By Jonathan Leeman
More and more commentators are saying that we have passed
the tipping point on same-sex marriage in the United States . Almost daily another
politician or public figure stands before a microphone to declare his or her
support. It feels like the dam has burst; the paradigm shifted.
Whether or not same sex marriage is a political fait
accompli, I don't know. What concerns me in the present hour is the
temptation among Christians to go with the flow. The assumption is that the
nation no longer shares our morality, and that we must not impose our views on
others and blur the line between church and state. Besides, we don't want to
let any political cantankerousness get in the way of sharing the gospel, right?
So we might as well throw in our lot. So the thinking goes.
How hard Christians should actively fight against same-sex
marriage is a matter for wisdom. But that we must not support it, I would like
to persuade you, is a matter of biblical principle. To vote for it, to
legislate it, to rule in favor of it, to tell your friends at the office that
you think it's just fine—all this is sin. To support it publicly or privately
is to "give approval to those who practice" the very things that God
promises to judge—exactly what we're told not to do in Romans 1:32.
Further, same-sex marriage embraces a definition of humanity
that is less than human and a definition of love that is less than love. And it
is not freedom from religion that the advocates of same-sex marriage want; they
want to repress one religion in favor of another.
Christians must not go with the flow. They must instead love
the advocates of same-sex marriage better than they love themselves precisely
by refusing to endorse it.
I am saying this for the sake of you who are Christians, who
affirm the authority of Scripture, who believe that homosexual activity is
wrong, and who believe in the final judgment. I don't mean here to persuade
anyone who does not share these convictions.
My goal in all of this is to encourage the church to be the
church. What good is salt that loses it saltiness? Or what use is light under a
bowl? Rather, blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Deeper Understanding of Humanity
I believe Voddie Baucham is exactly right to say that "gay
is not the new black," and that we should not formally equate sexual
orientation to ethnicity or sex as an essential component of personal identity.
It is amazing to me that recent legal battles simply take this equation for
granted without holding it up to the light and looking at it.
There are several assumptions behind the idea that a person
with same-sex attraction might say "I am a
homosexual" in the same way someone might say "I am a male" or
"I am black." First, one assumes that homosexual desires are rooted
in biology and therefore a natural part of being human. Second, one assumes
that our natural desires are basically good, so long as they don't hurt others.
Third, one assumes that fulfilling such basic and good desires are part of
being fully human.
All the talk about "equality" depends upon these
foundational assumptions about what it means to be human.
Marriage then becomes an important prize to be won for
people with same-sex attraction because, as the oldest and most human of
institutions, marriage publicly affirms these deep desires. Everybody who
participates in a wedding—from the father who walks a bride down an aisle, to
the company of friends, to the pastor leading the ceremony, to the state who
licenses the certificate—participates in a positive and formal affirmation of a
couple's union. It is hard to think of a better way to affirm same-sex desire
as good and part of being fully human than to leverage the celebratory power of
a wedding ceremony and a marriage.
Make no mistake: The fundamental issue at stake in the
same-sex marriage debate is not visitation rights, adoption rights, inheritance
laws, or all the stuff of "civil unions." Those are derivative. It is
fundamentally about being publicly recognized as fully human.
Biblically minded Christians, of course, have no problem
recognizing people with same-sex attraction as fully human. There are members
of my church who experience same-sex attraction. We worship with them, vacation
with them, love them. What Christianity does not do, however, is grant that
fulfilling every natural desire is what makes us human.
Christianity in fact offers a more mature and deeper concept
of humanity, more mature and deep than the person engaged in a homosexual
lifestyle has of him or herself.
It is more mature because Christianity begins with the frank
admission that fallen human beings are corrupted all the way down, all the way
in. A child assumes that all of his or her desires are legitimate. Adults,
hopefully, know better. And a mature understanding of fallen humanity
recognizes that our fallenness affects everything from our biology and body
chemistry to our ambitions and life loves. Same-sex attraction is but one
manifestation. This is why Christ commands us to go and die, and why we must be
born again. We must become new creations, a process that begins at conversion
and will be completed with his coming.
Also, the fact that Jesus is Lord means his authoritative
claim on our lives reaches all the way down, all the way in. We have no right
to stand before him and insist upon our definitions of masculinity, femininity,
marriage, love, and sexuality. He gets to write the definitions, even when they
go against our deepest desires and sense of self.
Rooted in biology or not, there is a difference between
gender, ethnicity, and "orientation." Orientation consists primarily
of—is lived out through—desire. And the fact that it involves desire means it
is subject to moral evaluation in a way that "being male" or
"being Asian" are not.
Here is what's often missed: neither the fact of the desire,
nor its possible biological basis, gives it moral legitimacy. Don't
mistake is for ought. We understand this quite
well, for instance, when it comes to the behaviors associated with some forms
of substance addiction or bipolar disorder. The biological component of these maladies
certainly calls for compassion and reams of patience, but it does not make
their attendant behaviors morally legitimate. To assume they do means treating
human beings as just one more animal. No one morally condemns a leopard for
acting instinctually. Yet shouldn't our moral calculations for human beings
involve something more than assent to the biochemistry of desire? We are more
than animals. We are souls and bodies. We are created in God's image. To
legitimize homosexual desire simply because it's natural or biological,
ironically, is to treat a person as less than human.
All of this is to say, Christianity not only offers a more
mature concept of humanity, it offers a deeper concept. It says we are more
than a composite of our desires, some of which are fallen, some of which are
not.
Remarkably, Jesus says that our humanity goes deeper even
than marriage and sex, and certainly deeper than fallen versions of them. He
says that, in the resurrection, there will be no marriage or giving in marriage.
Marriage and sex, it appears, are two-dimensional shadows that point to the
three-dimensional realities to come. A person's humanity and identity in no way
finally depends on the shadows of marriage. Dare we deny the full humanity of
Christ because he neither consummated a marriage nor fathered natural children?
Indeed, wasn't the full humanity of this second Adam demonstrated through
begetting a new humanity?
There is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's
version of the human being. It is inhumane to morally evaluate people as if
they are animals whose instincts define them.
And there is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's
quest for same-sex marriage. It is inhumane to call bad good, or wrong desires
right. It is inhumane to equate a person with the fallen version of that
person, as if God created us to be the fallen versions of ourselves. But this
is exactly what same-sex marriage asks us to do. It asks us to publicly affirm
the bad as good—to institutionalize the wrong as right.
Christianity says that we are not finally determined by
ethnicity, sex, marriage, or even sinful desire. We are God-imagers and
vice-rulers, tasked with showing the cosmos what God's triune justice,
righteousness, and love are like. The Christian message to the person engaged
in a homosexual lifestyle is that we believe they are even more human than they
believe.
Deeper Love
Christianity offers a more mature and deeper concept of
love, too. Love is not fundamentally about a narrative of self-expression and
self-realization. It is not about finding someone who "completes me,"
in which I assume that who "I am" is a given, and that you love
"me" authentically only if you respect me exactly as I am, as if
"I" is somehow sacred.
Christian love is not so naïve. It's much more mature
(see 1
Cor. 13:11). It recognizes how broken people are, and it loves them in
their very brokenness. It is given contrary to what people
deserve. We feed and clothe and befriend them, even when they attack us. But
then Christian love maturely invites people toward holiness.
Through prayer and disciple-making, Christian love calls people to change—to
repent. Christian love recognizes that our loved ones will know true joy only
as they increasingly conform to the image of God, because God is love. This is
why Jesus tells us that, if we love him, we will obey his commands, just like
he loves the Father and so obeys the Father's commands.
Christian love is also deeper than love in our culture. It
knows that true love was demonstrated best when Christ laid down his life for
the church to make her holy, an act which the apostle Paul analogizes to the
love of a husband and wife and the husband's call to wash his wife with the
word (Rom. 5:8; Eph. 5:22-32).
The Bible's central picture of gospel love is lost in same-sex marriage, just
like it's lost when a husband cheats on his wife.
The progressive position might call the orthodox Christian
position on gay marriage intolerant. But Christians must recognize that the
progressive position is unloving and inhumane. And so we must love them more
truly than they love themselves.
Public Square and Idolatrous Religion
What then shall we say about the public square? Shouldn't
our understanding of the separation between church and state and religious
freedom keep us from "imposing" our ideas upon others? Why would the
church being the church affect our stance in the public square among the
non-church?
What people can miss is the distinction between laws that
criminalize an activity and laws that promote or incentivize an activity. The
laws surrounding marriage belong to the latter category. The government gets
involved in the marriage business—to the chagrin of libertarians—because it
thinks it has some interest in protecting and promoting marriage. It sees that
marriage contributes to the order, peace, and good of society at large.
Therefore, it offers financial incentives for marriage, such as tax breaks or
inheritance rights.
In other words, institutionalizing same-sex marriage does
not merely make government neutral toward unrighteousness; it means the
government is promoting and incentivizing unrighteousness. The 2003 Supreme
Court decision to overturn laws that criminalized homosexual behavior, by
contrast, need not be construed as a promotion or affirmation of homosexual
behavior. The irony of the progressive position on same-sex marriage is that it
cloaks its cause in the language of political neutrality, when really it is
just the opposite. It is a positive affirmation of a brand of morality and the
whole set of theological assumptions behind that morality.
To put this in biblical terms, institutionalizing same-sex
marriage is nothing other than to "give approval to those who
practice" the things that God's word condemns (Rom. 1:32). And
behind this moral affirmation, Paul tells us, is the religious "exchanging
of the immortal God for images" (Rom. 1:23).
To establish same-sex marriage, in other words, is an utterly religious act, by
virtue of being idolatrous.
For the Christian, therefore, the argument is pretty simple:
God will judge all unrighteousness and idolatry. Therefore Christians should
not publicly or privately endorse, incentivize, or promote unrighteousness and
idolatry, which same-sex marriage does. God will judge such idolatry—even among
those who don't believe in him.
God Will Judge the Nations
Let me explain further. Both the Old Testament and the New
promise that God will judge the nations and their governments for departing
from his own standard of righteousness and justice. The presidents and
parliaments, voters and judges of the world are comprehensively accountable to
him. There is no area of life somehow quarantined off from his evaluation.
Hence, he judged the people of Noah's day, Sodom
and Gomorrah , Pharaoh in Egypt , Sennacherib in Assyria, Nebuchadnezzar in
Babylon , and
the list goes on. Just read of his judgments against the nations in passages
like Isaiah 13-19 or Jeremiah 46-52.
It's not surprising, therefore, that Psalm 96 and many
other passages make the transnational, omni-partisan nature of God's judgment
clear: "Say among the nations, 'The LORD reigns.' . . . he will judge the
peoples with equity" (Ps. 96:10; also Ps. 2; Jer. 10:6-10).
Does the same principle apply in the New Testament era? Yes.
The governors of the world derive their authority from God and will be judged
by God for how they use their authority: Caesar no less than Nebuchadnezzar;
presidents no less than Pharaoh:
- Jesus tells Pilate that Pilate's authority comes from God (John 19).
- Paul describes the government as "God's servant" and an "agent" to bring God's justice (Rom. 13).
- Jesus is described as the "ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5).
- Kings, princes, and generals fear the wrath of the Lamb and hide from it (Rev. 6:15).
- The
kings of the earth are indicted for committing adultery with
- Christ will come with a sword "to strike down the nations" (Rev. 19:13), leaving the birds "to eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty" (v. 18).
God will judge all nations and governors. They are
politically accountable to his standard of justice and righteousness, not to
their own standards. To depart from God's righteousness and justice—for every
government in the world, Old Testament and New—is to incur God's wrath.
The fact that we live in a pluralistic nation in which many
do not acknowledge the God of the Bible makes no difference to God. "Who
is the Lord that I should obey him?" Pharaoh asked. The Lord demonstrated
in short order precisely who he is. The fact that Americans believe a
government governs "by the will of the people" makes no difference
either. A Christian knows that true authority comes from God, and so he or she
must never promote and incentivize unrighteousness, even if 99 percent of the
electorate asks for it.
This does not mean that Christians should enact God's
judgment against all forms of unrighteousness now, but it does mean that we
Christians should not publicly or privately put our hands to anything God will
judge on the last day. Yes, politics often involves compromise, and there are
times when Christian voters or politicians will be forced to decide between a
lesser of two evils. And for such occasions we trust God is merciful and
understanding. Still, so far as we can help it, we must not vote for, rule for,
or tell our friends at the office that we support unrighteousness.
Does this mean we can impose our faith upon non-Christians?
No, but endorsing same-sex marriage is another kind of thing. To endorse it is
to involve yourself in unrighteousness and false religion, and an
unrighteousness that God promises to judge.
In fact, same-sex marriage itself is the act of wrongful
governmental imposition. Martin Luther wrote, "For when any man does that
for which he has not the previous authority or sanction of the Word of God,
such conduct is not acceptable to God, and may be considered as either vain or
useless." And God has never given human governments the authority to
define marriage. He defined it in Genesis 2 and has not authorized anyone
to redefine it. Any government that does is guilty of usurpation.
Since same-sex marriage is effectively grounded in
idolatrous religion (see Rom. 1:23, 32), its
institutionalization represents nothing more or less than the progressive
position's imposition of idolatrous religion upon the rest of us.
I am not telling Christians how many resources they should
expend in fighting false gods in the public square, but I am saying that you
must not join together with those gods. There is no neutral ground here.
Embrace and Stand Fast
Churches should embrace their brothers and sisters who
struggle with same-sex attraction, just like they should embrace all repentant
sinners.
And churches should stand fast on deeper, more biblical
conceptions of love by loving the advocates of same-sex marriage more truly
than they love themselves. We do this by insisting on the sweet and life-giving
nature of God's truth and holiness.
In our present cultural context, Christian love will prove
costly to Christians and churches. Even if you recognize the Bible calls homosexuality
sin, but you (wrongly) support same-sex marriage, your stance on homosexuality
will offend. A people's strongest desires—the desires they refuse to let go
of—reveals their worship. To condemn sexual freedom in America today
is to condemn one of the nation's favorite altars of worship. And will they not
fight for their gods? Will they not excommunicate all heretics?
But even while Scripture promises short-term persecution for
the church, it also, strangely and simultaneously, points to long-term praise:
"Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak
against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the
day of visitation" (1 Peter 2:12). I'm not sure how to explain that, but I trust it.
See the link: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/04/15/love-and-the-inhumanity-of-same-sex-marriage/
No comments:
Post a Comment