I want to catch up on the comments from the Gay Christian sermon blog post (includes rules for commenting on these topics), the Nature vs. Nurture post, and the Gay Marriage post. Please check these out before commenting on today’s post.
With gay marriage, I think the essence of the argument comes down to who defines what “marriage” is? The government? The Church? The Bible? I look to the Bible, but even this is complex. I see the definition of marriage in Genesis 2:24 where the Bible says “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” One flesh = the intimacy that sex creates. This is the definition of marriage according to Scripture: heterosexual & monogamous. Many ask why we still see so much polygamy in the Old Testament. The main answer to this is because Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. did not have the book of Genesis given to them. The book is about them, but was written down 650 years after Abraham. I preached and blogged specifically about this biblical interpretation paradigm here.
Moses, who wrote down Genesis (along with his scribes) and also wrote down the Law (which gives a lot of commands about monogamous heterosexual marriage), did so in around 1450 B.C. Moses also had multiple wives, which is explainable because he had them before God gave them the Law. But the sticky part is after the Law was given, dudes were still practicing polygamy. King David had 7 wives, and his son Solomon had the Wilt Chamberlainesq number of 300 wives and 700 concubines! God never approved of this, though we do wonder why he didn’t condemn it (that we know of), as Genesis 2:24 and the Law is clear what marriage was meant to be.
An understanding that is helpful in interpreting the Bible throughout the millenniums it represents is progressive revelation, which means that God revealed more and more of his truth as history progressed, and the accountability to this revelation was gradually increased as well. It wasn’t revealed all at one time, and held to full accountability all at one time, because humanity at that time couldn’t handle it within the cultural constructs they swam in.
All this to say, what we do know is that by the time 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 was written by Paul in the 1st Century, the Genesis 2:24 definition of sex and marriage was definitely taken literally and accountability was in order for this definition, as he quotes in verbatim to prove his point about sex being for marriage only.
My point: The Christian definition of God’s design for marriage (and sex) comes from Genesis 2:24 and anything outside of this is a sin. This truth was first penned in 1450 B.C.
This is why I brought up the idea of calling gay “marriages” unions and leaving the term marriage in the biblical context where it originated from. Which you can read about here. This may feel like semantics, but it feels like a win-win to me for Christians who want to uphold the biblical definition of marriage and for those who want to give homosexuals the civil rights that go along with our government’s definition of marriage. I’d be fine if the government stopped using the word marriage altogether and just let the Church use that word. It might disarm people and allow us to move forward peacefully.
Amanda asked about standing up in her friend’s gay wedding even though she believes homosexual behavior is a sin. I’ve thought about a similar potential situation. What if one of my children turns out to be homosexual and pursues a gay marriage? You hear so many horror stories about Christian parents who disown their children when this happens. I think that is awful for parents to do and is extremely unChristlike. I can still love without agreeing with the behavior taking place. If this situation ever happened with one of my children, I could not officiate the wedding as the pastor, because I feel that would be me approving of the behavior and acting like God approves of the behavior. But I would definitely be at the wedding and be there for my child as a father, through thick and thin, good or bad, sin or not.
Something to chew on with the gay marriage argument…whenever I hear arguments for gay marriage, that all people are entitled to the same civic rights, it always makes me wonder how those same arguments do not also have to automatically apply to making consensual polygamy legal. I have never seen the show Sister Wives but as I understand it, it navigates a man and his four “wives”. (Found an interesting blog about the show, Mormonism, and polygamy HERE) They aren’t legally married but in their minds, they are. Yet these women are deprived of the same rights as gay couples in America. So where is the the human rights outcry for polygamy to become legal? I’m not trying to be cynical or sarcastic, just asking that both sides of the gay marriage argument be honest about their motives. I talk thoroughly about how Christians can be very self-righteous in their argument against gay marriage, but I think those who argue for it can also be self-righteous by misrepresenting what they are actually arguing for and why. I think an honest and consistent argument for gay marriage must include an equally passionate argument for the legalization of polygamist marriages.
To me, the solution to this goes back to my first point: Let the church define marriage and let the government (voting process) define civil unions. Give people equal rights. Homosexuals, heterosexuals, and polygamists. But separate that from God’s design for marriage. These are two different things and I don’t think they need to be joined at the hip in the way we talk about them.
In my next post on this topic, I’ll discuss Romans 1 “exchanging natural for unnatural”, as well as if Paul’s biblical writings are just his opinions. I’ll also discuss my thoughts on the nature vs. nurture debate. Stay tuned.
Related posts:
He is:
Author of Beyond the Battle: A man's guide to his identity in Christ in an oversexualized world
Host of the The Flip Side Podcast
Join an online men's small group led by Noah and team at BeyondTheBattle.net
- Ep.108: Anonymous Venezuelan Pastor on Ministry Amidst Oppression - December 3, 2024
- Ep. 107: Mark & Beth Denison on Betrayal Trauma - November 4, 2024
- When “I follow the Lamb, not the Donkey or the Elephant” falls short - October 31, 2024
Why can’t progressive revelation be applied to homosexuality? As I understand it, there was no term in Hebrew or Greek that was used to express a same sex union the way we define homosexuality now. There were only words to describe certain sexual acts which would negate reproduction & also was often done with prostitutes to appease Roman gods. The same with divorce. Its purpose & definition & reasons have changed over the centuries.
Great question Wendy. I highly recommend reading “Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals” by William Webb ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1842271865/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1842271865&linkCode=as2&tag=noafilsblocut-20 ) as he answers this exact question (see the private seller prices listed). It is not gay bashing or anything, it’s just an academic walk-through. His point of the book is actually to argue for women to be able to be in ministry leadership. He uses what he calls a “redemptive hermeneutic” which is similar to progressive revelation. It’s something I will blog on later as it relates to women in ministry, but as it relates to homosexuality, here is my nutshell answer:
Heterosexual monogamy was the definition for sex in the Bible in the very beginning (Gen 2:24). Throughout the history of the Bible, the commands for this only got more and more specific and intense that this was God’s way for doing things. Once you get past Gen 2, beginning with Abraham, things were very loose in relation to this command. God let a lot slide. But as history and progressive revelation (God revealing more of himself to humanity, bit by bit, aka progressively), God let less and less slide and held people more and more accountable to the original design of Gen 2:24. The best example of this is the divorce laws in the Old Testament that Jesus makes much more intense (much closer to Gen 2:24) in Matthew 5:31-32, where he comes right out and explains that what he is revealing is more intense (more closer to God’s ultimate design) than what was revealed in the OT Law. And then as I mentioned, we eventually get to 1 Cor. 6:12-20, which ties it all together.
The same pattern does not apply to homosexuality for two reasons. One is because the nature of the monogamous heterosexual progressive revelation automatically excludes polygamous and/or promiscuous heterosexual relationships, as well as any type of homosexual relationship, as all of these are the opposite of the command being intensified. So as heterosexual monogamy is intensified, these other things are no longer tolerated for God’s people because they contradict the command being intensified.
The second reason is similar to the first, and is essentially what Webb’s book shows. That while certain topics in the Bible move toward more freedom (redemption) as the centuries roll on (women’s rights and abolishing slavery are the two examples he focuses on), the reason homosexuality cannot be added to these two examples is because the commands of the Bible move in the opposite direction than the commands about slavery and women’s rights. He shows that when the Bible was written, the existing cultures were okay with slavery and were okay with abusing women, whereas each command in the Bible pushed against these cultural norms by saying slavery and abusing women are wrong, and that more rights and freedoms needed to be given to them. These things were counter-cultural. It pushed toward a redemptive reality that eventually gives the divine authority to abolish these things. The difference with homosexuality that he points out is that the surrounding cultures in the Bible were OK with homosexual relationships (i.e. the Romans, Greeks, etc.) and the Bible’s commands pushed against these cultural norms and said homosexual relationships are not right (just like the slavery and abusing commands pushed against the cultural norms, saying these things aren’t right). So the Bible has always been saying it’s not right and cultural norms are saying it is right… so just because culture today says homosexual relationships are right, it would only re-emphasize the stance the Bible has always had against this cultural norm, which is that it’s not right. So we’d read the homosexual texts today the same way they would have been read in the Greek or Roman cultural contexts the Bible was written in because our surrounding secular culture is the same as theirs when it comes to this topic. The essential point is: the Bible remains consistent in pushing against culture in this areas.
(I know there are exceptions in secular history where homosexuality was not openly accepted, but his argument is that the cultures in which the Bible was written where times when it was openly accepted)
I hope this helps. I don’t post these things to try to win you over, but I hope it demonstrates consistency in how the Bible is written and why Christians interpret these commands the way they do.
CARM.org has a well thought-through study on homosexuality. I recommend it. I wish homosexuality wasn’t sinful in God’s eyes. It would make for a lot fewer problems between the World and the Church. Unfortunately, this is a doctrine that I have not found an honest way of changing.
Dude, I feel you on that Brian. I had a couple interested in becoming members at our church who have a problem with the Bible’s stance on this and I told them “I wish I could change what the Bible says about this, but I can’t.” I say that for the reason you mention, I wish this divide didn’t have to be there. And I have tried hard to look at the text and come up with a different conclusion and I can’t. One thing that is helpful to a degree is clearly communicating that homosexual attraction is not a sin in the Bible, only homosexual behavior. This is a pretty significant shift from the view that was taught to me growing up that people choose to be gay, rather than being born that way. Some might choose this, but the vast majority are born with that attraction in place. I hope that is somewhat helpful. I’ve written on this quite a bit in my recent posts on the subject: http://www.atacrossroads.net/gay-celibate-christian-keeps-label-gay/ & http://www.atacrossroads.net/3-reasons-didnt-want-gay-jim-decke/
I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion and I don’t know the research about polygamy enough to have a strong opinion, but there are one major difference that jumps out to me.
In a monogamous relationship you have two equal partners. Gender equality in marriage is at the core of the human rights movement. I don’t know how this translate to polygamy? It would seem that the one would have power over the many. I don’t remember if this is left over knowledge from my reading of the the Bible or Qur’an, I think both. That talk about who has what rights under a polygamous marriage. With the husband and first wife getting most of the rights. These arrangements clearly subjugate the additional spouses to secondary status. I truly don’t know how this works but unless everyone in the marriage is given equal rights this is not analogous to same-sex marriage in the same way that forced marriages, child marriage or any structure that does have two willing parties (except possible the French law that allows you to marry a dead person – not sure if this is true or not).
Thanks for the comment Paul. I don’t think there is anything in the OT about polygamous marriages, as far as a prescriptive command goes. Culturally, what you said was likely true in certain cases, where the Bible simply describes what was happening historically, but doesn’t approve of the behavior. Though an example that jumps out to me which is the opposite of this is Jacob, who married Leah first but loved Rachel more, who he married 2nd (Genesis 29).
I’ve never seen the show Sister Wives (in fact I make it a life goal to never watch TLC or Bravo for fear of my brain cells evaporating), but my understanding of the show is that these women really do see themselves as sisters and they see their family as a community. They are all for polygamy and there is no coercion to marry nor disparity of rights/privileges given within the marriage. In my google image search, there was a photo of one of them pregnant and the rest of them had their hand on her belly with big smiles, like it was all of their babies.
It must have all been in the Qur’an (which I know included a lot).
I also support your goal of never watching Bravo or TLC (sad that TLC was originally strated by NASA). Aggie watches Project Runway and feel worse whenever I am with her, even if reading. However I’m not sure that one case of “reality” tv is a good case for or against anything.
You got me curious so I started looking at actual research regarding the subject and couldn’t find much available without journal subscriptions. I did find this article written by a professor in England that summarizes a number of them. He is a bit dictatorial in his conclusions but seems present both sides well without any straw men.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz5t2IAZjNQqUDcxald1Qmtpbzg/edit?usp=sharing
I agree with your assessment, except for the “voting process” part. Voters cannot overrule the Constitution, particularly the due process and equal protection parts of it. The Supreme Court could create an illogical inconsistency, of course, but that doesn’t make it right or alleviate the issue.
Consenting adults define their union. That’s it. The state simply acknowledges that those parties wish to be seen as a single entity as well as being individuals. That’s no different than a state-recognized business partnership. The rest of it, if there’s nothing illegal in their actions, is none of anybody’s business including the state. All parties consent to the union and all are joined with the others. That’s a construction of “marriage” or “union” that can withstand any level of scrutiny and defeat any argument in opposition.
I like your assessment of marriage as a religious rite. With that kind of context, it’s hard to see a homosexual marriage and a secular heterosexual marriage as any different. I’ve always agreed that it’s a semantic problem. Of course, this has problematic legal and political implications, but from a purely religious standpoint, I can’t find any reason to oppose civil unions.
Brett, ya it doesn’t seem logical to me that two people getting “married” in front of a Justice of the Peace is the same as two people getting married in front of a pastor, their church, friends and family, etc. when we have a separate of Church and State — yet both of these acts are under the same State legal umbrella. It’s not consistent. I don’t think they should be called the same thing, because “marriage” is a religious word, not a legal word. They need a separate word for legal unions. Why would two atheists want to be associated with a religious term like “marriage” anyway. Or maybe it’s a chicken or the egg question, who used the term “marriage” first? Religious groups or governmental groups? It was simultaneous it seems, so it’s not an easy fix as that definition is now enmeshed into our culture. But if they/we could figure out a way to redefine the words, I think everyone could be happy. Christians could hold their biblical convictions without depriving anyone of civic/legal rights and there wouldn’t be confusion over semantics.
In Latin America the distinction between the civil and religious aspects of the marriage is stronger (speaking as a man married to a girl from South America).
THANK YOU! This is the logical solution to all of this craziness. However, it’s not just about civil rights…it’s about how a certain world view wants to force us all to change ours or risk being called nasty things like bigots and homophobes…
thanks for the support Joel. Ya I’ve been called a bigot by some people in the GLBT community on Twitter and I confronted them on it, in a gentle but firm way. If you call someone a bigot, you are being one yourself, as that’s a really strong word. It’s the problem with pluralism as a worldview, which says “every view is acceptable…except any view that is exclusive” — well the problem is, that is a very exclusive view because you just excluded a TON of people who hold exclusive views (Christians, Muslims, Jews, to name a few). I hit on this concept a little bit in this recent post: http://www.cutthereligiouscheese.com/rollins-college-discriminates-against-christians-in-shutting-down-student-bible-study/
Noah, I generally agree with most things you say but I am a bit confused by your stance about your children possibly having a gay wedding. Would you not be approving of the marriage by giving your daughter away to another woman or paying for their wedding? We have to be careful when we talk about sin and say that we need to just love them. The fact is that often loving someone often means telling them “NO, I will not participate with you harming yourself.”
My wife and I have committed to teach my children from when they are young that if they do not wish to embrace our (and God’s) traditional values by living together before marriage I will not finance nor participate in a traditional wedding for them. Just as I would not give them money if they were not being responsible with their own as adults. I will, of course, always love them and covet the opportunity to teach them and walk with them through struggles. Love means always wanting the best for someone and God’s ways are the best.
I’m curious on your thoughts on my interpretation of how to best love my children.
great question Brian. i think we are on the same page, your question just brings up specifics i didn’t mention. here’s what i said: I can still love without agreeing with the behavior taking place. If
this situation ever happened with one of my children, I could not
officiate the wedding as the pastor, because I feel that would be me
approving of the behavior and acting like God approves of the behavior.
But I would definitely be at the wedding and be there for my child as a
father, through thick and thin, good or bad, sin or not.
—-
so with this, no I would not pay for their wedding, nor would i “give my daughter away” via walking down the aisle sort of thing. but i would definitely attend, as I’d want her to know I still love her and she is and always will be a valuable part of my life. when i said “as a father”, my intention was to say i would not disown her because of this and i’d still be her father for all the days ahead, i.e. holidays, visits, etc. that’s just my opinion on it and the best way I could see to show unconditional love while not approving of the behavior. but i think we’re saying the same thing. i never said i’d pay for it or walk her down the aisle, just that i would be there at the event. does that make sense?
Polygamy is first recorded in what, the fourth generation in Genesis. I do not see any support that the people before Moses could not handle a moral code of monogamy.
It is my understanding that Paul was a widower, as it was a requirement that you were married in order to become a Pharisee. I think if this is true, then we need to look at his perspectives from that vantage point.
Brian McLaren says otherwise, but I continue to observe that his major shift toward supporting Christian gay marriage is because his son wanted to marry the man he was dating. Interesting that Brian only supports intimate same-sex sexual behavior in the context of a Christian gay marriage.
I would chose to be at the wedding reception but not at the wedding, and would have expressed all of my reasons why, ahead of time.
I posted to this article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/divide-over-religious-exemptions-gay-marriage this comment:
“Yes, I have often said that if we could have shown respect in the ’70’s for those who wanted equal rights for same-sex issues, society today would not be against those who hold strong religious perspectives for their own lives, and also want to show respect and
acceptance toward those who think differently than they do.”
We already support consensual polygamy in our culture by the ease of moving from marriage to marriage and the lack of monogamy within a range of marriages.
Thanks for the post, Mike. Your last quote is especially profound to me: “We already support consensual polygamy in our culture by the ease of
moving from marriage to marriage and the lack of monogamy within a range
of marriages.”