the modern experience and as ideological propulsion into a better future.

So, when we wonder how it came to be that so many among us now favor same-sex marriage, we must remember that, to some extent or another, virtually all of us have embraced the ideas that make such a moral revolution thinkable. And ideas, as Richard Weaver famously reminded us, have consequences.

Several articles on Christians and conscience/employment concerning homosexual marriages

=====================

“Baking Cakes for Caesar - Why We Need Freedom to Say ‘No’”

Breakpoint Commentary by John Stonestreet

March 3, 2014

Would Jesus bake cakes for same-sex weddings? Good question, but there’s more to this whole issue that WWJD.

The call for tolerating same-sex marriage has now become a demand for compliance. Cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado and Elane Huguenin’s New Mexico photography business have shown us that “tolerance” ends exactly where the right to say “no” begins. And so people, businesses, and non-profits are forced to choose between their livelihoods and their convictions.

Some fellow Christians are giving this new state of affairs a thumbs-up, including Kirsten Powers, whose fearless stand against abortion I admire, and Skye Jethani, a friend I respect greatly.

They argue that Christians who won’t participate in gay “weddings” are “applying Scripture selectively.” If you object to baking a cake, shooting photographs or playing music for a ceremony for two men or two women, they say, you should also object to serving anyone with an unbiblical lifestyle. But since no business owner can do a background check on every client’s personal life, Powers and Jethani conclude that any religious objections to doing business are illegitimate.

Plus, they say, baking a cake or providing floral arrangements doesn’t mean that a Christian is participating in or affirming gay “marriage.” They’re only conducting business.

Before I reply, it’s important to understand how confused this conversation has become, especially with the all the noise surrounding the anti-discrimination bills in Kansas and Arizona.

The Kansas bill was very problematic, and unfortunately created enough negative sentiment to defeat the Arizona bill, which did not give anyone the right to refuse to serve gays, members of other faiths or political parties, or even Yankees fans for that matter.

And neither the baker in Denver, the photographer in New Mexico, or the Florist in Washington refused to serve customers because they were gay. They refused participation in a same-sex wedding.

Every good baker and photographer I know who take their work seriously see themselves as participating in the ceremonies they service, especially weddings. Their cakes adorn the celebration and their pictures document the story. And that’s why they object to being forced to participate in same-sex weddings. It’s not something they can do in good conscience.

A baker friend of mine told me he turns down cake business all the time because of convictions that have nothing to do with same-sex weddings, like if they are sexually explicit or crude. He wouldn’t bake a wedding cake if he knew the couple to be abusive. His faith has shaped his business for over 15 years, why should he be forced to disconnect his faith from his business now?

Again, if he refused to serve a gay person a cupcake, he’s sinning. However, that’s not the same as baking a rainbow cake to celebrate gay marriage. It just isn’t.

Powers and Jethani are right that Jesus would serve, wash the feet of, and have dinner with a gay person. But that’s different than saying that Jesus, the carpenter, would carve an altar for a same-sex wedding with a rainbow on it in place of a cross. He spent time with tax collectors, but He didn’t help them steal more.

Theologian Russell Moore makes a strong case for avoiding any involvement with same-sex “weddings,” which I’ll link to at BreakPoint.org. But I’m with Eric Teetsel, there’s much to consider about what constitutes involvement and what doesn’t. And, there’s another question.

Even if we assume that Jesus would participate in a gay “wedding,” does that mean we should force everyone to do it? Stamping out the freedom of those whose consciences differ is still unthinkable. I’d never want a judge to order a bakery owned by someone who identifies as gay or lesbian to be forced to bake a “God hates gays” cake for Westboro Baptist church. I would defend that baker’s right to say no every time.

We can’t shrug off conscientious objections as if religious liberty doesn’t matter. As Os Guinness argues in “The Global Public Square,” religious freedom is essential not only for Christians or for religious people, and in this deeply polarized society, it’s essential for maintaining peace, prosperity, and even civilization itself.

________

Copyright (c) 2014 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

======================

http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/02/26/bible-prohibit-providing-services-sex-weddings-theologians-weigh/

“Does the Bible prohibit providing services for same-sex weddings? Theologians weigh in.”

Jonathan Merritt

February 26, 2014

The evangelical world blew up this week over the question of whether Christian business owners and individuals should refuse goods and services for same-sex weddings. Many Christian theologians, pastors, and bloggers — particularly hailing from the evangelical new-Calvinist movement — have argued the answer is yes in some cases.

In a Daily Beast column I wrote with Kirsten Powers, we argued that the Bible does not prohibit such service. Sean Davis at The Federalist blasted the column as “a masterpiece of Biblical ignorance.” He points to a passage in 1 Corinthians where the Apostle Paul addressed whether Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols as proof that Christians should not provide service to same-sex weddings.

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), made a similar argument and cited the same scripture in a response to our column. He reasserted his position that Christians should “sacrifice the business for the conscience” when there is an obvious deviation from Biblical standards. ERLC Director of Communications Joe Carter took to Twitter to accuse Kirsten and I of having “embarrassed” ourselves with the column.

So, is our argument really that far off base? I reached out a variety of leading theologians the evangelical world respects to get their take. They uniformly found the use of 1 Corinthians in this case to be a misapplication.

David Garland is professor of Christian Scriptures and dean at Baylor University’s Truett Seminary and author of the Baker Exegetical commentary on 1 Corinthians. He said that he thought using this passage 1 Corinthians to justify refusing service for a same-sex marriage is difficult to square with the text, especially when you consider the entire context of the passage:

Paul’s argument actually goes from chapter 8 through ten. In chapter 9, the emphasis is on how to ultimately win unbelievers. The argument here is actually about giving up one’s right out of love for others and the sake of the faith. The goal in 8 and 9 is answering the question, ‘How do you win people over?’

When asked what he thought Paul would say to the Christian church on these issues, Garland replied, “I think Paul would say, ‘How can you witness to someone whom you will not serve?’ That doesn’t mean you condone, but you can serve without condoning.”

Next, I spoke to Scot McKnight, professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary and author of several commentaries and books. He characterized Moore’s column as “uncharacteristically elliptical” and said the 1 Corinthians passage is about not engaging in behaviors that might cause a weaker Christian to sin.

“Paul would be saying to the photographer don’t photograph if it would make a weaker brother or sister to fall into the sin of same-sex relationships,” McKnight said.

Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary and author of numerous books, including the NIV Application Commentary on 1 Corinthians, agreed with McKnight’s analysis of this passage:

“The issue in this passage is what to do when another Christian tells you that an action you’re involved in is a problem for them,” Blomberg said.” To apply to a cake-baking situation, you’d need a weaker brother saying that if they saw you selling cake for a gay wedding, they were going to not only bake a cake but go commit some sin. Somewhere in the world of 7 billion people, there might be someone like that. But I don’t think so.”

Richard Hays, professor of New Testament and dean of Duke Divinity School, echoed McKnight and Blomberg’s sentiments about the scripture passage:

I don’t think that passage has much of anything to do with your own conscience. It has to do with not engaging in behavior that would negatively affect those who are more morally scrupulous than you are. Paul is talking about restricting your freedom when your conscience is not offended, not about how to live when your conscience is offended. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with protecting my own conscience.

In his book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, Hays argued that the church should not support or bless gay unions — even lifelong, monogamous ones. When I asked him about whether or not he thinks it’s okay for a Christian to refuse to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian person who was getting married, he responded:

“Jesus was condemned by the scribes and Pharisees for associating with people of whose conduct they disapproved. The charge of eating and drinking with them tells us that Jesus’ enemies did regard him as complicit in their behavior. But he did it anyway,” Hays said. “I worry that the people who can’t bake a cake for people are putting themselves inside the bubble of Pharisaism. I just can’t go there.”

And what of those vendors who refuse services to same-sex couples but turn a blind eye to other kinds of unbiblical weddings? Should we be concerned about the apparent double standards of our brothers and sisters?

Craig Blomberg thinks so.

“Do the people involved regularly inquire about such things? If not, why would you change things just because someone happened to volunteer the information that they are gay and this is for a wedding,” he said. “I try to look for consistency of application no matter what principle you’re following. Whatever principle you’re applying for heterosexuals who you may not approve of, you should do the same.”

McKnight agrees: “There is a fair charge of hypocrisy since it concerns itself with only one kind of sin.”

======================

http://erlc.com/article/are-christians-hypocritical-on-weddings-and-conscience-protection

"Should a Christian Photographer Work at a Same-Sex Wedding Ceremony?"

Russell D. Moore

February 23, 2014

Dear Dr. Moore,

I am an evangelical Christian, and I work as a wedding photographer. By conscience, I hold to an orthodox view of human sexuality, with all that entails. I’ve been asked to photograph a same-sex wedding service (legal in my state), and I’ve said no. I wonder if I did the right thing.

After all, this is a business, providing a service. Would it be right for me to refuse to serve a gay couple if I owned a restaurant? I don’t think so. If a same-sex marriage isn’t a marriage at all (as the historic Christian view teaches), then how is this different from just photographing people at a birthday party or community festival (in which case it wouldn’t matter what’s happening with them sexually).

Moreover, I’m not sure that photographing an event is an endorsement of that event. I have photographed weddings of people who were divorced (and I didn’t investigate the background), people who were probably cohabiting, people who were most likely unequally yoked to one another, and so on.

So I’m kind of caught. My conscience bothers me because I turned this couple down, and my conscience will bother me if I photograph this wedding. What do you think?

The Wedding Photographer

Dear WP,

You’re right that this situation is more complicated than whether to serve someone at a restaurant (yes) regardless of that person’s sexual or marital situation. I would also argue that the situation is very different from photographing some other event, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the clients’ sexual or marital context. The fact that this is a wedding means there’s a different moral question for you.

You are also right that your role as a wedding photographer is different from an officiating minister, a member of the wedding party, or even an invited guest. All of those people are part of the wedding itself, the assembled witnesses who affirm the lawfulness of the union and pledge to hold the couple accountable for their vows.

If you were, say, a photojournalist for a news service, there to report on the first same-sex marriage in your state, for instance, there would be no issue for your conscience. As a wedding photographer, though, you are in a third place between participant and neutral observer.

A same-sex wedding is different, I think, from the other problematic marriages you mentioned, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, while a biblical view of marriage would see that such people (fornicators, believers to unbelievers, unlawfully divorced, etc.) should not get married, and that the church has no authority to marry them, we also would affirm that such people, when married, actually are married. A pastor who joins a believer to an unbeliever bears an awful responsibility for doing something wrong, but the end result is an actual marriage.

The same-sex marriage differs not in terms of morality, but in terms of reality. It is not that homosexuality is some sort of wholly different or unforgivable sexual sin. It’s that the historic Christian view of marriage means that without sexual complementarity there is no marriage at all.

More than that, you are right to note that your situation takes place at a moment of concerted cultural revisionism on the question of marriage as conjugal union. A same-sex wedding service right now is not merely personal, but, whether the couple intends this or not, political, with all sorts of corresponding questions.

Your conscience is conflicted right now, but suppose there’s in the near future an evangelical or Roman Catholic or Muslim photographer whose conscience would be morally opposed to participating at all in a same-sex marriage ceremony. There’s a real question as to whether the civil state will penalize this person’s conscientious objection, at least in some parts of the country. And a state that will do that has over-stepped its authority.

I would say that the decisions you’ll make, generally, as a wedding photographer will correspond often with the Corinthian dilemma of whether to eat meat that had been offered to idols (1 Cor. 8).

The Apostle Paul says, first of all, that the idols don’t represent real gods (1 Cor. 8:4), in the same way that you would argue that a wedding without a bride or a groom isn’t really a marriage. If something’s put before you, the apostle writes, eat it to the glory of God, no questions asked.

But, the apostle says, if the food is advertised as sacrificed to idols abstain from it for the sake of the consciences of those around you (1 Cor. 8:7-9). This is the difference between investigating a doughnut shop owner’s buying habits before eating there and stopping in for doughnuts when the sign out front flashes: “Eat here and support our owner’s cocaine and prostitutes habit.”

You need not investigate as a wedding photographer whether the wedding you are photographing is Christ-honoring. But when there is an obvious deviation from the biblical reality, sacrifice the business for conscience, your own and those of the ones in your orbit who would be confused.

That said, don’t be mean.

The couple asking you to do this wedding aren’t your enemies (Eph. 6:12). They are made in the image of God and are loved by him, and so should be loved by us. As orthodox Christians we don’t believe this leads to the happiness they’re looking for, but we must stand with kindness as well as with conviction. Tell the couple that you wish them well, but that you have beliefs about marriage that won’t allow your conscience to participate in this way. Thank them for asking you but recommend a photographer who can click away with a clear conscience.

________

Russell D. Moore is the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

An interview that begins with a statement like, “Well, Piers, to me, faith is all about learning to be happy where you are,” is probably not going to end well. Piers Morgan’s interview with Joel and Victoria Osteen Tuesday night was very revealing about the Osteens — but little Christian truth was revealed. At the same time, the interview deserves closer attention than you might expect.

After introducing the Osteens, Morgan let Joel talk about his latest book, Every Day A Friday, How To Be Happier 7 Days a Week. Like the book itself, Joel’s presentation could be reduced to his own brand of highly therapeutic prosperity theology. For Joel Osteen, it’s not a theology that is reducible to money alone. Instead, his focus is more on individual happiness and self-fulfillment. In his rendering, God might not want everyone to be rich, but he does want his creatures to experience every day as ... a Friday?

Then, the conversation shifted to issues in the news, such as abortion and capital punishment. On both topics, Piers Morgan pressed Joel to speak clearly, which he was clearly reluctant to do. On both topics, Osteen steered clear of disaster by saying as little as possible, in what can only be described as a garble.

On capital punishment: “You know, it’s a complicated issue, Piers. I haven’t thought a whole lot about it but, of course, you know, and I’m for second chances and mercy, yet, the flip side is there’s consequences for what we’ve done and, so, I — I don’t know what my total stance is...”

On a moral link between abortion and capital punishment: “Well, I think there could be when you say may or may not. You know, that’s the troublesome thing, if we don’t know for sure and, you know.”

There, that clears it all up nicely. The saddest thing about Joel Osteen’s incoherence on all this is the fact that he seems to be totally unaware that Christians have been engaging these issues seriously for centuries. When even Piers Morgan chided Osteen for his fuzziness and lack of an answer to questions, saying to Osteen, “you need to be more definitive,” Osteen responded: “Yes. Well, if I could I would but I’d have to — let me study it and I’ll come back with a great answer someday for you.” Not exactly a “here I stand” moment, to say the very least.

But, with all that as prelude, the interview really got interesting when Morgan turned the conversation to the issue of same-sex marriage. Morgan replayed a clip from Osteen’s appearance earlier this year, when Osteen gave Morgan this statement on homosexuality: “Yes, I’ve always believed, Piers, the scriptures shows that it’s a sin, but, you know, I’m not one of those that are out there to bash homosexuals and tell them that they’re terrible people and all that.” That statement, as Morgan indicated, made headlines.

When pressed, Osteen affirmed his statement: “You know, Piers, it really never changes because mine was — mine’s based out of the scripture. That’s what I believe that the scripture says that — that homosexuality is a sin. So, it — you know, I believed it before and I still believe it now. Again, I would just reiterate what I said, I’m not after — I’m not mad at anybody. I don’t dislike anybody. But, you know, you know, respecting my faith and believing, you know, in — in what the scripture says, that’s the best way I can interpret it.”

But the host’s real intention was to steer Osteen toward the same-sex marriage issue. Would Osteen perform a same-sex marriage?

His answer: “Well, you know what, I’m going to respect the law and I’m going to respect gay people like I do now, you know, have plenty of people that come to our church and friends, I would call, that are gay so I’m going to respect that. I think where it puts a difficult situation is me being a Christian pastor believing the scripture, you know, it would be against my faith to marry two gay people.” Later, he added: “No, it would be against what I believe the scripture teaches and, so, that’s where I think the rub comes in with people like myself. It’s not that I’m against anybody or, you know, if people want to live together, that’s up to them. But, my faith, when we say marriage, I mean, I think about it, Piers, and all through the Bible there are, you know, hundreds of marriages but none of them are shown as between, you know, the same sex. And, again, I’m not against anything but I just believe that’s what the Bible teaches . . .”

Morgan would not let the topic drop, clearly sensing an opportunity to find a crack in Osteen’s position. The host then asked the Osteens if they would attend a same-sex marriage ceremony. Joel Osteen said that he would, if the individuals were friends.

Morgan pressed further. How does this fit within Osteen’s previous statement: “Well, I haven’t been to many weddings lately to begin with and I’m talking about somebody that was, you know, dear to us. I’m not going to disrespect somebody that’s dear to us and say, you know what, you’re not good enough for us or something like that. That’s the way that I would see it. Now, I’m not going to just run off and go attend, you know, certain marriages just to make a statement because that’s not who I am and that’s not what I stand for and, again, I don’t look down on those people.”

In other words, Joel Osteen sees homosexuality as a sin and same-sex marriage to be contrary to God’s will. He cannot perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or endorse same-sex marriage, because he is bound by Scripture. On the other hand, he can attend a same-sex ceremony, if the participants are friends, and thus endorse by his presence the credibility of the ceremony itself and join in the celebration of what he believes, or says he believes, is sin.

This is beyond mere incoherence. It is moral and theological nonsense. More than that, it is a massive statement of ministerial malpractice. Piers Morgan had the sense to see that much. You cannot celebrate what you say you know to be sin. You cannot honestly say that same-sex marriage defies the law of God, and then join in the celebration of that ceremony.

Joel Osteen should know better, but you can add that to the things that someone like Joel Osteen should know, if indeed he is to present himself as a Christian preacher and leader.

The larger problem is that many evangelical Christians would follow Joel Osteen’s logic without a second thought, or without even what the psychologists would describe as “cognitive dissonance.” They say they believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that same-sex marriage is contrary to God’s will. But they allow personal relationships and social pressure to override their (evidently) lightly-held convictions.

The hypothetical case Piers Morgan invented for his interview with Joel and Victoria Osteen is precisely the reality many American Christians will face — or have already faced — with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Unless convictions are deeply held, they will melt away in the face of cultural pressure.

Oh, one final and very significant statement from the interview demands attention. Piers Morgan looked at Joel Osteen and asked the million-dollar question:

But, I mean, shouldn’t the scripture be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. I mean, we were talking before the break about the issue about eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, not everything in the scriptures, really, is, in my view, conducive to modern life. I mean, like everything else, doesn’t it have to move with the times and isn’t it down again to people like you to interpret it in a way that evolves when you’re known as a very progressive preacher?

Shouldn’t the Bible be “dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age”? There you have the modernist worldview reduced to a single question. The Bible will simply have to give way to modern moral authorities, and have to be interpreted “in a way that evolves.”

To his credit, Joel Osteen tried to stand his ground. To his discredit, he didn’t stand very well, and he seemed to lack all of the vital faculties for holding theological traction. We can only hope that other pastors — and other Christians — will do better. Sadly, without developing deeper biblical commitments and without drawing from the full wealth of Christian conviction, that is not going to happen.

Sadly, without a deep, humble, and faithful commitment to Christ, the Gospel, the Bible, and the structures of Christian thought, both the church and the Bible will be, to use Piers Morgan’s unforgettable phrase, “dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age” — and we know exactly what that means.

________

Transcript, Piers Morgan Tonight, CNN, Tuesday, October 4, 2011.

Were we really surprised? President Obama announced, after years of opposing so-called “same sex marriage,” that he is now for it. “I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” he said.

That’s quite a change of heart, especially since the day before, so-called gay “marriage” was soundly rejected by the citizens of North Carolina, who voted 61 to 39 percent against gay “marriage.” Was the timing of his announcement a coincidence? I don’t think so. For one thing, the gay-rights movement was extremely upset by the North Carolina verdict. And adding further pressure on the President, his Vice-President, Joe Biden, came out for gay “marriage” the week before.

Folks, this is pure politics. But what’s more important than the President’s pronouncement, was something Joe Biden said about gay “marriage” on “Meet the Press.”

According to Biden, the television show “‘Will and Grace’ probably did more to educate the American public [on homosexuality] than almost anything [else].”

Now, think about that statement. “Will and Grace” was the first show to feature a gay character who wasn’t a stereotype. The growing acceptance of same-sex “marriage” required a previous change in “the social culture.”

Now here’s why this is so important, as I said, politics is downstream from culture. Or, as Chuck Colson said, “Politics is nothing but a reflection of culture.” And Chuck was quite right — especially when it comes to sexuality and the family. When the Supreme Court of Hawaii created a right to same-sex marriage in 1993, the reaction was an overwhelming rejection at both the personal and political level. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed into law with both Republican and Democratic support.

Today, this kind of response is simply unimaginable. Why? Because popular culture, including “Will and Grace,” has shaped the way Americans feel about same-sex relationships.

Note that I said “feel” and not “think.” Most people simply don’t reason their way through issues such as same-sex “marriage.” Their response isn’t the product of who has the best argument, but whether they feel “comfortable” or not with the proposed outcome.

And TV shows like “Will and Grace” raised their comfort level with regards to same-sex relationships. It didn’t matter that it was fiction or that the actor portraying “Will” wasn’t even gay. The show’s creators had succeeded in their goal of shaping the audience’s imagination. People saw “Will” or watched Ellen DeGeneres and their comfort level rose. They saw that these were folks “just like us.”

And of course, once they thought that, persuading increasing numbers of Americans that denying these folk the “same exact rights” as heterosexual couples simply wasn’t that difficult.

Now, while I lament the outcome, I respect the shrewdness of our opponents. While a television show should not the basis for overturning millennia of tradition and custom, we should never forget that contending for marriage and the sanctity of life requires an appeal to people’s imaginations.

The President’s announcement notwithstanding, we have “won” nearly all of the political battles concerning so-called same-sex “marriage.” But if we want to preserve marriage, we have to do a better job of contending for Truth upstream of politics: In the culture, and in people’s imaginations.

________

Copyright (c) 2012 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Today it is popular among those promoting same-sex marriage to say that Jesus never addressed the issue, that He was silent on the subject.

Those who affirm the historical and traditional understanding of marriage between a man and woman often are admonished to go and read the Bible more carefully. If we do so, we are told, we will see that Jesus never addressed the issue. So, the question that I want to raise is, “Is this assertion correct?” Is it indeed the fact that Jesus never addresses the issue of same-sex marriage?

When one goes to the Gospels to see exactly what Jesus did say, one will discover that He addressed very clearly both the issues of sex and marriage. He addresses both their use and misuse. And, as He speaks to both subjects, He makes it plain that issues of the heart are of critical importance.

First, what did Jesus say about sex? Jesus believed that sex is a good gift from a great God. He also believed that sex was a good gift to be enjoyed within a monogamous, heterosexual covenant of marriage. On this He is crystal clear. In Mark 7 Jesus addresses the fact that all sin is ultimately an issue of the heart. Jesus was never after behavioral modification. Jesus was always after heart transformation. Change the heart and you truly change the person.

Thus, when He lists a catalog of sins in Mark 7:21-22, He makes it clear that all of these sins are ultimately matters of the heart. It is the idols of the heart that Jesus is out to eradicate. Among those sins of the heart that often give way to sinful actions He would include both sexual immorality and adultery (Mark 7:21). The phrase “sexual immorality,” in a biblical context, would speak of any sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage between a man and woman. Therefore, Jesus viewed pre-marital sex, adultery and homosexual behavior as sinful. And, He knew that the cure for each is a transformation of the heart made possible by the good news of the Gospel. The Gospel changes us so that now we are enabled to do not what we want, but what God wants. Here we find real freedom and joy.

Second, what about the issue of marriage? Is it truly the case that Jesus never spoke to the issue in terms of gender? The answer is a simple no. He gives His perspective on this when He addresses the issue in Matthew 19:4-6. There, speaking to the institution of marriage, Jesus is clear when He says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” That Jesus was committed to heterosexual marriage could not be more evident. A man is to leave his parents and be joined to a woman who becomes his wife. This is heterosexual marriage. That He also was committed to the permanence and fidelity of marriage is clear as well.

So, how might we sum up the issue? First, Jesus came to deliver all people from all sin. Such sin, He was convinced, originated in and was ultimately a matter of the heart. Second, Jesus made it clear that sex is a good gift from a great God, and this good gift is to be enjoyed within heterosexual covenantal marriage. It is simply undeniable that Jesus assumed heterosexual marriage as God’s design and plan. Third, Jesus sees all sexual activity outside this covenant as sinful. Fourth, it is a very dangerous and illegitimate interpretive strategy to bracket the words of Jesus and read into them the meaning you would like to find. We must not isolate Jesus from His affirmation of the Old Testament as the Word of God nor divorce Him from His first century Jewish context. Fifth, and this is really good news, Jesus loves both the heterosexual sinner and the homosexual sinner and promises free forgiveness and complete deliverance to each and everyone who comes to Him.

John 8* tells the story of a woman caught in adultery. The religious legalists want to stone her, but Jesus intervenes and prevents her murder. He then looks upon the woman and, with grace and tenderness, tells her that He does not condemn her. Then He says to her, “go and sin no more.” In Matthew 11:28 Jesus speaks to every one of us weighed down under the terrible weight and burden of sin. Listen to these tender words of the Savior, “Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” This is the hope that is found in Jesus. This is the hope found in the Gospel. Whether one is guilty of heterosexual or homosexual sin, one will find grace, forgiveness and freedom at the foot of the cross where the ground is always level.

When I came to fully trust Jesus as my Lord and Savior at the age of 20, I determined that I wanted to think like Jesus and live like Jesus for the rest of my life. When it comes to sex I want to think like Jesus. When it comes to marriage I want to think like Jesus. That means I will affirm covenantal heterosexual marriage. It also means loving each and every person regardless of their lifestyle choices. It means, as His representative, proclaiming His Gospel and extending the transforming grace of the Gospel to others that takes us where we are, but wonderfully and amazingly, does not leave us there. That is a hope and a promise that followers of Jesus gladly extend to everyone, because we have been recipients of that same amazing grace.

________

*The original says "John 7" but this is clearly a mistake. The textual unit that contains the story of the woman caught in adultery begins with John 7:53 and this may have been in the back of his mind.

In a scene from Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm, the mathematician skeptical about whether the park is a good idea, watches the T-Rex burst out of its enclosure and says, “I hate being right all the time.”

Princeton Professor Robert George and other defenders of traditional marriage understand these sentiments. For years, they’ve warned that redefining marriage beyond the union of one man and one woman wouldn’t — indeed couldn’t — stop with same-sex unions. The same reasoning that extends marriage to same-sex couples would easily be applied to polygamy and polyamory also.

The standard response to these concerns was scoffing and accusations of fear mongering.

Well, the fences are down and the beast is loose.

On Valentines’s Day, the Scientific American published an article claiming that polyamorists could “teach us a thing or two about love,” and the only reason to oppose it was bigotry because of outdated views about love and sexuality. As I said on my Point commentary about the article, the flow of the argument sounded far too familiar.

And now, as if on cue, Slate magazine published an article on April 15 by Jillian Keenan arguing that polygamy should be legalized. As Keenan notes, the arguments about gay marriage being a “slippery slope” that will lead to legalized polygamy is something “we’ve been hearing about for years.” To which she adds, “We can only hope.”

She continues: “While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.”

Keenan adds that legalizing polygamy would help to “protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.” How? By ending the “isolation” where “crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded.” That is, if polygamy is legal, she says, victims of abuse would be more likely to report abuses to the authorities.

Finally, she argues that respect for religious freedom requires legalizing polygamy. It isn’t only fundamentalist Mormons she’s concerned about: she cites “academics” who “suggest” that there may be between 50 and 100,000 Muslims in the U.S. who practice polygamy.

What’s most significant here isn’t the quality of Keenan’s arguments. The quality is poor. The treatment of women in countries where polygamy is legal makes her optimism about the impact of legalizing it seem dangerously naive. And her appeal to religious freedom is — shall we say — selective. There are plenty of law-abiding Americans whose religious freedom is under genuine threat who could benefit from this kind of solicitude.

No, the most significant thing about Keenan’s argument is not, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, that it’s made well, but that it’s made openly.

As Dr. George pointed out in “First Things,” when Christians pointed out the logical link between same-sex marriage and polygamy, proponents of same-sex marriage rejected the connection. They insisted that “no one is arguing for the legal recognition of polygamous or polyamorous relationships as marriages!” George writes in response, “That was then; this is now.” The “then” he referred to was last week; the now is today.

George predicts that Keenan’s article “will not produce a single serious critique by a major scholar or activist from the same-sex marriage movement.” Now he would love to be wrong. But defenders of traditional marriage know that the enclosures that kept marriage a “monogamous and exclusive union” are being dismantled. And no one should be surprised by what emerges, least of all those doing the dismantling.

________

Copyright (c) 2013 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

==================

A similar article from the Baptist Press, May 1, 2013.

"Polygamy, the next marriage battle?" by Evan Lenow

While the battle over same-sex marriage still rages, it is hard to imagine what the next battle might be. However, astute observers of the marriage debate have already seen the newest challenge to the definition of marriage -- polygamy.

In a recent article on Slate.com, Jillian Keenan proposes that the legalization of polygamous marriage is a desired result of the current marriage debate. She argues:

“While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.”

Keenan is not playing the “same-sex marriage is a slippery slope” card to argue against same-sex marriage. In fact, she ridicules that argument as a “tired refrain.” Instead, she brands herself as a feminist who believes polygamy is in the best interest of women and society and perfectly in keeping with the arguments for same-sex marriage.

Besides the 2011 lawsuit to decriminalize bigamy and polygamy in Utah filed by the stars of TLC’s “Sister Wives,” the discussion of polygamy and its connection to the same-sex marriage debate has been fairly silent. Keenan, however, wishes to end that silence.

While admitting that the argument against polygamy has generally been that it hurts women and children, Keenan believes legalization would actually benefit them. She claims that polygamists live in the shadows and fear the authorities. If they were allowed to live in the open, they would be more likely to report instances of abuse.

In addition, she believes feminists should support polygamy because it empowers women. She states:

“Finally, prohibiting polygamy on ‘feminist’ grounds -- that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved -- is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well -- I suppose that’s the price of freedom. And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her ... choice.”

At the end of her article, she gets down to the fundamental argument for why polygamy ought to be legalized. On this point, her logic is sound -- I just disagree with her first premise. She declares:

“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less ‘correct’ than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority -- a tiny minority, in fact -- freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States -- and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”

Keenan’s entire argument is built upon the idea that the definition of marriage is plastic. She believes it is constantly changing and must always expand to include the newest idea.

This is the clear connection to the same-sex marriage debate.

The current battle over marriage involves the definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriage (and supporters of polygamy) consider marriage to be an intimate, emotional relationship between individuals. They offer no basis for discrimination according to gender or number. Thus, the “new” definition of marriage would allow for same-sex marriage and polygamy. If culture, and specifically the government, adopts this new definition of marriage, then Keenan is right. There will be no choice but to legalize polygamy as well as same-sex marriage. However, Keenan does not go far enough. Incest is the next step of progression. We could add to her argument above: “If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well -- I suppose that’s the price of freedom.” The next line should read: “If she even wants to marry her brother, that’s her choice.”

This is the direction of the debate. Keenan has opened the door and publicly stated what others have been ridiculed for saying. The definition of marriage matters. A redefinition of marriage will undermine the entire concept of marriage that has been recognized throughout human history. As Chief Justice John Roberts stated during oral arguments before the Supreme Court: “If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘This is my friend.’ But it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.” If we tell people they can marry whomever they wish no matter the gender, number, or blood relationship, I suppose we could call that marriage. However, it changes the definition of what it means to be married.

________

Evan Lenow is assistant professor of ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

I’ve often heard that we should keep our views on various moral issues out of the public square.

My first contention is that it is impossible to do so. Judgments offered from either side of the discussion have a fiercely moral tone. While the moral indignation of gay marriage and abortion opponents is well-known, none can doubt a similar indignation in gay marriage and abortion affirmers.

Who has not seen the fires of perceived righteousness burning in the eyes of their ideological opponents? Sometimes it is a righteous fire born of concern; other times it is the smug fire of self-righteousness. But we cannot deny that the indignation is moral in its nature.

One can hear moral overtones when President Obama, who has done more to promote both gay marriage and abortion-on-demand than any president in history, follows up a proposal with his trademark, “It’s just the right thing to do.” His statement, of course, is usually met with applause from those sharing his moral outlook. But right according to what?

Furthermore, we typically laud those who operate according to their convictions -- unless, that is, those convictions are wrong. Few of us admire those who contend that “colonialism is good for the underdeveloped” or that “separate-but-equal is the best way to treat the race problem in America,” even when arguments arise from genuine moral conviction.

Abraham Lincoln has the nearly-unique privilege of being seen by both left and right as a moral giant -- a courageous man of conviction who led America out of its moral quagmire with slavery. But where did Lincoln’s moral impulse, which our country found so contagious, come from? Elton Trueblood shows in his classic “Abraham Lincoln: Theologian of American Anguish” that Lincoln’s convictions came from the root conviction that “the divine order can be ascertained and followed.” This is what gave him the undaunted courage to lead the nation despite fierce opposition.

Trueblood wrote of Lincoln: “While he is remembered primarily for his difficult political decisions which kept the Union intact, the more we study them, the more we realize that all of them were reached at a level far deeper than that of politics. Underlying all particular decisions was a moral revulsion against human slavery ... and an abiding conviction that the divine order can be ascertained and followed.”

In Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, arguably his greatest political work and perhaps the greatest political speech in American history, Lincoln declared that he would never give up on the quest to make men free, despite any political or military setbacks, because he trusted that “right makes might” and that we must proceed in our conviction toward the “right as God enables us to see it.”

Lincoln’s position was not popular then, and the severe winds of opposition withered many of Lincoln’s allies in the fight against slavery. Lincoln did not waver, however, because he believed that God’s view of right and wrong could be known. Rather than ask if God is on our side, Lincoln famously contended, we should ask whether we are on God’s side. And how do we know that? By whether our convictions cohere with His known will.

In today’s gay marriage or abortion debates, can we really know what side is God’s? The popular though flaccid answer is that we cannot. And why? Because the divine will, some say, is unknowable, and if we claim to know the divine will we will surely become theocratic terrorists. If that is true, then Lincoln must be included in that number. He firmly believed that the divine will about slavery could be known.

But if we can know the will of God, then the questions of “How does God define marriage?” and “When does God say life begins?” are as relevant as “Did God create all races equal?” If Lincoln was correct, these kinds of questions form the essential and necessary bedrock of our public discussions.

There is no enduring moral fortitude or intellectual consistency apart from the conviction that the divine will can be known.

________

J. D. Greear is the lead pastor at the Summit Church in Durham, N.C.

Evangelical Christians in the United States now face an inevitable moment of decision. While Christians in other movements and in other nations face similar questions, the question of homosexuality now presents evangelicals in the United States with a decision that cannot be avoided. Within a very short time, we will know where everyone stands on this question. There will be no place to hide, and there will be no way to remain silent. To be silent will answer the question.

The question is whether evangelicals will remain true to the teachings of Scripture and the unbroken teaching of the Christian church for over two thousand years on the morality of same-sex acts and the institution of marriage.

The world is pressing this question upon us, but so are a number of voices from within the larger evangelical circle — voices that are calling for a radical revision of the church’s understanding of the Bible, sexual morality, and the meaning of marriage. We are living in the midst of a massive revolution in morality, and sexual morality is at the center of this revolution. But the question of same-sex relationships and sexuality is at the very center of the debate over sexual morality, and our answer to this question will both determine or reveal what we understand about everything the Bible reveals and everything the church teaches — even the gospel itself.

Others are watching, and they see the moment of decision at hand. Anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann of Stanford University has remarked that “it is clear to an observer like me that evangelical Christianity is at a crossroad.” What is that crossroad? “The question of whether gay Christians should be married within the church.” Journalist Terry Mattingly sees the same issue looming on the evangelical horizon — “There is no way to avoid the showdown that is coming.”

Into this context now comes God and the Gay Christian, a book by Matthew Vines. Just a couple of years ago Vines made waves with the video of a lecture in which he attempted to argue that being a gay Christian in a committed same-sex relationship (and eventual marriage) is compatible with biblical Christianity. His video went viral. Even though Matthew Vines did not make new arguments, the young Harvard student synthesized arguments made by revisionist Bible scholars and presented a very winsome case for overthrowing the church’s moral teachings on same-sex relationships.

His new book flows from that startling ambition — to overthrow two millennia of Christian moral wisdom and biblical understanding.

Given the audacity of that ambition, why does this book deserve close attention? The most important reason lies outside the book itself. There are a great host of people, considered to be within the larger evangelical movement, who are desperately seeking a way to make peace with the moral revolution and endorse the acceptance of openly-gay individuals and couples within the life of the church. Given the excruciating pressures now exerted on evangelical Christianity, many people — including some high-profile leaders — are desperately seeking an argument they can claim as both persuasive and biblical. The seams in the evangelical fabric are beginning to break and Matthew Vines now comes along with a book that he claims will make the argument so many have been seeking.

In God and the Gay Christian Vines argues that “Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.” He announces that, once his argument is accepted: “The fiercest objections to LGBT equality — those based on religious beliefs — can begin to fall away. The tremendous pain endured by LGBT youth in many Christian homes can become a relic of the past. Christianity’s reputation in much of the Western world can begin to rebound. Together we can reclaim our light” (3).

That promise drives Vines’s work from beginning to end. He identifies himself as both gay and Christian and claims to hold to a “high view” of the Bible. “That means,” he says, “I believe all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life” (2).

Well, that is exactly what we would hope for a Christian believer to say about the Bible. And who could fault the ambition of any young and thoughtful Christian who seeks to recover the reputation of Christianity in the Western world. If Matthew Vines were to be truly successful in simultaneously making his case and remaining true to the Scriptures, we would indeed have to overturn two thousand years of the church’s teaching on sex and marriage and apologize for the horrible embarrassment of being wrong for so long.

Readers of his book who are looking for an off-ramp from the current cultural predicament will no doubt try to accept his argument. But the real question is whether what Vines claims is true and faithful to the Bible as the Word of God. But his argument is neither true nor faithful to Scripture. It is, nonetheless, a prototype of the kind of argument we can now expect.

What Does the Bible Really Say?

The most important sections of Vines’s book deal with the Bible itself and with what he identifies as the six passages in the Bible that “have stood in the way of countless gay people who long for acceptance from their Christian parents, friends, and churches” (11). Those six passages (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10) are indeed key and crucial passages for understanding God’s expressed and revealed message on the question of same-sex acts, desires, and relationships, but they are hardly the whole story.

The most radical proposal Vines actually makes is to sever each of these passages from the flow of the biblical narrative and the Bible’s most fundamental revelation about what it means to be human, both male and female. He does not do this merely by omission, but by the explicit argument that the church has misunderstood the doctrine of creation as much as the question of human sexuality. He specifically seeks to argue that the basic sexual complementarity of the human male and the female — each made in God’s image — is neither essential to Genesis chapters 1 and 2 or to any biblical text that follows.

In other words, he argues that same-sex sexuality can be part of the goodness of God’s original creation, and that when God declared that it is not good for man to be alone, the answer to man’s isolation could be a sexual relationship with someone of either sex. But that massive misrepresentation of Genesis 1 and 2 — a misinterpretation with virtually unlimited theological consequences — actually becomes Vines’s way of relativizing the meaning of the six passages he primarily considers.

His main argument is that the Bible simply has no category of sexual orientation. Thus, when the Bible condemns same-sex acts, it is actually condemning “sexual excess,” hierarchy, oppression, or abuse — not the possibility of permanent, monogamous, same-sex unions.

In addressing the passages in Genesis and Leviticus, Vines argues that the sin of Sodom was primarily inhospitality, not same-sex love or sexuality. The law of Moses condemns same-sex acts in so far as they violate social status or a holiness code, not in and of themselves, he asserts. His argument with regard to Leviticus is especially contorted, since he has to argue that the text’s explicit condemnation of male-male intercourse as an abomination is neither categorical or related to sinfulness. He allows that “abomination is a negative word,” but insists that “it doesn’t necessarily correspond to Christian views of sin” (85).

Finally, he argues that, even if the Levitical condemnations are categorical, this would not mean that the law remains binding on believers today.

In dealing with the most significant single passage in the Bible on same-sex acts and desire, Romans 1:26-27, Vines actually argues that the passage “is not of central importance to Paul’s message in Romans.” Instead, Vines argues that the passage is used by Paul only as “a brief example to drive home a point he was making about idolatry.” Nevertheless, Paul’s words on same-sex acts are, he admits, “starkly negative” (96).

“There is no question that Romans 1:26-27 is the most significant biblical passage in this debate,” Vines acknowledges (96). In order to relativize it, he makes this case: “Paul’s description of same-sex behavior in this passage is indisputably negative. But he also explicitly described the behavior he condemned as lustful. He made no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment. So how should we understand Paul’s words? Do they apply to all same-sex relationships? Or only to lustful, fleeting ones?” (99).

In asking these questions, Vines makes his case that Paul is merely ignorant of the reality of sexual orientation. He had no idea that some people are naturally attracted to people of the same sex. Therefore, Paul misunderstands what today would be considered culturally normative in many highly-developed nations — that some persons are naturally attracted to others of the same sex and it would be therefore “unnatural” for them to be attracted sexually to anyone else.

Astonishingly, Vines then argues that the very notion of “against nature” as used by Paul in Romans 1 is tied to patriarchy, not sexual complementarity. Same-sex relationships, Vines argues, “disrupted a social order that required a strict hierarchy between the sexes” (109).

But to get anywhere near to Vines’s argument one has to sever Romans 1 from any natural reading of the text, from the flow of the Bible’s message from Genesis 1 forward, from the basic structure of sexual complementarity, and from the church’s faithful reading of the Bible for two millennia. Furthermore, his argument provides direct evidence of that Paul warns of in this very chapter, “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Finally, the actual language of Romans 1, specifically dealing with male same-sex desire, speaks of “men consumed with passion for one another” (Romans 1:27). This directly contradicts Vines’s claim that only oppressive, pederastic, or socially mixed same-sex acts are condemned. Paul describes men consumed with passion for one another — not merely the abuse of the powerless by the powerful. In other words, in Romans 1:26-27 Paul condemns same-sex acts by both men and women, and he condemns the sexual desires described as unnatural passions as well.

In his attempt to relativize 1 Corinthians 6: 9, Vines actually undermines more of his argument. Paul’s careful use of language (perhaps even inventing a term by combining two words from Leviticus 18) is specifically intended to deny what Vines proposes — that the text really does not condemn consensual same-sex acts by individuals with a same-sex sexual orientation. Paul so carefully argues his case that he makes the point that both the active and the passive participants in male intercourse will not inherit the kingdom of God. Desperate to argue his case nonetheless, Vines asserts that, once again, it is exploitative sex that Paul condemns. But this requires that Paul be severed from his Jewish identify and from his own obedience to Scripture. Vines must attempt to marshal evidence that the primary background issue is the Greco-Roman cultural context rather than Paul’s Jewish context — but that would make Paul incomprehensible.

One other aspect of Vines’s consideration of the Bible should be noted. He acknowledges that he is “not a biblical scholar,” but he claims to “have relied on the work of scholars whose expertise is far greater than my own.” But the scholars upon whom he relies do not operate on the assumption that “all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life.” To the contrary, most of his cited scholars are from the far left of modern biblical scholarship or on the fringes of the evangelical world. He does not reveal their deeper understandings of Scripture and its authority.

The Authority of Scripture and the Question of Sexual Orientation

Again and again, Vines comes back to sexual orientation as the key issue. ‘“The Bible doesn’t directly address the issue of same-sex orientation,” he insists. The concept of sexual orientation “didn’t exist in the ancient world.” Amazingly, he then concedes that the Bible’s “six references to same-sex behavior are negative,” but insists, again, that “the concept of same-sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation.”

Here we face the most tragic aspect of Matthew Vines’s argument. If the modern concept of sexual orientation is to be taken as a brute fact, then the Bible simply cannot be trusted to understand what it means to be human, to reveal what God intends for us sexually, or to define sin in any coherent manner. The modern notion of sexual orientation is, as a matter of fact, exceedingly modern. it is also a concept without any definitive meaning. Effectively, it is used now both culturally and morally to argue about sexual attraction and desire. As a matter of fact, attraction and desire are the only indicators upon which the modern notion of sexual orientation are premised.

When he begins his book, Matthew Vines argues that experience should not drive our interpretation of the Bible. But it is his experience of what he calls a gay sexual orientation that drives every word of this book. It is this experiential issue that drives him to relativize text after text and to argue that the Bible really doesn’t speak directly to his sexual identity at all, since the inspired human authors of Scripture were ignorant of the modern gay experience.

Of what else were they ignorant? Vines claims to hold to a “high view” of the Bible and to believe that “all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life,” but the modern concept of sexual orientation functions as a much higher authority in his thinking and in his argument.

This leads to a haunting question. What else does the Bible not know about what it means to be human? If the Bible cannot be trusted to reveal the truth about us in every respect, how can we trust it to reveal our salvation?

This points to the greater issue at stake here — the Gospel. Matthew Vines’s argument does not merely relativize the Bible’s authority, it leaves us without any authoritative revelation of what sin is. And without an authoritative (and clearly understandable) revelation of human sin, we cannot know why we need a Savior, or why Christ died. Furthermore, to tell someone that what the Bible reveals as sin is not sin, we tell them that they do not need Christ for that. Is that not exactly what Paul was determined not to do when he wrote to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? Could the stakes be any higher than that? This controversy is not merely about sex, it is about salvation.

Matthew Vines’s Wedge Argument — Gender and the Bible

There is another really interesting and revealing aspect of Matthew Vine’s argument yet to come. In terms of how his argument is likely to be received within the evangelical world, Vines clearly has a strategy, and that strategy is to persuade those who have rejected gender complementarity to take the next logical step and deny sexual complementarity as well.

Gender complementarity is the belief that the Bible’s teachings on gender and gender roles is to be understood in terms of the fact that men and women are equally made in God’s image (status) but different in terms of assignment (roles). This has been the belief and conviction of virtually all Christians throughout the centuries, and it is the view held by the vast majority of those identified as Christians in the world even today. But a denial of this conviction, hand in hand with the argument that sameness of role is necessary to affirm equality of status, has led some to argue that difference in gender roles must be rejected. The first impediment to making this argument is the fact that the Bible insists on a difference in roles. In order to overcome this impediment, biblical scholars and theologians committed to egalitarianism have made arguments that are hauntingly similar to those now made by Matthew Vines in favor of relativizing the Bible’s texts on same-sex behaviors.

Matthew Vines knows this. He also knows that, at least until recently, most of those who have rejected gender complementarity have maintained an affirmation of sexual complementarity — the belief that sexual behavior is to be limited to marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He sees this as his opening. At several points in the book, he makes this argument straightforwardly, even as he calls both “gender complementarity” and denies that the Bible requires or reveals it.

But we have to give Matthew Vines credit for seeing this wedge issue better than most egalitarians have seen it. He knows that the denial of gender complementarity is a huge step toward denying sexual complementarity. The evangelicals who have committed themselves to an egalitarian understanding of gender roles as revealed in the Bible are those who are most vulnerable to his argument. In effect, they must resist his argument more by force of will than by force of logic.

Same-Sex Marriage, Celibacy, and the Gospel

Matthew Vines writes with personal passion and he tells us much of his own story. Raised in an evangelical Presbyterian church by Christian parents, he came relatively late to understand his own sexual desires and pattern of attraction. He wants to be acknowledged as a faithful Christian, and he wants to be married ... to a man. He argues that the Bible simply has no concept of sexual orientation and that to deny him access to marriage is to deny him justice and happiness. He argues that celibacy cannot be mandated for same-sex individuals within the church, for this would be unjust and wrong. He argues that same-sex unions can fulfill the “one-flesh” promise of Genesis 2:24.

Thus, he argues that the Christian church should accept and celebrate same-sex marriage. He also argues, just like the Protestant liberals of the early twentieth century, that Christianity must revise its beliefs or face the massive loss of reputation before the watching world (meaning, we should note, the watching world of the secular West).

But the believing church is left with no option but to deny the revisionist and relativizing proposals Vines brings to the evangelical argument. The consequences of accepting his argument would include misleading people about their sin and about their need for Christ, about what obedience to Christ requires and what faithfulness to Christ demands.

Matthew Vines demands that we love him enough to give him what he desperately wants, and that would certainly be the path of least cultural resistance. If we accept his argument we can simply remove this controversy from our midst, apologize to the world, and move on. But we cannot do that without counting the cost, and that cost includes the loss of all confidence in the Bible, in the Church’s ability to understand and obey the Scriptures, and in the Gospel as good news to all sinners.

Biblical Christianity cannot endorse same-sex marriage nor accept the claim that a believer can be obedient to Christ and remain or persist in same-sex behaviors. The church is the assembly of the redeemed, saved from our sins and learning obedience in the School of Christ. Every single one of us is a sexual sinner in need of redemption, but we are called to holiness, to obedience, and to honoring marriage as one of God’s most precious gifts and as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church.

God and the Gay Christian demands an answer, but Christ demands our obedience. We can only pray — with fervent urgency — that this moment of decision for evangelical Christianity will be answered with a firm assertion of biblical authority, respect for marriage as the union of a man and a woman, passion for the Gospel of Christ, and prayer for the faithfulness and health of Christ’s church.

I do not write this response as Matthew Vines’s moral superior, but as one who must be obedient to Scripture. And so, I must counter his argument with conviction and urgency. I am concerned for him, and for the thousands who struggle as he does. The church has often failed people with same-sex attractions, and failed them horribly. We must not fail them now by forfeiting the only message that leads to salvation, holiness, and faithfulness. That is the real question before us.

________

God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines, is a free e-book, and is the first in the Conversant series I am editing. In this e-book I am joined by colleagues James Hamilton, Denny Burk, Owen Strachan, and Heath Lambert, and we address the biblical, theological, historical, and pastoral issues raised by Vines’s book. To download a copy, go to sbts.me/ebook. The book will be available in formats for Kindle, Nook, and iBook.

Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian (New York: Convergent Books, 2014).

Tanya Luhrmann, foreword to Ken Wilson, A Letter to My Congregation: An Evangelical Pastor’s Path to Embracing People Who Are Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender in the Company of Jesus ([Version 1.0)] (Amazon.com, 2014).

Terry Mattingly, “About Those Evangelical Whispers on Same-Sex Marriage,” Patheos.com, Thursday, April 17, 2014.

Does it make any difference that Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [LDS], married as many as 40 women, some of whom already were married and one who was only 14?

Smith’s marital history has been the subject of much debate, but until the Mormon Church acknowledged the founding prophet’s multiple wives in a recent essay, it had maintained that Smith was happily married to one woman.

The essay explains that Smith was a reluctant polygamist, agreeing to multiple marriages only after an angel threatened him with a sword. Further, the essay notes that Smith was restoring the “ancient principles” of biblical prophets like Abraham, who took secondary wives.

The church disavowed plural marriages in 1890 under pressure from the U.S. government, although some LDS sects continue to practice it.

As some Mormon bloggers have commented, it’s good for the church to acknowledge as factual what any person capable of a Google search can discover. But a more important point is that the church attempts to appeal to Scripture in admitting the inconvenient truth of Smith’s polygamy.

This is precisely where we have an opportunity to urge our Mormon friends to revisit the Bible, which LDS theology and practice relegate to a back seat behind the Book of Mormon and other church documents.

And for evangelical Christians, who see the gay marriage debate sliding down the slippery slope toward the redefinition of marriage, which includes multiple marriages, we should ask ourselves whether the Bible truly endorses the taking of more than one spouse.

To be sure: It does not.

Consider three biblical perspectives: 1) God’s creative intent; 2) His divine accommodation; and 3) His warning against polygamy.

Divine creation

Let’s begin with God’s design for men and women created in His image. In Genesis 2:18, the Lord says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.” Adam acknowledges Eve as a perfect complement for him -- “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” The Scripture then says, “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

When the Pharisees pressed Jesus about the legitimacy of divorce on any grounds, He took them back to this passage to emphasize God’s creative intent. “So they are no longer two, but one flesh,” Jesus said. “Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate” (Matthew 19:6).

When they asked why Moses allowed divorce, Jesus replied that it was due to the hardness of people’s hearts, but “it was not like that from the beginning” (Matthew 19:8).

It is clear that God’s ideal is a monogamous, lifelong marriage between a man and a woman.

Divine accommodation

Throughout the Old Testament, the Mosaic Law deals with such realities as divorce, which God hates, and polygamy, which He warns against. The Law is a great improvement over the pagan practices of Israel’s neighbors while making allowances for the fallen state of God’s people. It’s what some scholars call “divine accommodation.”

In his book “Is God a Moral Monster?” Paul Copan writes that the Law of Moses is “a gracious gift temporarily given to national Israel that bridged God’s ideals and the realities of ancient Near Eastern life and human hard-heartedness. Some of the troubling, harsh, and seemingly arbitrary Old Testament laws -- though inferior and less than morally optimal -- are often an improvement on what we see in the rest of an ancient Near East.... Much in the Old Testament visibly reminds us of God’s abundant grace despite human sin and fall-damaged social structures.”

While Scripture nowhere instructs God’s people to engage in polygamy, the Law provides protection for women involved in polygamous relationships.

Warning against polygamy

In addition to God’s clear intention for monogamous marriage, and His divine accommodation to protect the victims of sinful behavior like divorce and polygamy, several passages of Scripture tell us of the danger of taking multiple wives. Here’s a brief sampling:

From Lamech, the first recorded polygamist in Scripture (Genesis 4:19, 23-24) to Abraham, Esau, Jacob, David and Solomon, wherever we see God’s ideal of monogamy ignored, the result is bickering, strife and often idolatry.

Leviticus 18:18 is a strong teaching against polygamy: “You are not to marry a woman as a rival to her sister and have sexual intercourse with her during her sister’s lifetime.”

In Deuteronomy 17:17, God prohibits Israel’s king from acquiring many wives for himself “so that his heart won’t go astray.” Solomon, of course, took 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3), often from foreign nations for political reasons. The result: They turned his heart away from God.

Finally, God models faithfulness in His relationship with His chosen people, loving them even when they depart and “marry” other gods.

Proverbs 5:15-18 offers wise counsel -- a man should find delight and sexual satisfaction with his wife in a monogamous marriage: “Drink water from your own cistern ... and take pleasure in the wife of your youth.”

It also should be noted that just because Old Testament characters like David and Solomon took multiple wives does not mean God endorses the practice. We need to draw a distinction between what the Bible records and what it commands.

Those who point to the Bible to endorse their polygamous practices, or to ridicule Scripture’s “outdated” and “archaic” teachings, need to study the passages in context and against the historical backdrop of the times in which they are given.

God’s creative intent remains the same: One man and one woman, becoming one flesh through marriage, until death. This is a teachable moment for all of us, including our Mormon friends.

The moment she was engaged, Michelle Meako told her intended, "I want a big wedding," and that's what they had. The couple wrote their own vows, picked out a cake, and planned a Canadian honeymoon after a lavish reception. The couple only omitted one detail: a marriage license. They couldn't get one because Michelle and her "spouse" are both women.

Is it unjust for government to refuse to authorize same-sex "marriages"? A growing number of secular commentators think so. How do we respond? First, we have to explain the meaning and purpose of marriage.

In his book, THE CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES, Princeton philosopher Robert George writes that the matrimonial law reflects a moral judgment. That judgment is that marriage is inherently heterosexual, monogamous, and permanent -- a union of one man and one woman. This judgment is based on both the biblical and natural law understandings that marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons. This communion is consummated and actualized sexually -- that is, by acts that are reproductive, whether or not they result in children. They unite the spouses as a single procreative unit -- an organic unity achieved even by infertile couples. Only a mated pair can be a complete organism capable of human procreation.

By contrast, homosexual acts have no relationship to procreation and can't unite persons organically. As a result, these acts can't be marital -- which means relationships integrated around them can't be marriages. Same-sex partners are physically incapable of marriage. It takes a man and a woman to become "one flesh."

I can already hear the arguments your secular neighbors are making. "Okay," they say. "That's your definition of marriage. But why should your views be imposed on everyone else?"

That's why we have to be ready with additional, non-religious arguments for traditional marriage. For instance, if we expand the meaning of marriage to include same-sex unions, on what grounds could we legitimately oppose marriages between three or more people, or weddings between siblings?

Another argument made by my friend Bill Bennett is the impact it would have on the shaping of human sexuality, especially among the young. "Societal indifference," he writes, "about heterosexuality and homosexuality would cause a lot of [sexual] confusion."

When we defend traditional marriage, we're upholding far more than just the Christian definition of matrimony. Since the beginning of recorded history, virtually every society and every major religion has revered and protected traditional marriage. It's the institution that nurtures, protects, and civilizes children. Marriage forms the framework of society's most basic institution: the family.

If supporters of same-sex marriage succeed, marriage would be reduced to nothing more than a legal contract between any two people based solely on feelings. True marriage would be abolished, and the damage to our society would be irreparable.

That's why it's so important for Christians to understand the prudential arguments in support of a traditional view of marriage and why it deserves special protection under the law. George's book, THE CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES, will help you do this. You'll learn why even the most elaborate wedding cannot a marriage make -- unless it's between one man and one woman.

For further reading:

Robert George, CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES: LAW, RELIGION AND MORALITY IN CRISIS (ISI Books, 2001).

William Bennett, THE BROKEN HEARTH: REVERSING THE MORAL COLLAPSE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY (Waterbrook Press, 2001).

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Gay “marriage” will lead to the destruction of the traditional understanding of the American family. It will open the door to a push for legalized polygamy -- with “marriage” open to groups of people. Gay “marriage” doesn't make sense because “marriage” is, by definition, a monogamous union between a man and a woman.

Are such pronouncements from the latest fundraising letter of a pro-family organization? Are they lifted from the much-derided comments of Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum?

No, on both counts. They are from one of the nation's leading homosexual rights activists.

Judith Levine of the radical Village Voice newspaper wants full legitimization for gay and lesbian couples. Neither she nor her newspaper could be described as fans of what she derides as the “complementary-genitalia crowd.” Even so, Levine is skeptical of gay “marriage.” It is, she says, not radical enough.

In a recent article titled “Stop the Wedding,” Levine argues that gay “marriage” legitimizes gay relationships, but at too much of a cost. Gay “marriage” proponents, she writes, “in seeking to replicate marriage clause for clause and sacrament for sacrament,” may inadvertently “stall the achievement of real sexual freedom and social equality for everyone.” This is because, she says, “marriage” as defined as the union between two people in a monogamous union alienates “the queerer queers of all sexual persuasions -- drag queens, club- crawlers, polyamorists, even ordinary single mothers or teenager lovers -- further to the margins.”

Homosexual activists should call instead, she contends, for the complete societal destruction of marriage as a civil institution. Gay liberation could then be achieved by civil recognition of “personal partnerships” in the place of marriage. And these partnerships should be open to more than just two -- which is, after all, a relic of Christian morality.

“Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals onto the ark,” Levine writes. “But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the 'repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.'“

And such group “marriage” wouldn't hurt women or children, Levine notes. “Would polygamy invite abuse of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders. Guarantees of women's and children's rights and economic well-being would be more productive than outlawing multiple marriage.”

Levine's progressive critique of gay “marriage” is one to which traditionalists would do well to listen. She recognizes that the issue at stake is about “marriage” as much as it is about “gay.” She recognizes that the seemingly inevitable civil recognition of gay unions is only part of the agenda of today's sexual libertarians. And she recognizes that “marriage” is more than just a social contract. It is bound up in a particular understanding of an exclusive male/female union -- a union Christians recognize as intentionally woven into the warp and woof of the created order.

And, on that, she is right.

The debate about marriage is, by definition, radical -- because it deals with the root of human society. And marriage, at root, is a man and woman, created to complement one another physically, emotionally and spiritually, abandoning all others to cleave to one another -- for life. With such the case, the gay rights movement's assault on the Constitution might win, but their assault on nature never can.

That's because gay “marriage” can never reflect the Creator's intention -- an intention written in the natural order and in human consciences and reflected in every human society since the primeval couple.

It just isn't “radical” enough.

_____________

Russell D. Moore is assistant professor of Christian theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. He also serves as executive director of the Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement. This commentary is from Moore's new web log at www.henryinstitute.org.

*

As a result of the decisions at the triennial convention of the Episcopal Church, the fragmentation of the worldwide Anglican communion appears imminent.

That will be a sad moment, for the unity of the church is something for which all Christians are to hope and work (Romans 12:18; Ephesians 4:3). Our Lord Jesus Christ prayed for the unity of His followers in His high priestly prayer (John 17). The early church, in the shaping Nicene Creed, confessed the church to be “one” and “universal.”

Yet in Jesus' same prayer in John 17, we cannot miss the important emphasis on truth and holiness, as he prayed: “Sanctify them in truth; Your word is truth.”

Ultimately true unity is based on true truth.

Any other kind of unity is earthly, worldly and temporal at best. In Jesus' prayer, He makes clear that truth and unity go together. Truth without a concern for love and unity seems harsh. A unity that exists without truth is mushy, empty and misguided. The church is not only “one” and “universal” according to that great fourth-century confession, it is also “holy” and “apostolic.” True holiness is based on the truth taught by the Apostles in the Holy Word of God.

The decision of the Episcopal Church to appoint V. Gene Robinson, an avowed practicing homosexual, as bishop of New Hampshire is obviously in contradiction to the direct teaching of Scripture. While the unity of the church is always worthy of our pursuit, there are times when differences based on the clearly taught distinctives of the Christian faith must be sustained.

The Church cannot choose between being “one” or being “holy,” between being “universal” or being “apostolic.” This is not an option. We cannot be “one” if we are not “holy,” and we cannot be “universal” if we are not grounded in the teachings of Christ's Apostles.

The issue of homosexuality is not an issue that we have chosen nor would have chosen. But the decisions of recent Supreme Court cases and major denominational discussions across the country this summer have pushed this one issue to the forefront of the church's moral and social agenda.

It is now a matter that we cannot ignore. The church must address this issue -- boldly, yet lovingly; courageously, yet sensitively. We are not homophobics and we are not interested in depriving rights from any American citizen that are rightfully theirs.

But I am convinced from Holy Scripture about four important points as places for the Church to stand and stand firm:

1. The New Testament sees all homosexual practice as wrong, sinful and inappropriate.

2. The New Testament knows nothing of any “blessed homosexual union.”

3. The New Testament teaches that marriage can only be understood as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. Any other understanding is clearly unacceptable.

4. The New Testament holds no place for avowed homosexuals to serve in leadership capacities in the church.

The decisions of the Episcopal Church are symptomatic of a culture that has chosen to suppress the truth of God revealed in Holy Scripture. Their contemporary vision of “user-friendly” truth is not the truth of God made known in Holy Scripture. We must recognize that these are not just cultural controversies. What is at stake is the very soul of the church for whom Jesus Christ died.

Let us pray that we would all be sanctified in and by the truth (John 17:17). Let us pray indeed for a picture of unity among God's people everywhere, but unity that is founded upon the Word of God, a unity that is “holy” and “apostolic.” We join Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, who boldly and firmly disagreed with Robinson's election last week, in praying for God to have mercy on His church.

_____________

David S. Dockery is president of Union University, the nation's oldest Southern Baptist institution of higher learning, founded in 1823.

*

As a result of the decisions at the triennial convention of the Episcopal Church, the fragmentation of the worldwide Anglican communion appears imminent.

That will be a sad moment, for the unity of the church is something for which all Christians are to hope and work (Romans 12:18; Ephesians 4:3). Our Lord Jesus Christ prayed for the unity of His followers in His high priestly prayer (John 17). The early church, in the shaping Nicene Creed, confessed the church to be “one” and “universal.”

Yet in Jesus' same prayer in John 17, we cannot miss the important emphasis on truth and holiness, as he prayed: “Sanctify them in truth; Your word is truth.”

Ultimately true unity is based on true truth.

Any other kind of unity is earthly, worldly and temporal at best. In Jesus' prayer, He makes clear that truth and unity go together. Truth without a concern for love and unity seems harsh. A unity that exists without truth is mushy, empty and misguided. The church is not only “one” and “universal” according to that great fourth-century confession, it is also “holy” and “apostolic.” True holiness is based on the truth taught by the Apostles in the Holy Word of God.

The decision of the Episcopal Church to appoint V. Gene Robinson, an avowed practicing homosexual, as bishop of New Hampshire is obviously in contradiction to the direct teaching of Scripture. While the unity of the church is always worthy of our pursuit, there are times when differences based on the clearly taught distinctives of the Christian faith must be sustained.

The Church cannot choose between being “one” or being “holy,” between being “universal” or being “apostolic.” This is not an option. We cannot be “one” if we are not “holy,” and we cannot be “universal” if we are not grounded in the teachings of Christ's Apostles.

The issue of homosexuality is not an issue that we have chosen nor would have chosen. But the decisions of recent Supreme Court cases and major denominational discussions across the country this summer have pushed this one issue to the forefront of the church's moral and social agenda.

It is now a matter that we cannot ignore. The church must address this issue -- boldly, yet lovingly; courageously, yet sensitively. We are not homophobics and we are not interested in depriving rights from any American citizen that are rightfully theirs.

But I am convinced from Holy Scripture about four important points as places for the Church to stand and stand firm:

1. The New Testament sees all homosexual practice as wrong, sinful and inappropriate.

2. The New Testament knows nothing of any “blessed homosexual union.”

3. The New Testament teaches that marriage can only be understood as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. Any other understanding is clearly unacceptable.

4. The New Testament holds no place for avowed homosexuals to serve in leadership capacities in the church.

The decisions of the Episcopal Church are symptomatic of a culture that has chosen to suppress the truth of God revealed in Holy Scripture. Their contemporary vision of “user-friendly” truth is not the truth of God made known in Holy Scripture. We must recognize that these are not just cultural controversies. What is at stake is the very soul of the church for whom Jesus Christ died.

Let us pray that we would all be sanctified in and by the truth (John 17:17). Let us pray indeed for a picture of unity among God's people everywhere, but unity that is founded upon the Word of God, a unity that is “holy” and “apostolic.” We join Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, who boldly and firmly disagreed with Robinson's election last week, in praying for God to have mercy on His church.

_____________

David S. Dockery is president of Union University, the nation's oldest Southern Baptist institution of higher learning, founded in 1823.

*

A Guide to Same-Sex Marriage from the Manufacturer’s Instruction Manual.

_____________

The debate about legal recognition of same-sex marriage is ultimately grounded in our understanding of human nature, values, and the role of human relationships in creating and defining the type of society we desire. For the vast majority of Americans, these issues are understood in the context of the Bible and religious traditions, the “Instruction Manual” provided by our “manufacturer.”1

This critical debate is not truly between homosexuals and heterosexuals; it is between two opposing worldviews, one secular and the other religious.2 Approximately 80% of Americans hold a religious worldview,3 but the secular left has done an excellent, yet nefarious, job of dividing those with a religious worldview through false stereotyping. Their manipulative “divide & conquer” strategy has led many religious people to erroneously fear other religious people more than they fear the secular fundamentalists set on destroying religion and Judeo-Christian values. Thus, many Americans are understandably confused about the same-sex marriage issue and its ultimate driving force, secular fundamentalism.

Everyone does not fit neatly into the purely religious or purely secular worldviews, but “sitting this one out” is not a viable alternative. The stakes for our families and free society are too great. We have to join one team or the other, so we must each choose which team is closer to our own personal values, or which team is further from our values. To avoid a choice is still a choice -- one for the other team.

THE RELIGIOUS POSITION

Everyone knows the secular and radical “gay rights” side of the argument; the public schools, universities, and mass media faithfully present it to us. Fewer understand the religious side of the argument, which is falsely portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and homophobic. A proper understanding of the religious position is necessary if a real debate is to take place prior to the destruction of a 5,000-year-old institution by a minority of citizens, against the will of the majority.

To discuss the religious view of human nature is not to ignore science, which also informs the opinions of Americans. Many people may not be aware that modern science is belatedly learning that the Biblical view of human nature is more accurate than the views that have been the foundation for most of secular liberalism. In his courageous new book, The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature, MIT professor Steven Pinker, himself a secular liberal, concludes “...the theory of human nature coming out of the cognitive revolution has more in common with the Judeo-Christian theory of human nature ...than with behaviorism, social constructionism, and other versions of the Blank Slate.” Those that think religion is just ancient superstition should take a second, or in many cases, a first look.

To discuss the religious view in dealing with matters of public policy is also not to ignore the “Separation of Church and State,” a 19th century metaphor mistakenly assumed to be in the U.S. Constitution. Unlike humans, who are born morally “tabula rasa” with a blank slate, the United States was not created morally “tabula rasa” as a secular nation. The unifying moral principle of this country’s founding was a religious faith in a divine Creator and the freedom of each individual to practice his or her religion (or no religion) without interference from the government.

The Founders believed that religious faith, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition, provided the objective ethical basis needed for a free society to properly function. To this very day, the majority of Americans share this belief, so to ban religion from the “public square” is to radically redefine America into a secular nation in opposition to both the principles upon which it was created and the wishes of the majority of its citizens.

The government, as defined in the First Amendment and explained by its author James Madison, must remain neutral between various sects of religion, but is not required to remain neutral between religion and irreligion.4 In the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, so frequently and erroneously presented as an atheist, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”

A review of traditional Judaism’s opposition to homosexuality, and most importantly its public sanction with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, will highlight the fallacies many well-meaning people, Jew and non-Jew, have apparently accepted.5 (Judaism will guide this discussion, although the general ideas should be in agreement with traditional Christianity.)

To have compassion and tolerance for all of God’s children is admirable and a mitzvah (commandment) under Jewish law, but there is no way Jewish law and tradition can be perverted to endorse and publicly sanction same-sex marriage.

The “Instruction Manual” is clear and unequivocal. “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination.”6 The ultimate punishment for homosexuality along with the other sexual sins listed in this section, such as bestiality and incest, is kares; God “cutting off” their souls (spiritually) from the midst of their people. Kares is generally understood to be exacted after death, and is considered one of the most severe punishments for a sin. In Judaism, the harshness of the punishment assigned to a sin, whether or not meant to be carried out by humans, helps us understand the relative seriousness of the sin.

Obviously, sexual immorality is a very serious matter for Jews, but Judaism also teaches that sexual immorality, including homosexuality, is universally prohibited to all humans as one of the seven Noahide Laws, God’s “natural law” for all mankind.7

The very first commandment in the Bible comes immediately following God’s creation of human beings, male and female together and equally in His image. God commands us to “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”8 The great 19th century sage, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, describes this fourfold mission as a guide to the “whole free-willed moral development of the human race:” Fruitful is marriage, multiply is the family, fill the earth is society, and subdue it is property, i.e. the “mastering, appropriating and transforming the earth and its products for human purposes.”9

Rabbi Hirsch further points out the critical nature of heterosexual relationships, based on the Commandment for “man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and they will be one flesh.”10 “Man is not unique among living beings in having a sexual life. But other creatures require mating only for the purpose of breeding; because male and female were created simultaneously, they can function independent of one another. Man is different: woman was created from man to show that only in a partnership do the two of them form a complete human being.”11

While a small percentage of humans may subconsciously desire a same-sex relationship because it is less complex and challenging, God warns us to consciously overcome that desire and understand that He created the female to be “a helper corresponding” to the male. As the sages explain, “A wife is neither man’s shadow nor his servant, but his other self, a ‘helper’ in a dimension beyond the capability of any other creature.”12 Interestingly, the Hebrew word, kinegdo, here translated as “corresponding to him,” may also be translated as “against him” or “opposite him;” reflecting the built-in complexity and difficulty of the complementary relationship between man and woman.

So humans, originally created as male and female, then separated, must rejoin not just physically, but spiritually to create a civil and prosperous society. Our Creator did not design us to achieve this necessary spiritual unity with same-sex relationships.

But humans do not like rules defining and inhibiting our behavior, so we use our God-given ability to rationalize almost anything and accept erroneous ideas in order to ignore those rules.

FALLACY #1: NATURAL INCLINATION EQUALS ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC BEHAVIOR

Whether a homosexual inclination is caused by genetics, hormonal changes in the womb, psychological development, or mere whim is completely irrelevant. The Creator of human nature would not have prohibited homosexual activity if He did not design this inclination to be controllable by human free will. He gave us free will to control the multitude of inclinations that we all possess to varying degrees. Some are extremely difficult to control, but we are discussing human behavior, not a passive trait such as skin color.

God also gave us mortal and physical humans commandments to guide us in the choices we make, in order to elevate ourselves spiritually -- not to live as instinctual animals, but as rational human beings created in His image. And our volitional efforts are necessary so the spirituality we attain will have a distinct human involvement.

As Maimonides (1135-1204), one of Judaism’s greatest philosophers and legal codifiers, taught:

It is “possible for a person to be born with a tendency to one of

the virtues or one of the shortcomings – i.e., conduct

[representative of this trait] will come easier to him than other

types of conduct. He should not say that these shortcomings are

already ingrained in his character and cannot be removed. For in

every situation a person has the choice of changing from good to

bad, and from bad to good. The choice is in his hands.”13

Without free will, there is no basis for morality or for that matter Judaism or Christianity; so to argue that homosexuality or any prohibited behavior is OK because it is a “natural” inclination is an oxymoron.14 After all, some scientists believe that people are born with inclinations to be violent or criminal or even pedophiles. Do we then condone and sanction these anti-social actions because they were born that way?

Those who believe modern science has proven homosexual activity is impossible to control, resist, or even change; and believe that people who disagree are ignorant and “homophobic,” should be more open-minded and check their premises.15 Regardless of propaganda in the mass media, there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is either innate or immutable.16

FALLACY #2: OPPOSITION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS HATEFUL HOMOPHOBIA

Many view the legalization of same-sex marriage as eliminating “discrimination” in a desire not to make anyone “feel” uncomfortable, as if there is a Constitutional right not to “feel” uncomfortable. They even tie-in discussions of same-sex marriage with “hate crimes” legislation. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between “hating the sin” and “hating the sinner.”

The idea that opposition to homosexual activity and its public sanction is equivalent to or leads to hatred of individual homosexuals is a “big lie” created to demonize, intimidate, and silence opponents of the “gay rights” agenda. And the data confirms the “big lie.” Every crime of violence against another human being is reprehensible, but according to the latest FBI Hate Crimes statistics, it is estimated that less than 0.0001 of homosexuals were victims of violent assaults; not exactly an epidemic of homophobic rage spreading across America.17

In one of the founding documents of the “gay liberation” movement, published in the mid-1980’s, the National Gay Task Force laid out their plan to create this “big lie.”18

• The first order of business is the desensitization of the American people concerning gays and gay rights.

• Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to it enough.

• The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

• Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of television daily. Those hours open a gate: the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message of normalcy.

• Portray gays as victims. In any campaign to win over the public we must be cast as victims in need of protection, so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of the protector.

• We can undercut the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters badly out of step with the times.

• At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights, it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified...The public must be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust Middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burnt alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged. These images should be combined by a method propagandists call the bracket technique.

The propagandists have been extremely successful! We let their Trojan horse enter our homes unabated, and we let them infect the minds of our children. But it is still a lie, built on anti-religious bigotry.

Judaism and Christianity both abhor the sin of homosexual behavior, but only teach love, respect, and toleration for individual fellow humans -- all created in the image of God. Religious people who believe homosexual behavior is a sin and oppose same-sex marriage can sincerely say, “Some of my best friends are gay!”

The fact is that a person practicing homosexuality has committed a religious sin, a very serious one in God’s eyes, but so has a Jew who doesn’t keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, or violates any of the Commandments. They are no less Jewish, and society lives and deals with these “sinners” in a variety of amicable, tolerant, and neighborly ways without creating special legal “rights.” This same tolerance applies to homosexuals.19

Truly religious people are tolerant of others with whom they disagree and can live peaceably and neighborly with them in a free society.20 This is especially true in America where the political environment has always been one based on respect for and protection of individual rights. But the “gay rights” movement does not want tolerance; they want nothing less than forced acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, healthy, and moral; a position most religious people must reject for themselves and their children. And this is where the problems arise.

This undemocratic use of government force by a minority of citizens is at its most despicable when public schools are used to impose these ideas on children of religious families.21 And as if this use of public schools for ideological indoctrination were not enough, they then use judicial activism to control private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which are only remotely connected to the government.

Are there intolerant religious people? Of course, but they represent only a small minority not fully observing a basic tenet of both Judaism and Christianity, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”22 Their religious practice, however flawed, at least constrains their behavior, and in the long run it is an effective tool for improving their humanity.

On the other side, without religion as the basis for the public moral culture, what will constrain behavior and lead to an improvement of humanity? What will restrain secular intolerance from infecting not a small minority, but a large majority? History’s grand experiment with a secular society, Communism, was an evil and dismal failure that killed over 100 million innocent people in the 20th Century.23 Add to that the Holocaust perpetrated by the socialist, neo-pagan Nazis. All of the (Judeo-Christian) religious wars in the history of the world pale by comparison.24

Could a secular society result in a nation as great as the United States? Anything is possible in a perfect world, but in our imperfect world, no such society has yet approached the freedom and the spiritual and material prosperity of the United States.

Those who wish to ban religion from the “public square” and impose secularism on the majority of Americans would do well to rethink their position – the grass is not always greener on the other side. As Benjamin Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine in an attempt to persuade Paine to abandon his anti-religion essays: “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.”25

FALLACY #3: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS A PRIVATE ACT BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS

The hidden [sins] are for Hashem, our God, but the revealed

[sins] are for us and our children forever, to carry out all the

words of this Torah.

-- Deuteronomy 29:28

The sages explain that Moses is teaching, “hidden sins are the province of God alone, and He holds no one responsible but the sinners themselves. But everyone is obligated to safeguard...against openly committed sins.”26 Thus, homosexual activity between consenting adults practiced in privacy is primarily a sin against God, and He will deal with it. It is not a matter for government regulation. The same cannot be said about same-sex marriage.

Most people may be surprised to know that the debate over same-sex marriage is not new. As the wise King Solomon taught us, “There is nothing new under the sun.” The Bible teaches that God brought on the Flood in Noah’s time because, “all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.”27 A fascinating Midrash (ancient rabbinic commentary on the Bible) teaches: “the generation of the Flood was only blotted out from the world because they wrote marriage contracts for males and for females.”28

Later, the Talmud teaches that Noahides (monotheistic non-Jews) who did not observe all of the Noahide laws at least did “not write a marriage contract for males...”29 In explaining this discussion, Rashi, the great 11th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, points out the vital distinction between private actions and public policy:

Even though they are suspected of homosexuality and sequester

themselves with males for intercourse, nevertheless, they are not

so irresponsible about this commandment that they would write a

marriage contract for them.

There are serious consequences to a society that officially sanctions activities the vast majority of its citizens accept as immoral. We ignore, at our own peril, the infinite difference between acceptable private and public behavior, especially for families raising children with a focus on future generations, a challenge very few homosexuals share.

To publicly sanction same-sex marriage is to implicitly sanction the short-term outlook on life inherent to homosexuality. A perfect example of the disastrous public policy effects of this sort-sighted viewpoint was the “father” of FDR’s New Deal, economist John Maynard Keynes. A major flaw in Keynes’ thinking was his concentration on the short-term. He thought that focus on the long run was utterly futile and one of the great mistakes in economics. He abhorred “savings,” thought the “abstinence” of people impedes the growth of wealth, and believed savings are always a potential threat to economic progress.

One of the leading economists of the 20th Century, Joseph Schumpeter, noted the connection between Keynes’ flawed ideas and his “childless and essentially short run philosophy of life” when he said, “for a person committed to homosexuality, who is without descendants, there is little for them to focus the future on.”30 It is not a coincidence that the Hebrew word in the Bible for “children” is linguistically the same as “builders.”

As economist and political philosopher Thomas Sowell explains,31

Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit

marriage to unions of two people instead of three of four or

five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united

with others of various ages, sexes, and species. Marriage is a

social contract because the issues involved go beyond the

particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the

future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends.

Society has something to say about that.

If society elects not to say anything about it and abandons the primacy of the traditional family, with its focus on children and future generations, we also abandon our connections to past generations, traditions, and history. All we will be left with is a “present” filled with hedonistic irresponsibility. And we don’t have to wait too long -- just look around! This current attempt at a perpetual age of adolescence, if not halted soon, will lead at an increasingly rapid rate to the uncontrollable destruction of civil society.

The Emperor Nero reportedly “went so far as to write a marriage contract for one of his favorite male lovers.”32 Do we really want to follow the Roman Empire into decline and ruin? It is critical to recognize the essential difference between a society where homosexuality is practiced privately and one that actually gives it official sanction and recognition.

FALLACY #4: ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR HOMOSEXUALS CAN ONLY BE OBTAINED BY GOVERNMENT FORCE

Proponents of same-sex marriage claim all they really want are equal “rights” for homosexuals who live together as couples. This is very appealing to Americans who historically have been tolerant and fair; but it is a false argument.

Before new “rights” are created, it is only logical to ask what is their source. The “revolutionary” achievement of the Founders of the United States was their recognition that neither they nor any government could create rights. This was in complete contrast to the historic Divine Rights of Kings or the modern systems of man-made collective rights, such as in the former Soviet Union.

The individual rights of man were from God, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...” President John F. Kennedy confirmed the divine source of these rights in his Inaugural Address, “...the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

Same-sex marriage, by any stretch of the imagination, is in complete contradiction to God’s “Instruction Manual,” so if the rights of man come “from the hand of God,” it is inconceivable that God would view same-sex marriage as a “right.”

If proponents of same-sex marriage truly want just the economic benefits (not “rights”) that heterosexual sexual couples have, those benefits can easily be provided in the free market on a voluntary basis, without the use of government force. Many corporations such as Disney, General Electric, and Wal-Mart accommodate their employee benefit programs for homosexuals and many already include insurance coverage for “domestic partners.” Just as voluntary sexual activity should be a private matter, economic benefits for private sexual relationships should be voluntary. This may entail modifications in some State laws concerning contracts and benefits, but it does not require laws destroying the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman that has been the cornerstone of civilization for over 5,000 years.

A FINAL FALLACY: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE HURTS NO ONE

In America, we believe in “Live and Let Live,” so who is hurt if two boys or two girls want to marry each other?

“Live & Let Live” is a great hallmark of American political life, but it is only effective in matters between fully developed adults. The introduction of children and a concern for future generations change the equation.

This is especially true when it comes to public sanctions and forced indoctrination of children in the public school system. Parents should not be forced to teach their children that a fundamental religious and moral prohibition, one that has been a standard of Judeo-Christian morality for thousands of years, is not only condoned, but is publicly sanctioned by their government.

Many homosexuals, such as those with a religious worldview and especially those with children or strong family ties, understand and accept the position that same-sex marriage will be harmful to society; yet it is understandable that many other homosexuals might not see the harm in same-sex marriage.

But, why do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage? It seems apparent that most are misled with the nice sounding but intentionally false idea that government force is necessary to eliminate hatred, uncomfortable feelings, and differences in economic benefits. What about those leading this battle and intentionally misleading the public? Why are they so vociferously demanding the right to impose this potentially disastrous policy on the majority of Americans?

The answer lies in the fundamental difference between the secular and the religious worldviews; therefore, it is not unimportant that the vast majority of Americans hold a religious outlook on life. The third chapter of the Talmud, Pirkei Avos, (Chapters of the Fathers), asks three of the most critical questions humans grapple with.33 As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, each of these transcendental questions can be answered in two primary ways, defining the difference between the two worldviews.34

1. How did human beings come to be on this planet?

Religious: God created us in His image and placed us here.

Secular: By a lengthy, random process of unaided materialistic evolution, primitive protoplasm became Bach and Beethoven.

2. Where is the human race headed?

Religious: To an ultimate day of God’s choosing when a grand Messianic redemption will take place resulting in the whole world recognizing God and His truth.

Secular: To an ultimate day of destruction and oblivion that will wipe us out through overcrowding, poverty, global warming, acid rain, nuclear explosion, off-course meteorites or any combination of the above.

3: What are we supposed to be doing here?

Religious: We are supposed to be developing our relationship with God and becoming closer to Him through studying and following His Torah and obeying His mitzvoth. In other words, we have a set of objective ethics to live by.

Secular: There are no objective ethics, so everything is subjective and relative. “Anything goes” is good enough as far as our personal lives go! Our primary focus on the future is to head off the threats to humanity in the Secular answer to question #2. If they are too formidable for us to solve alone, we should urge our government to solve them. If they are too much for one government to solve, we should urge governments to cooperate through the United Nations in order to solve them.

Monotheists, such as Jews and Christians, would be in basic agreement with the religious answers, albeit with variations in the details.

Secularists eschew objective values and ethics,36 and look at the future as extremely tenuous and limited to only “this world.” The ultimate day of destruction and oblivion are rapidly approaching, and there is nothing after that! Thus both homosexual and heterosexual secularists, based on their secular worldview, can very easily fall into the trap of supporting same-sex marriage. To do so, they intentionally ignore the serious problems they are imposing on parents with a religious worldview -- parents trying to teach their children Judeo-Christian values.

Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only “social justice” to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview, even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular movement are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people; a constant reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of Americans, who believe in God, to fear religion more than secularism, in complete disregard to the barbaric reality of the 20th century.

After the fall of Nazism and Communism, the secular fundamentalists focused primarily on post-Christian Europe and American academia, turning both into hotbeds of anti-religious bigotry and virulent anti-Semitism. These self-proclaimed “progressives” espouse diversity, but are in fact very close-minded and hostile to all political, cultural, and especially religious opinions with which they disagree.

Over a century ago, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch anticipated modern secular fundamentalism with prophetic precision.37

It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live

undisturbed according to his convictions, as he calls them; to

him there is no well-being and no peace as long as his

convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and

valid.

He sees in the Law an intellectual slavery from which it is the

Godly task of a second Moses to redeem his unfortunate brothers.

In Torah-loyalty, he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the

same time a calamity which is to blame for all the miseries of

the past.

He sees in “liberation” from the yoke of the Law a goal so high

and so humanitarian that every means which seems capable of

bringing about progress toward this great goal must be employed.

He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of

persecution against those loyal to the Law.

Extremists on either side can be dangerous if initiation of force is not limited by a strong Constitutional defense of individual rights and religious freedom.38 The secular side, however, offers the greatest risk to society. It contains no internalized mechanism for an objective moral code of human cooperation and must rely solely on the collectivized, legalistic force of government for citizens to defend themselves. It also contains no effective, common moral foundation for raising children, especially in a vacuum without an existent moral culture passed down from previous generations of religious tradition

THE ULTIMATE VICTIMS

Who are the ultimate victims? On a micro level, our children are the victims, but on a macro level, our free society will be the victim. As President John Adams said in 1798,

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with

human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our

Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is

wholly inadequate to the government of any other.39

George Washington expressed this same idea in his 1796 Farewell Address to the Nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political

prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In

vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should

labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these

firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.40

In other words, our secular form of government was designed only for a non-secular people.

150 years later, President Harry Truman confirmed that a “moral and religious people” were still necessary for maintenance of our free society.41

The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on

the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes

from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from

Isaiah and St. Paul.

If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will

finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not

believe in rights for anybody except the State.

Adams, Washington, the other Founders, and Presidents through George W. Bush have understood that a limited Constitutional government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” could work only if the society is primarily self-policed, based on a common moral code that served as an invisible net of social stability. In America this has always been the Judeo-Christian values derived from the Bible, most recently expressed in the phrase “one nation under God.”

Some argue that to officially state the United States is “one nation under God” or to publicly recognize Judeo-Christian thought as the source of our legal and political systems violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists. The very concept of “rights” in the United States presupposes belief in the God of the Bible, not by every citizen, but at least by the majority. Like homosexuals, atheists want to invent a right to force their neighbors to lock their religious beliefs in the closet, so no one ever feels uncomfortable.

To accept the assertion that public sanction of religion violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists, one must completely ignore the Declaration of Independence, the history and writings of the Founders, and our nation’s history until the last 50 years. If ignored, then this discussion is not about the United States, but a completely new country. How can the greatest nation in the history of the world allow judges and special interest groups to completely redefine the nature and character of this great country without ascertaining the will of the majority through a democratic process?42

Do we really believe that the Founders, who created this revolutionary concept of rights and created the greatest Constitutional system as yet devised by mankind, did not understand what they were doing? Contrary to a historical myth perpetrated by the secularists, America at the time of the founding included atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc.,43 and the Founders knew that it was only this unique form of government, based on individual rights from God, that would protect people of all beliefs.

As historian David Barton explains, the Founders were all religious Christians, but they did not oppose pluralism, “as long as the beliefs of other religions did not threaten the stability of civil society.44 In fact, the Founders believed that pluralism survived only within the concept of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity,”45 uniquely different from European Christianity and based on what we now term the Judeo-Christian Ethic.46

The opposite is not necessarily true. As Rabbi Hirsch taught us about the secular fundamentalist, there will be “no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid.” He cannot tolerate a religious worldview outside the confines of the church or synagogue. Sadly, the history of 20th century Europe and the secular liberalism of 21st century American academia confirm both his prediction and the understanding of the Founders that pluralism of belief will not survive in a secular society.

People yearn for predictability in their lives and communities, and this invisible net provides that predictability in their everyday lives. If predictability is lost to chaos, they often turn to dictators or other forms of totalitarian government to restore predictability.

Without a moral public culture shared by the majority of citizens to provide the invisible net of social stability, government could not be limited and would have to encroach into every citizen’s life and freedom. Instead of a free society of cooperation between individuals, more and more human interaction would have to be decided by the legal system and bureaucrats. Morality would be replaced by legality, which helps explain why the judicial system is taking control of our government and our lives. Without a commonly accepted morality, there is no basis for human cooperation, other than force. Freedom would rapidly morph into tyranny.

As Rabbi Lapin has explained:47

One unintended side effect of the secular fundamentalism sweeping

America is how it erodes the rules that hold together the

invisible net of social stability. By encouraging unfettered

personal license, secular fundamentalism helps collapse civilized

norms. Then, when people dress with deliberately provocative

vulgarity and they express themselves loudly and obscenely in

public, hardworking, family-minded citizens are left with a

growing feeling of unease. When young people no longer see their

maturation leading naturally toward marriage and when marriage

itself becomes threatened by cultural ridicule and purported

alternatives, parents feel unmoored. When public institutions

depict religion as only for the emotionally needy and the

intelligence impaired many Americans feel resentment and

alienation.

This is obviously not to suggest that the hobby of shattering

traditional rules that seems to delight so many journalists,

academics, and intellectuals is going to endow America with a

future dictatorial tyrant. It can eventually, however, infect

ordinary Americans with docility about further Federal control

beyond that necessary to protect us from our enemies. In a

desperate attempt to recover some sense of normality and

predictability in our lives, we might be tempted to embrace

expanded government influence over how we live, earn, and

worship. We would yearn for the predictability and normality

that used to be supplied by those traditional rules that many

Jewish and Christian Americans of faith remember increasingly

nostalgically. Biblically-based faith helps to maintain freedom

by holding together the invisible framework of social stability.

The Founders understood this lesson well, but we have strayed from that lesson.

Our free society, as the Founders dreamed it and we once knew it, will be lost forever unless Americans make a political stand to preserve this endangered “invisible framework of social stability.” That stand must begin with protecting children from the Trojan horse of secular fundamentalism expressed in such formerly unthinkable legalisms as same-sex marriage.

The secular fundamentalists leading this assault on Judeo-Christian values understand very well that the children are their point of attack. If you doubt that children are the intended victims, read the words of an openly homosexual woman who was formerly an insider in the leadership of the feminist and radical “gay rights” movements, until she realized these movements were no longer based on the ideal of civil-rights, but on “socialism, the foundational model of the Far Left.”48 These are a few of her comments about their efforts “to end anti-gay bias in K-12 schools.”49

For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in

their sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit

comfortably into our society? They must work to sexualize every

part of society – and, as every good marketer knows, that effort

must begin with children.

The efforts of gay establishment organizations, if the future is

really their concern, should be focused on persuading the horde

of bacchanalian boys to change their lifestyle. Instead, they

are demanding that we accept their degeneracy, and the

destruction of our future in the process. We dare not judge

them. We dare not question their actions. And we are to hand

the nation’s children over to them.

This is why a free society such as the United States, where the vast majority of the people believe in Judeo-Christian values, can tolerate unrestricted private sexual activity between consenting adults, but cannot allow public sanction and endorsement of homosexuality as a cultural norm.

WILL GOD CONTINUE TO BLESS AMERICA?

Until the past few years, almost all Americans, and especially Presidents and candidates for President, firmly believed that America had earned God’s blessings. Now, secularists and even some Presidential candidates question this bedrock belief of religious Americans. The naysayers may unwittingly prove to be correct if they are successful in imposing their secular agenda on the majority of Americans.

From the religious point of view, same-sex marriage and its public sanction of homosexuality will desecrate God’s name. On a much larger scale it will also risk the loss of His blessings on the United States, so eloquently requested by President George Washington in his first Inaugural address (1789):

... it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first

official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who

rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations,

and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that

his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of

the People of the United States, a Government instituted by

themselves for these essential purposes.

Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition, a national movement of Jewish and Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular fundamentalism.

________

ENDNOTES

1. As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, just as automobile manufacturers provide an “Instruction Manual” with every car produced, God gave human beings an “Instruction Manual” upon our creation. Rabbi Lapin calls this “Instruction Manual,” “God’s biblical blueprint”, and it is revealed in the Torah – the Jewish bible that serves as the foundation for both Judaism and Christianity. It is further revealed in the oral law given by God to Moses and further explained by the sages over thousands of years.

2. For a larger understanding of the secular war against religion and Judeo-Christian values in the U.S., see Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War, Multomah, 1999. Another excellent resource is Rabbi Lapin’s audio presentation, “Is America Airborne? Or have we run out of fuel?” available from Toward Tradition at http://www.towardtradition.org/.

3. In the United States, 75% of citizens identify themselves as having a “religious outlook,” compared to 10% with a “secular outlook,” 6% with a “somewhat secular outlook,” and 9% who either do not know or refused this question. It is assumed that some of these 9% also hold a religious outlook, thus the approximation of 80% of Americans holding a religious worldview. Only 1% of Americans identify themselves at atheist or agnostic. Source: “2001 American Religious Identification Survey,” The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Available online at: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

4. For a detailed analysis of the Founders’ intent in writing the 1st Amendment, see the dissent that Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1985 Supreme Court case (Wallace v, Jaffree). Available online at: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wallace/Rehnquist.html.

5. It is bewildering that organizations describing themselves as Jewish could applaud and advocate the Judicial tyranny leading to a “right” for homosexuals to marry. These groups include ADL, AJC, Hadassah, and the Religious Action Center of the Reform movement.

6. Leviticus 18:22

7. The Seven Noahide Laws, derived from the Five Books of Moses and delineated in the Talmud, are considered by Jewish scholars to be Natural Law for non-Jews. The first six are prohibitions against murder, theft, sexual immorality, idol worship, blaspheming God, and eating a limb torn from a living animal (animal cruelty). The 7th law is a positive requirement to institute a system of law and courts to implement the first six. Online information available at: http://www.rb.org.il/noahide/noahinstitute.htm.

8. Genesis 1:28

9. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary on the Torah (Unabridged Edition), Genesis 1:28.

10. Ibid. Commentary on Genesis 2:24.

11. Genesis Volume 1(a), Artscroll Tanach Series (Mesorah Publications). Summary of Hirsch commentary on Genesis 2:24

12. Ibid. Commentary on Genesis 2:18.

13. Maimonides’ Introduction to the Tractate of Avot (Shemoneh Perakim), Chapter Eight, “The Composition of Human Nature.”

14. For those that erroneously believe science has ruled out the existence of free will, refer to Jeffrey Satinover, The Quantum Brain – The Search for Freedom and the Next Generation of Man, John Wiley & Sons, 2001.

15. For example, refer to Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. Baker Books, 1996. The most current research in this field is available online at http://www.narth.com/. There is also a “Jewish” organization, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) which offers information on their website, http://www.jonahweb.org/.

16. See “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” available online at http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.

17. See “Hate Crime Statistics, 2002” at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime2002.pdf. An assumption was made that 3% of the U.S. population above age 14 was homosexual or approximately 6.6 million. The total violent “hate crimes” due to “sexual orientation” was 633. If it is assumed that homosexuals represent a higher proportion of Americans, such as the estimated upper limit of 5%, the ratio of “hate crimes” is even far less significant.

18. Marshall Kirk & Erastes Pill (aka Hunter Madsen),”Waging Peace,” as quoted in The American Enterprise magazine, June 2001.

19. For a detailed discussion on how the word “tolerance” has become corrupted by secular fundamentalists to really become “intolerance,” see the Toward Tradition pamphlet, “Terrorized by Tolerance,” available online at http://www.towardtradition.org/pamphlet.htm.

20. For this discussion, religion refers to the twin civilizations of the Bible, Judaism and Christianity, as practiced within the United States. Traditional Islam might also fall into this category, but a full discussion of Islam and other religious traditions is beyond he scope of this paper.

21. It is ironic that if the secular fundamentalists are successful in legalizing same-sex marriage and achieving their other goals such as removing any public mention or display of God, it will be the kiss of death for the public school system that they have used to indoctrinate America’s children. Parents will eventually revolt and take back control of their children’s education through a voucher system.

22. Leviticus 19:18

23. Courtois, et al, The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press, 1999.

24. Many in the Jewish community hold Christianity responsible for the Nazi Holocaust. There is no doubt that European Christian anti-Semitism historically created a terrible and horrendous mindset against Jews in Europe, and played an indirect role in the Holocaust. However, the ultimate expression of this anti-Semitism was carried out, not by Christians, but by the National Socialists (Nazis) who were neo-pagans and also hated Christians. See “The Church’s Responsibility,” in The Rav, The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, volume II, KTAV Publishing, 1999.

25. A letter to Thomas Paine (Dissuading him from publishing a Work of an irreligious Tendency.) The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, Editor. As quoted in David Barton, Original Intent, Wallbuilder Press, 2002.

26. Commentary on Deuteronomy 29:28 based on Rashi and Ramban, as quoted in The Chumash, Stone Edition. Mesorah Publications.

27. Genesis 6:12

28. Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 23.9

29. Tractate of Chullin (92 a & b)

30. See Samuel Silver, “In the long run, we are all dead - NOT!” Jewish World Review, Dec. 21, 2000, available online at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/sam/silver122100.asp.

31. Thomas Sowell, “Gay Marriage Confusion,” Jewish World Review (3/9/2004), available online at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell030904.asp

32. David Novak, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism. An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws. The Edwin Mellen Press, 1983.

33. The three questions are literally: “Know whence you came, whither you go, and before Whom you will give justification and reckoning.”

34. For a more complete discussion of these three essential questions, see Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War, Multomah, 1999. Also see Rabbi Lapin’s article, “Ethnicity versus Belief in Jewish Marriage” available online at: http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Ethnicity_vs_belief.htm

35. The logical conclusion of the secular answer to this first question of “How did human beings come to be on this planet?” is socialism and/or its collectivist first cousin fascism, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.

36. There are rare exceptions such as the Objectivism of Ayn Rand.

37. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, “The Seven Stages of Apostasy” in Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Volume I. Feldheim Publishers, 1997 Edition.

38. As Nobel laureate, Milton Friedman has pointed out on numerous occasions, only a “classical liberal” approach to limited government and free-markets (libertarian, with a small L, in 20th Century terms) will effectively protect individuals and especially minorities, whether racial or religious. For example, see Capitalism and Freedom, U. of Chicago Press, 1963, and “Capitalism and the Jews,” Presidential Address to the Mont Pelerin Society (1972), available online at http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=1967.

Another Nobel laureate, economist and philosopher, F.A. Hayek, himself a religious agnostic, believed that societies and even religions could come into being by his concept of “spontaneous order,” but that only certain monotheistic ones have proven successful in transmitting the necessary “beneficial traditions.” As he stated, “Among the founders of religions over the last two thousand years, many opposed property and the family. But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family.” F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, U. of Chicago Press, 1988, Volume 1, Chapter 9. Hayek and Friedman would both agree that socialism and all forms of collectivism are dangerous for Jews, Christians, and all other human beings.

39. John Adams. 1798 Address to the Military. Quoted in William J. Federer, America’s God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations. Amerisearch, 2000.

40. George Washington, Farewell Address, Philadelphia, September 17, 1796. Available online at: http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/P/gw1/speeches/gwfar.htm

41. President Harry Truman, Address to the Attorney General’s Conference, 1950. Quoted in William J. Federer, America’s God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations. Amerisearch, 2000.

42. George Washington warned of an undemocratic usurpation of power by one branch of government in his 1796 Farewell address: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confirm themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” George Washington, Farewell Address, Philadelphia, September 17, 1796. Available online at: http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/P/gw1/speeches/gwfar.htm

43. For a discussion of religious pluralism at the time of the Founders, see David Barton, Original Intent, Wallbuilder Press, 2002. Page 31. Although atheists existed in colonial times, they were not numerous or at least not publicly visible. Even today, only approximately 1% of Americans claim to be atheists or agnostics. See “2001 American Religious Identification Survey,” The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Available online at: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm. Another 13% specify “no religion,” but that is not the same as atheism.

In a pamphlet written for Europeans considering relocation to America, Benjamin Franklin offered this outlook on atheism in America. “Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.” Information to Those Who Would Remove to America, quoted in William J. Federer, America’s God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations. Amerisearch, 2000. Page 247.

44. Thomas Jefferson, a committed Unitarian Christian, also understood well the importance of religious pluralism as long as the religions did not “threaten the stability of civil society.” In 1822 he wrote to a fellow Unitarian, “I write with freedom because, while I claim a right to believe in one God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that of believing in three. Both religions I find make honest men, and that is the only point society has any authority to look to.” Quoted in Eugene Sheridan, Jefferson and Religion, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1998, Page 68.

45. David Barton, Original Intent, Wallbuilder Press, 2002. Page 33.

46. To understand the unique combination of Christian and Jewish thought that was the hallmark of the Founders, see “Jewish Metaphysics at the Founding” in Michael Novak’s On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding, Encounter Books, 2002. Some of Novak’s discussion is available online at: http://www.politicsandvirtue.com/novak1.htm.

47. Daniel Lapin, “And it came to pass in the days of Saddam.” Available online at: http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Saddam.htm

48. Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police, Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds, Random House, 2001, P.4. Ms. Bruce was formerly President of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

49. Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values, Prima Publishing/Random House, 2003, pp 103-104. This discussion is about GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate in KeruxID 25837-26027]

Evangelical Christians in the United States now face an inevitable moment of decision. While Christians in other movements and in other nations face similar questions, the question of homosexuality now presents evangelicals in the United States with a decision that cannot be avoided. Within a very short time, we will know where everyone stands on this question. There will be no place to hide, and there will be no way to remain silent. To be silent will answer the question.

The question is whether evangelicals will remain true to the teachings of Scripture and the unbroken teaching of the Christian church for over two thousand years on the morality of same-sex acts and the institution of marriage.

The world is pressing this question upon us, but so are a number of voices from within the larger evangelical circle — voices that are calling for a radical revision of the church’s understanding of the Bible, sexual morality, and the meaning of marriage. We are living in the midst of a massive revolution in morality, and sexual morality is at the center of this revolution. But the question of same-sex relationships and sexuality is at the very center of the debate over sexual morality, and our answer to this question will both determine or reveal what we understand about everything the Bible reveals and everything the church teaches — even the gospel itself.

Others are watching, and they see the moment of decision at hand. Anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann of Stanford University has remarked that “it is clear to an observer like me that evangelical Christianity is at a crossroad.” What is that crossroad? “The question of whether gay Christians should be married within the church.” Journalist Terry Mattingly sees the same issue looming on the evangelical horizon — “There is no way to avoid the showdown that is coming.”

Into this context now comes God and the Gay Christian, a book by Matthew Vines. Just a couple of years ago Vines made waves with the video of a lecture in which he attempted to argue that being a gay Christian in a committed same-sex relationship (and eventual marriage) is compatible with biblical Christianity. His video went viral. Even though Matthew Vines did not make new arguments, the young Harvard student synthesized arguments made by revisionist Bible scholars and presented a very winsome case for overthrowing the church’s moral teachings on same-sex relationships.

His new book flows from that startling ambition — to overthrow two millennia of Christian moral wisdom and biblical understanding.

Given the audacity of that ambition, why does this book deserve close attention? The most important reason lies outside the book itself. There are a great host of people, considered to be within the larger evangelical movement, who are desperately seeking a way to make peace with the moral revolution and endorse the acceptance of openly-gay individuals and couples within the life of the church. Given the excruciating pressures now exerted on evangelical Christianity, many people — including some high-profile leaders — are desperately seeking an argument they can claim as both persuasive and biblical. The seams in the evangelical fabric are beginning to break and Matthew Vines now comes along with a book that he claims will make the argument so many have been seeking.

In God and the Gay Christian Vines argues that “Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.” He announces that, once his argument is accepted: “The fiercest objections to LGBT equality — those based on religious beliefs — can begin to fall away. The tremendous pain endured by LGBT youth in many Christian homes can become a relic of the past. Christianity’s reputation in much of the Western world can begin to rebound. Together we can reclaim our light” (3).

That promise drives Vines’s work from beginning to end. He identifies himself as both gay and Christian and claims to hold to a “high view” of the Bible. “That means,” he says, “I believe all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life” (2).

Well, that is exactly what we would hope for a Christian believer to say about the Bible. And who could fault the ambition of any young and thoughtful Christian who seeks to recover the reputation of Christianity in the Western world. If Matthew Vines were to be truly successful in simultaneously making his case and remaining true to the Scriptures, we would indeed have to overturn two thousand years of the church’s teaching on sex and marriage and apologize for the horrible embarrassment of being wrong for so long.

Readers of his book who are looking for an off-ramp from the current cultural predicament will no doubt try to accept his argument. But the real question is whether what Vines claims is true and faithful to the Bible as the Word of God. But his argument is neither true nor faithful to Scripture. It is, nonetheless, a prototype of the kind of argument we can now expect.

What Does the Bible Really Say?

The most important sections of Vines’s book deal with the Bible itself and with what he identifies as the six passages in the Bible that “have stood in the way of countless gay people who long for acceptance from their Christian parents, friends, and churches” (11). Those six passages (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10) are indeed key and crucial passages for understanding God’s expressed and revealed message on the question of same-sex acts, desires, and relationships, but they are hardly the whole story.

The most radical proposal Vines actually makes is to sever each of these passages from the flow of the biblical narrative and the Bible’s most fundamental revelation about what it means to be human, both male and female. He does not do this merely by omission, but by the explicit argument that the church has misunderstood the doctrine of creation as much as the question of human sexuality. He specifically seeks to argue that the basic sexual complementarity of the human male and the female — each made in God’s image — is neither essential to Genesis chapters 1 and 2 or to any biblical text that follows.

In other words, he argues that same-sex sexuality can be part of the goodness of God’s original creation, and that when God declared that it is not good for man to be alone, the answer to man’s isolation could be a sexual relationship with someone of either sex. But that massive misrepresentation of Genesis 1 and 2 — a misinterpretation with virtually unlimited theological consequences — actually becomes Vines’s way of relativizing the meaning of the six passages he primarily considers.

His main argument is that the Bible simply has no category of sexual orientation. Thus, when the Bible condemns same-sex acts, it is actually condemning “sexual excess,” hierarchy, oppression, or abuse — not the possibility of permanent, monogamous, same-sex unions.

In addressing the passages in Genesis and Leviticus, Vines argues that the sin of Sodom was primarily inhospitality, not same-sex love or sexuality. The law of Moses condemns same-sex acts in so far as they violate social status or a holiness code, not in and of themselves, he asserts. His argument with regard to Leviticus is especially contorted, since he has to argue that the text’s explicit condemnation of male-male intercourse as an abomination is neither categorical or related to sinfulness. He allows that “abomination is a negative word,” but insists that “it doesn’t necessarily correspond to Christian views of sin” (85).

Finally, he argues that, even if the Levitical condemnations are categorical, this would not mean that the law remains binding on believers today.

In dealing with the most significant single passage in the Bible on same-sex acts and desire, Romans 1:26-27, Vines actually argues that the passage “is not of central importance to Paul’s message in Romans.” Instead, Vines argues that the passage is used by Paul only as “a brief example to drive home a point he was making about idolatry.” Nevertheless, Paul’s words on same-sex acts are, he admits, “starkly negative” (96).

“There is no question that Romans 1:26-27 is the most significant biblical passage in this debate,” Vines acknowledges (96). In order to relativize it, he makes this case: “Paul’s description of same-sex behavior in this passage is indisputably negative. But he also explicitly described the behavior he condemned as lustful. He made no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment. So how should we understand Paul’s words? Do they apply to all same-sex relationships? Or only to lustful, fleeting ones?” (99).

In asking these questions, Vines makes his case that Paul is merely ignorant of the reality of sexual orientation. He had no idea that some people are naturally attracted to people of the same sex. Therefore, Paul misunderstands what today would be considered culturally normative in many highly-developed nations — that some persons are naturally attracted to others of the same sex and it would be therefore “unnatural” for them to be attracted sexually to anyone else.

Astonishingly, Vines then argues that the very notion of “against nature” as used by Paul in Romans 1 is tied to patriarchy, not sexual complementarity. Same-sex relationships, Vines argues, “disrupted a social order that required a strict hierarchy between the sexes” (109).

But to get anywhere near to Vines’s argument one has to sever Romans 1 from any natural reading of the text, from the flow of the Bible’s message from Genesis 1 forward, from the basic structure of sexual complementarity, and from the church’s faithful reading of the Bible for two millennia. Furthermore, his argument provides direct evidence of that Paul warns of in this very chapter, “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Finally, the actual language of Romans 1, specifically dealing with male same-sex desire, speaks of “men consumed with passion for one another” (Romans 1:27). This directly contradicts Vines’s claim that only oppressive, pederastic, or socially mixed same-sex acts are condemned. Paul describes men consumed with passion for one another — not merely the abuse of the powerless by the powerful. In other words, in Romans 1:26-27 Paul condemns same-sex acts by both men and women, and he condemns the sexual desires described as unnatural passions as well.

In his attempt to relativize 1 Corinthians 6: 9, Vines actually undermines more of his argument. Paul’s careful use of language (perhaps even inventing a term by combining two words from Leviticus 18) is specifically intended to deny what Vines proposes — that the text really does not condemn consensual same-sex acts by individuals with a same-sex sexual orientation. Paul so carefully argues his case that he makes the point that both the active and the passive participants in male intercourse will not inherit the kingdom of God. Desperate to argue his case nonetheless, Vines asserts that, once again, it is exploitative sex that Paul condemns. But this requires that Paul be severed from his Jewish identify and from his own obedience to Scripture. Vines must attempt to marshal evidence that the primary background issue is the Greco-Roman cultural context rather than Paul’s Jewish context — but that would make Paul incomprehensible.

One other aspect of Vines’s consideration of the Bible should be noted. He acknowledges that he is “not a biblical scholar,” but he claims to “have relied on the work of scholars whose expertise is far greater than my own.” But the scholars upon whom he relies do not operate on the assumption that “all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life.” To the contrary, most of his cited scholars are from the far left of modern biblical scholarship or on the fringes of the evangelical world. He does not reveal their deeper understandings of Scripture and its authority.

The Authority of Scripture and the Question of Sexual Orientation

Again and again, Vines comes back to sexual orientation as the key issue. ‘“The Bible doesn’t directly address the issue of same-sex orientation,” he insists. The concept of sexual orientation “didn’t exist in the ancient world.” Amazingly, he then concedes that the Bible’s “six references to same-sex behavior are negative,” but insists, again, that “the concept of same-sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation.”

Here we face the most tragic aspect of Matthew Vines’s argument. If the modern concept of sexual orientation is to be taken as a brute fact, then the Bible simply cannot be trusted to understand what it means to be human, to reveal what God intends for us sexually, or to define sin in any coherent manner. The modern notion of sexual orientation is, as a matter of fact, exceedingly modern. it is also a concept without any definitive meaning. Effectively, it is used now both culturally and morally to argue about sexual attraction and desire. As a matter of fact, attraction and desire are the only indicators upon which the modern notion of sexual orientation are premised.

When he begins his book, Matthew Vines argues that experience should not drive our interpretation of the Bible. But it is his experience of what he calls a gay sexual orientation that drives every word of this book. It is this experiential issue that drives him to relativize text after text and to argue that the Bible really doesn’t speak directly to his sexual identity at all, since the inspired human authors of Scripture were ignorant of the modern gay experience.

Of what else were they ignorant? Vines claims to hold to a “high view” of the Bible and to believe that “all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life,” but the modern concept of sexual orientation functions as a much higher authority in his thinking and in his argument.

This leads to a haunting question. What else does the Bible not know about what it means to be human? If the Bible cannot be trusted to reveal the truth about us in every respect, how can we trust it to reveal our salvation?

This points to the greater issue at stake here — the Gospel. Matthew Vines’s argument does not merely relativize the Bible’s authority, it leaves us without any authoritative revelation of what sin is. And without an authoritative (and clearly understandable) revelation of human sin, we cannot know why we need a Savior, or why Christ died. Furthermore, to tell someone that what the Bible reveals as sin is not sin, we tell them that they do not need Christ for that. Is that not exactly what Paul was determined not to do when he wrote to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? Could the stakes be any higher than that? This controversy is not merely about sex, it is about salvation.

Matthew Vines’s Wedge Argument — Gender and the Bible

There is another really interesting and revealing aspect of Matthew Vine’s argument yet to come. In terms of how his argument is likely to be received within the evangelical world, Vines clearly has a strategy, and that strategy is to persuade those who have rejected gender complementarity to take the next logical step and deny sexual complementarity as well.

Gender complementarity is the belief that the Bible’s teachings on gender and gender roles is to be understood in terms of the fact that men and women are equally made in God’s image (status) but different in terms of assignment (roles). This has been the belief and conviction of virtually all Christians throughout the centuries, and it is the view held by the vast majority of those identified as Christians in the world even today. But a denial of this conviction, hand in hand with the argument that sameness of role is necessary to affirm equality of status, has led some to argue that difference in gender roles must be rejected. The first impediment to making this argument is the fact that the Bible insists on a difference in roles. In order to overcome this impediment, biblical scholars and theologians committed to egalitarianism have made arguments that are hauntingly similar to those now made by Matthew Vines in favor of relativizing the Bible’s texts on same-sex behaviors.

Matthew Vines knows this. He also knows that, at least until recently, most of those who have rejected gender complementarity have maintained an affirmation of sexual complementarity — the belief that sexual behavior is to be limited to marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He sees this as his opening. At several points in the book, he makes this argument straightforwardly, even as he calls both “gender complementarity” and denies that the Bible requires or reveals it.

But we have to give Matthew Vines credit for seeing this wedge issue better than most egalitarians have seen it. He knows that the denial of gender complementarity is a huge step toward denying sexual complementarity. The evangelicals who have committed themselves to an egalitarian understanding of gender roles as revealed in the Bible are those who are most vulnerable to his argument. In effect, they must resist his argument more by force of will than by force of logic.

Same-Sex Marriage, Celibacy, and the Gospel

Matthew Vines writes with personal passion and he tells us much of his own story. Raised in an evangelical Presbyterian church by Christian parents, he came relatively late to understand his own sexual desires and pattern of attraction. He wants to be acknowledged as a faithful Christian, and he wants to be married ... to a man. He argues that the Bible simply has no concept of sexual orientation and that to deny him access to marriage is to deny him justice and happiness. He argues that celibacy cannot be mandated for same-sex individuals within the church, for this would be unjust and wrong. He argues that same-sex unions can fulfill the “one-flesh” promise of Genesis 2:24.

Thus, he argues that the Christian church should accept and celebrate same-sex marriage. He also argues, just like the Protestant liberals of the early twentieth century, that Christianity must revise its beliefs or face the massive loss of reputation before the watching world (meaning, we should note, the watching world of the secular West).

But the believing church is left with no option but to deny the revisionist and relativizing proposals Vines brings to the evangelical argument. The consequences of accepting his argument would include misleading people about their sin and about their need for Christ, about what obedience to Christ requires and what faithfulness to Christ demands.

Matthew Vines demands that we love him enough to give him what he desperately wants, and that would certainly be the path of least cultural resistance. If we accept his argument we can simply remove this controversy from our midst, apologize to the world, and move on. But we cannot do that without counting the cost, and that cost includes the loss of all confidence in the Bible, in the Church’s ability to understand and obey the Scriptures, and in the Gospel as good news to all sinners.

Biblical Christianity cannot endorse same-sex marriage nor accept the claim that a believer can be obedient to Christ and remain or persist in same-sex behaviors. The church is the assembly of the redeemed, saved from our sins and learning obedience in the School of Christ. Every single one of us is a sexual sinner in need of redemption, but we are called to holiness, to obedience, and to honoring marriage as one of God’s most precious gifts and as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church.

God and the Gay Christian demands an answer, but Christ demands our obedience. We can only pray — with fervent urgency — that this moment of decision for evangelical Christianity will be answered with a firm assertion of biblical authority, respect for marriage as the union of a man and a woman, passion for the Gospel of Christ, and prayer for the faithfulness and health of Christ’s church.

I do not write this response as Matthew Vines’s moral superior, but as one who must be obedient to Scripture. And so, I must counter his argument with conviction and urgency. I am concerned for him, and for the thousands who struggle as he does. The church has often failed people with same-sex attractions, and failed them horribly. We must not fail them now by forfeiting the only message that leads to salvation, holiness, and faithfulness. That is the real question before us.

________

God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines, is a free e-book, and is the first in the Conversant series I am editing. In this e-book I am joined by colleagues James Hamilton, Denny Burk, Owen Strachan, and Heath Lambert, and we address the biblical, theological, historical, and pastoral issues raised by Vines’s book. To download a copy, go to sbts.me/ebook. The book will be available in formats for Kindle, Nook, and iBook.

Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian (New York: Convergent Books, 2014).

Tanya Luhrmann, foreword to Ken Wilson, A Letter to My Congregation: An Evangelical Pastor’s Path to Embracing People Who Are Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender in the Company of Jesus ([Version 1.0)] (Amazon.com, 2014).

Terry Mattingly, “About Those Evangelical Whispers on Same-Sex Marriage,” Patheos.com, Thursday, April 17, 2014.

[A liberal proposal of flexible marriage vows]

This week in headlines, we heard that Mexico is introducing legislation that will potentially put time frames around marriage with the minimum contract lasting two years.

There are now approximately 26 countries throughout the world that recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships and same sex marriages.

While I see these nuptial changes as positive evolution, I feel that we still have a one-size-fits-all model for partnering in a culture that increasingly celebrates our differences. These newer proposals are simply time-limited and toned-down versions of the same thing with the same expectations.

The elephant in the room (or, should I say at the altar) is the question that has, to my knowledge, never been asked and that is, “Why are people creating these special unions?” My guess is that no one asks “why” because it is assumed that love is the only answer anyone would give -- or the only right answer -- to that question. Yet, there are many additional unspoken reasons people have for tying the knot.

Let’s examine just the most surface level of demographics (age, socio-economic status, and family size) and see what happens. Do those who marry out of college marry for the same reason as the empty nester divorcees do? Do those who come from meager financial means marry for the same reason the wealthy do? Do those who want to find a good parent for their children marry for the same reason as the couple who accidentally got pregnant does?

In all of the academic and media discussions about marriage and divorce, there has been no distinction between any of these groups or classes. The unspoken assumption is that everyone who marries at 25 is doing so in order to have kids, raise a family and live happily ever after. I suppose people don’t think further ahead than that because divorce is not supposed to happen.

But divorce is happening and it is here to stay. In fact, I think one of the main reasons it is so common is that people have not asked themselves why, other than for love, they want to marry. And marriage, if it is to thrive, sorely needs an overhaul.

If it were acceptable for people to wed for a variety of reasons, perhaps we would see contracts of 20 years for a parenting marriage,* five-year renewable contracts for a financial security marriage, and two-year renewable agreements for companionship marriages.

Then those who married would go into the union knowing exactly what was expected of them and how long it would last. Rather than a one-size-fits-all institution, people could pick the type and length of marriage they truly wanted. Marriages with an agreed upon agenda and end date would then terminate naturally.

Instead of holding everyone in the culture to a single standard “forever,” which is at the very least unfair if not impossible, people in this modern model of marriage would be set up to succeed.

And then everyone would live happily ever after.

________

* Parenting marriages could be renewable but, given that kids and co-parenting are a major reason spouses fight and ultimately divorce, most may not want to renew the contract.

A new survey shows that, even as Americans have become more accepting of non-traditional family structures, their view of the ideal family has remained the same -- a heterosexual couple, married for life, with children.

The survey, commissioned by the PBS program RELIGION AND ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, was conducted by the Washington polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. It will form the basis for a four-week series on the public-television show.

The results, released to the press Oct. 19, show “that there is a significant gap between what we call beliefs and reality” about the family, said pollster Anna Greenberg, who designed the survey.

“Nearly everyone in this country supports what we would call the 'traditional family,'“ Greenberg continued, noting that 71 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “God's plan for marriage is one man, one woman, for life.”

However, only 22 percent of respondents agreed that divorce is a sin, 49 percent said it is OK for couples to live together without intending to get married, and 40 percent agreed that it is “a good idea for a couple who intend to get married to live together first.”

“There's a very strong -- some might even say romanticized -- vision of what family life should look like,” Greenberg told reporters. “Yet, there is a very strong realization of what family life actually looks like.”

For instance, 52 percent of respondents believed that divorce is “usually the best solution when a couple can't seem to work out their marriage problems.” That figure included 38 percent of those in “traditional marriages,” defined as a heterosexual couple in their first marriage with children at home.

Greenberg also noted that divorce rates are similar between the population at large and evangelical Protestants and traditionalist Catholics. “If you are more religiously conservative ... you are not less likely to get divorced and in some cases more likely to get divorced,” she said.

The survey found that less than 20 percent of respondents were never-divorced married couples with children at home. Another 27 percent were married and never divorced but with no children living at home.

Nonetheless, a large majority of respondents remain opposed to marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples.

The tension between the ideals for marriage and the reality means that, despite changes in society, institutions charged with defining societal ideals have held their ground in the area of family life, said John Green, who helped conduct the study. Green is a professor of political science at the University of Akron and an expert on American religious life.

“...[C]hurches and other religious institutions have been very successful at maintaining a certain ideal that can be held by people who don't live it out,” Green said. “On the other hand, Americans have become much, much more tolerant of deviations from that ideal, I suspect because they themselves have experienced those deviations.”

The survey was conducted between July 25 and Aug. 7 and involved 1,130 adults across the nation. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

*