Guest Post: Engaging With Supporters of Gay Marriage
(Note: I'm out of the office this week. This is the second guest post by my friend and fellow pastor Blake Jennings.)
In my last post, I attempted to make a biblical case against supporting efforts to legalize gay marriage. That may convince those who hold to the authority of Scripture, but it will do little for the majority of our fellow citizens who don't. And if current trends continue, their support for gay marriage will grow.
And so in this post, I'd like to consider a more practical question: how should a follower of Christ who opposes gay marriage engage with a secular society that embraces (even celebrates) it? Let me give you a few principles to guide our response.
1) Don’t Fear. If gay marriage becomes legal throughout the United States, don't run for the hills. Don't retreat from society. Don't panic about your children's future. Don't fear. Nothing can change the fact that our God is in control. If the US adopts gay marriage nationwide, it will only be as part of God's sovereign plan. It will not surprise Him or upend His plan for you or your family. Perhaps in the midst of this impassioned debate, we need a little perspective from the New Testament. Remember that Paul and Peter both wrote during the time of Nero, a tyrannical, immoral madman. The issue facing them was not the legalization of gay marriage, it was the legalization (even promotion) of persecution against Christians. Nero covered believers in oil and lit them on fire to illuminate his garden parties. And yet neither Peter nor Paul gave into fear. They didn't run for the hills or withdraw from the world. They trusted God's sovereignty in the midst of a cruel and godless society. They embraced love, joy, peace, and patience rather than anxiety. And so should we, no matter what happens it this debate.
2) Stand for Truth. Homosexual behavior was accepted in Paul's day, as in ours. Yet Paul did not hesitate to stand for the truth and publicly call it sin (Rom1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9). Neither should we. Speak and vote for that which is righteous. However, as you do so, keep the next few principles in mind...
3) Keep the Gospel First. The ultimate problem for our society is NOT that the majority are embracing gay marriage, it's that the majority have not yet embraced Christ. If that continues, they will spend an eternity separated from God in a very real place the Bible calls hell. Gay marriage is trivial by comparison. So for every word we speak against gay marriage, let us speak a hundred for the gospel. In fact, let sharing the gospel always be your top priority. It trumps politics, social issues, even speaking out about immorality. Make sure that the world knows more about what you're for (eternal life through faith in Christ alone) than what's you're against.
4) Motive Matters. Stand for the biblical definition of marriage, but not to defeat our opponents or protect our nation (remember, that's in His hands - point #1). Do it out of love – love for those who out of spiritual blindness are embracing a way of life that will destroy them (the downward spiral of Rom 1:18-32). We oppose gay marriage in particular and immorality in general not because it offends us but because it injures all those who participate in it. Whether homosexuality, pornography, adultery, lust or any other sexual sin, God outlaws it because it destroys those who engage in it, whether believes or unbelievers (it will not cost a believer his salvation, but it will enslave him and destroy his life and the lives of those he loves). God doesn't want us to be judges leveling condemnation at an immoral society. He wants us to be like firemen boldly rushing into a burning building to rescue those who don't even realize their lives are in danger.
5) Define Your Terms. So many opportunities have been wasted for failure to define our terms! The Bible does condemn homosexual BEHAVIOR and LUST (both mentioned in Rom 1:26-27). But it does not condemn homosexual ATTRACTION. God does not hold us responsible for our temptations; He holds us responsible for our choices (James 1:14-15 – notice that temptation is not sin; embracing lust is what begets sin). So whether homosexual attraction comes from genetics, environment, past experiences, or a combination of these (the most likely explanation, in my opinion), what matters is what a person does when that temptation strikes. They have not sinned if they fight the temptation in the power of the Spirit. We need to make this clear as we engage in this debate. Otherwise, we alienate and crush all who struggle with homosexuality.
6) Make Your Marriage Prove your Position. The health of our own marriages speaks volumes in this debate. We stand for the biblical definition of marriage because we believe that it is truly better for human beings to live in accordance with God’s design than in rebellion to it. But if our own marriages are unhealthy and unsatisfying, we sabotage that position. We need to show, not just tell, the world that embracing God’s plan for marriage really does lead to greater peace, joy, and love.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, so please add other thoughts in the comments about how we as followers of Christ should respond.
If you haven't done so yet, enter your email address below to receive notifications about new posts:
June 12th, 2012 - 08:41
These two posts have been really great! I think we as Christians can often make this about us…how it offends us, how it could impact our future and our children’s futures. You are right that the battle here is the battle for lost souls. The greater picture is the eternal separation that results and our role is not condemnation but love and truth. Thanks for sharing this!
June 12th, 2012 - 08:46
Great stuff Blake!!!
June 12th, 2012 - 08:49
Excellent post. Thank you!
June 12th, 2012 - 10:18
Excellent post, Blake. With each point, I thought, “that’s the best point!” Finally, I realized I couldn’t choose a particular one; they are all great points. I do like, however, the truth that the gospel should be our number one priority. Thank you for making sure to stress that.
June 12th, 2012 - 10:30
Thanks for writing this Blake. This is one of the most important topics for me and the unbelievers I know and am friends with. This post is very helpful but I still have a tough question I always have a hard time answering. I usually give a defense in a somewhat similar fashion as your argument outlined above, but I am almost always faced with the question, “What is wrong with loving someone?”. How can I point someone to a God who tells them they can’t love the person they love? I’ve come to realize that it’s partly an issue of not seeing the big picture and taking scripture out of context and not fully comprehending the love of Christ, but to someone whose spiritual journey is halted for that one reason, what can I say? Its a tough issue for me because I have many friends who refuse to learn more about Christ, and many who left the faith over that one issue, that “God doesn’t allow some people to love the people they naturally love”. I understand the error in this way of thinking, but conveying that to someone who believes their position is the moral high ground is another story. And as far as the destructiveness of homosexual behavior, let’s assume I’m talking to those who believe in committed monogamous relationships, and don’t condone promiscuity.
June 12th, 2012 - 10:47
Jordan,
Great question. I would respond by asking, “what does it mean to love someone?” Biblically speaking, true love (“agape”) is sacrificial devotion to the other person’s good. It is defined by sacrifice, not emotion. It is God’s love, a love so intense that it led Him to sacrifice His own beloved Son to make forgiveness possible for us. It’s a love that pays any price to do good to the person loved. That definition changes the whole nature of your question. If a believing man who struggles with homosexuality really wants to show biblical love to another man, what would that look like? Since the Bible tells us that homosexual behavior hurts and enslaves all who participate in it, then it would not be love to have a sexual relationship with that other man. God-like love would seek the other man’s best by being holy and chaste towards him and sharing the gospel with him in word and deed.
I fear that in this whole discussion, we can easily lose the true definition of love. Sexual love is just one, small piece of true love. Real love sacrifices my desires and rights to always seek the best for the one I love. And the best is always to live in accordance with God’s Word.
Hope that helps!
Blake
June 12th, 2012 - 11:52
That helps a lot. I guess it goes back to the topic of your previous post, definitions. And the definition of agape love will always bring us back to the gospel.
I can’t thank you and the leadership at Grace enough for tackling this extremely tough issue. It is becoming increasingly unpopular to speak truth in love in today’s social climate. Most Christians and churches seem to be doing one without the other. I can say that from the evangelical background I come from, GBC is the only church I’ve personally seen take a truly Biblical stand on this issue. And that’s really encouraging. Thanks.
June 12th, 2012 - 10:30
Well said. Too often our faith in getting what we want politically belies our lack of faith in God’s sovereignty. I too like to think of Rome when people worry about how our society is falling apart. It could be, and has been, worse. Yet even in those times it was not about protecting what the Christians had (stable families, public prayer, whatever) but about advancing the gospel regardless of cost.
We should be free to love others and proclaim the gospel, and I think the culture war has neutered our desire to do so.
June 12th, 2012 - 22:28
This was such an awesome, encouraging and enlightening post. With every point made, it really became much clearer that the gospel should reign throughout our interactions with each other. Thank you for your wisdom and for taking the time to write this. I especially found the your response to Jordan’s answer extremely helpful in how I should respond.
June 21st, 2012 - 14:51
I enjoyed the truths that were revealed in this posting! I worked with junior high youth at a Methodist church last summer. A co-worker said, “I’m not sure if I really believe that being gay is a sin.” I showed her scriptures that revealed it as sin, but she still wasn’t convinced. The bigger picture is what saddens me: more and more churches are not giving scripture the authority it deserves. If I walked into church drunk every Sunday, would people ignore it and say that I was born an alcoholic? I couldn’t help it? It’s just the way I am? No! Of course they would love me and approach me with kindness… but they would still say that I was sinning and needed to turn toward God. The bigger picture here is that we are slowly accepting certain sins as “normal” and we aren’t acknowledging our need for God’s amazing forgiveness. All sin is sin. This includes gay relationships and marriage. I am thankful that I attend a church where God’s word is the ultimate authority.
June 22nd, 2012 - 14:07
I’ve been following the last few posts and follow-up comments. It’s been an interesting discussion. I know I’m coming in late, but what are your thoughts regarding David Blankenhorn’s op-ed in today’s NY Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html
June 24th, 2012 - 08:27
Garrett,
I found his op-ed interesting but not surprising. His position was based on philosophical and pragmatic concerns rather than on revelation. Unfortunately, philosophy and pragmatism are flexible. New data and new consensus can change it easily.
As is so often the case, I did see yet again a misunderstanding of what love means (see my comments to Jordan above). Love seeks what’s best for the other person, not what’s most satisfying to me. If we are correct about the Bible, that it is God’s true and unchanging Word, then gay marriage will always be a self-destructive choice for any who engage in it. We would, therefore, be unloving to be silent on this issue.
I also disagree with his application of “fairness.” If he really believes what he restates near the beginning of the article, that homosexual marriage can be detrimental to children and to society as a whole (through the “deinstitutionalization of marriage”), then fairness should not apply. By his own admission, traditional marriage is more healthy for children and for societal stability than gay marriage. I think his position should be based on that data point rather than on a subjective notion of fairness.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts. Did the article surprise you? How did you evaluate his points?
July 13th, 2012 - 23:11
(Sorry I’ve taken so long to respond.) I don’t know if I’d say I was surprised by the op-ed, but I wasn’t exactly expecting it from him either. You’re right, he’s being pragmatic, but that happens in politics. Being willing to compromise politically doesn’t necessarily mean you are being silent on the issue — the first third of that piece is devoted to explaining that kids have the right to know and be raised by their parents, and why same-sex marriage erodes that.
I agree completely with your points that “love seeks what’s best for the other person” and that we should oppose an activity that “injures all those who participate in it”. However, I personally oppose plenty of self-destructive things that I do not politically oppose. For example, in my opinion, it should be legal to get drunk, feed your kids nothing but junk, and watch TV 12 hours a day, even though I recognize that these things are destructive. Especially if you do them simultaneously.
Obviously, the Bible has something to say about these issues, and if a friend were pursuing these things I’d probably have something to say about it. But I don’t necessarily expect the government to strictly enforce good, moral, non-destructive behavior in those areas, except in cases where these activities cause direct harm to others or to minors, e.g. drunk driving, child abuse.
So my desire for government intervention in those areas is basically pragmatic. Politically, I try to approach all issues in the same way, including civil marriage. I recognize that we may not share the same approach there, but I think both our views are compatible with Christian doctrine, wouldn’t you say?