How can Love be Wrong?
Dear _______
I’ll try to make this brief but I don’t know that I’ll be able too since your question does require providing some context before diving in.
Usually the conversation starts with a number of assumptions on the part of your discussion partner that you’ll want to challenge:
Here are some of them…
1. Since science has proven that some people are born with desires for people of the same sex. That means, therefore, that God must have “created” them that way.
2. The bible addresses manipulative and abusive same sex relationships. It does not address monogamous, loving, same sex relationships
3. God is love and all love is from God…so if two people love each other why would the church stand in the way of it?
Let’s deal with them in order:
It may well be, though the evidence is inconclusive, that some people are naturally drawn to others of the same sex through some biological/genetic factor. But that we may be born with an orientation toward a certain behavior does not mean that “God made us that way”. People are born with orientations toward all kinds of behaviors—alcoholism, pedophilia, and, of course, heterosexual promiscuity to name just a few. Many behaviors have been argued to have some biological or genetic basis but we would not want to “bless” all of them.
The truth is, human beings are “fallen” by nature. (You might want to read through Romans 1:18-33; Romans 3:10-18 and Eph 2:1-3 at this point). That means that we are not who God originally created us to be. We are all born with an “orientation” away from God and toward the self. The way that orientation plays out is different for everyone and we should not be surprised that some are born with biological/genetic predelections to all kinds of behaviors that are not healthy or right. The average human male is, by nature, oriented toward promiscuity. Does that mean that promiscuity is God’s will? Should men be permitted to sleep with whoever they want when they want because they were “born that way”?
No. The whole point of the gospel is that though we are fallen and enslaved by sinful orientations Jesus has come to give us new life and to redeem us. Not only to die in our place to pay the consequences for our sins but also to give us his own Holy Spirit to break free from the bondage to sin. So a Christian has the power, through Christ, to escape the bondage of sexual sin or alcoholism or any other enslaving orientation or addiction.
The question needs to be: is homosexual behavior something that God needs to heal and free people from or is it something that God wants to bless?
The answer to that question, Christians believe, is to be found in the bible. Here are some of the texts that address homosexuality directly:
Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Romans 1:24-27 (As a result of the disobedience of humanity) “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
1 Corinthians 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.”
There are others, but the above texts are the primary ones because they are most clear.
But it is here that assumption 2 (above) comes into play. Some suggest that long term loving homosexual relationships are not addressed in scripture; that the bible writers knew nothing of them. Even a cursory glance at ancient Greco/Roman culture and literature will demonstrate that homosexual behavior and homosexual relationships, loving and otherwise, were commonplace. If Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles who wrote the most clear NT condemnations of homosexual behavior, knew nothing of them he would’ve had to be culturally obtuse.
But the extent to which Paul or the other human authors of the bible were familiar with various cultural manifestations of homosexuality is in the end irrelevant. What they write is clear and unambiguous. There is no distinction in the texts between “life-long loving unions” and abusive one-night stands. Homosexual behavior is condemned without distinction or regard to relational context or cultural setting. It is the physical act itself and the impulse that leads up to it that is uneqivocably condemned. Any attempt, therefore, to distinguish between types of homosexual relationships and argue that sex acts between two people of the same sex is good in one context and sinful in another is grounded in a fundemental misreading of the text which makes no such distinctions.
A hallmark of good reading (not just the bible but any book) is not to read into a text something that is not there. Good readers ground their interpretation in what the author himself has communicated. Those who seek to limit the biblical injunctions against homosexual behavior to pederasty, prostitution, or promiscuity import and impose a narrowness text that simply is not there.
So far we have seen that not all inborn desires and impulses are good and we have seen that scripture defines the homosexual impulse in particular as one that is linked to our fallen nature. It is not a good thing to be blessed but a sinful enslavement that must be forgiven and healed.
Thankfully, we serve a God who loves sinners, who came to us himself in Jesus of Nazareth to live a life of obedience on our behalf and to die a sacrificial death to suffer the penalty for our sins. That means that there is no sin, no matter how horrific, that cannot be forgiven and no sinner who cannot be justified and redeemed. But first we must see ourselves as God sees us. We must recognize our own deep and desperate sinfulness, despair of ourselves, and surrender wholly and fully to Jesus Christ, trusting in his work instead of our own, his death in our place, and the power of his Resurrection to break the chains of sin and death in our lives.
This leads us to the final assumption (3 above). God is, indeed, “love” (1st John 4:8). That means that he is origin and measure of all love. We are designed to love him, to enjoy his fellowship forever. We are set in various communities—our families, friends, neighbors, churches, towns, cities, nation—and called to love others as God has loved us.
But because, as we noted above, we are fallen creatures our hearts often carry us in the wrong direction. “Love” itself is good. But like any good thing it can be misdirected. Water gives life to all things on earth. But water misdirected, water that overflows the riverbank or breaks through the dike is deadly. The same is true for love. As the scriptures above make clear, erotic/romantic love between two people of the same sex is a love that is misdirected. God gave human beings erotic/romantic love to be enjoyed in the context of marriage between a man and a woman. He did that both for the purpose of carrying on the human race and to bind husband and wife together as one flesh in such a way that their union would be a living sermon—a picture of the love between Christ and his Church.
So while we cannot doubt the evident depth and sincerity of romantic/erotic love between two people of the same sex, we can and should recognize that if followed and indulged it drives people further away from the healing love of Jesus Christ and further into the darkness and slavery of sin.That is why the church, when confronting the cultural push toward homosexual liscence, must at all times and in all places uphold and proclaim the twofold truth that sexual acts between two people of the same sex is sin and that God loves sinners and sent his Son to save them.
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
75 comments
Setting aside scripture, which for a Christian is absolutely dispositive on the subject concerning male and female marriage as the norm, I might add that the sole purpose of sex, male and female, is to produce offspring to perpetuate the species. That is why marriage between male and female makes logical and biological sense. Those unions produce children and pass on their genes. And in human society it takes a long time and plenty of resources to raise an infant to adulthood. The male and female that produce a child have a lot of responsibility and are the primary institution to integrate the child into the larger society. The fact that some males and females do not have children is beside the point. By and large they can and do.
Homosexual unions does not have the inherent capability to do any of this. They are 100% sterile. The fact that they can raise other’s children is beside the point. Even if there is a homosexual gene (and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this) it cannot reproduce itself. Likewise, even if there were such a thing as “homosexual orientation”, it cannot reproduce itself. They can only exist as deviations from the heterosexual norm.
[1] Posted by Br. Michael on 6-28-2011 at 10:19 AM · [top]
Right Br. Michael…but I think natural law arguments won’t matter much now that nature can be “corrected”
[2] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 6-28-2011 at 10:37 AM · [top]
Matt+,
Very fine, brother. I would add one component to counter the assertion (false) that since Jesus never talked about it (Homosexual practice), he therefore had no opinion on the ordering of human sexuality - and therefore it is adiaphoron.
A reference to Mark 10.6 - in that it was God’s intention from the beginning for human sexuality to be ordered in monogamous heterosexual marriage. This covers all bases, ultimately. See “Theology of the Body”, the magisterial work of Blessed JP2 (and augmented brilliantly by Matthew West) for more.
Darin+
[3] Posted by frdarin on 6-28-2011 at 10:42 AM · [top]
I appreciate this article, Matt.
I think one thing that many of us are naive about is just how much people believe that they are “loving” others when they are actually doing things that are distinctly and intrinsically unloving. We—the ones who fancy ourselves at least publicly moral—often discount others’ reasoning for their obviously immoral behavior by asserting that their reasoning is clearly self-serving, hypocritical, and insincere.
So when abusive parents say to the child “we do this because we love you” others often say “obviously the parents were just searching for an excuse to be cruel.” But the reality is that often the abusive parents sincerely believe themselves to be loving in their abuse. They have a radically dysfunctional definition of what “love” is.
So the same thing is true for plenty of other “loves” that human beings believe themselves to be displaying. The polyamorous male featured on a recent reality tv show sincerely believes that he “loves” his various wives. Obviously, his version of “love” *harms* his wives’ development and his actions in “marrying” them are distinctly and intrinsically unloving. Fathers often believe that they “love” their daughters whom they sexually abuse. And so on and so on.
Just because a human being *believes* himself or herself to be behaving in a loving manner and demonstrating “love” towards another or several human beings does not mean that they are actually loving at all. All it demonstrates is that human beings have an intrinsically fallen and flawed definition of what Love is—and much of our lives as Christians is about God the Holy Spirit convicting us and rightly defining for us what Love actually is.
[4] Posted by Sarah on 6-28-2011 at 10:45 AM · [top]
When I went to look at my email, the provider’s homepage had the following “news” links:
“Charlie Sheen’s last ‘goddess’ leaves him”
“Kim Kardashian’s Ice Cube Diet”
“Neil Patrick Harris and partner get engaged”
“Hugh Hefner back on the prowl with ex’s friend”
The church’s witness to God’s design for marriage must always be countercultural, given fallen humanity’s penchant for exalting sentiment and self-gratification as “love”.
The problem is acute in our day, as the “culture” sees no difference between
a husband and wife living together faithfully, raising kids;
a celebrity’s serial relationships;
finding diet, surgical, pharmaceutical or other means to resemble a celebrity and thereby attain serial relationships;
homosexual gratification;
&c; all are exercises in “love.”
It is up to Christians to honor and practice marriage within the fellowship of the church. The culture simply doesn’t get it. Sadly, many of our churches have bought into the falsely named “therapeutic” mindset, which is not about health and healing but about justification of sentiment and self-gratification.
[5] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-28-2011 at 10:51 AM · [top]
[3] And of course, in Mark 7:21-23, Jesus preaches against sexual immorality (porneia), which would have been understood as including ss behavior.
[6] Posted by tired on 6-28-2011 at 11:10 AM · [top]
Thanks Matt+.
#6 tired,
I have heard arguments from certain members of the TEc exec council that bend and twist the meaning of “porneia” until it loses all meaning.
[7] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 6-28-2011 at 11:23 AM · [top]
#7,
I too have heard word studies of “porneia” which bend reality a bit. That’s why I think we can easily say - ok, take that out of the picture and look at what Jesus DOES say positively about the purpose and ends of human sexuality from the very beginning. Of course, that then presumes a Fall - which is already dismissed by most liberal theologians..
Darin+
[8] Posted by frdarin on 6-28-2011 at 11:26 AM · [top]
And - as an aside - I think it would be an immensely positive and helpful contribution to the conversation should the new ACNA come up with a “Theology of the Body” for Anglicans. It wouldn’t take too much tweaking of the work of JP2 to apply to the Anglican way.
Darin+
[9] Posted by frdarin on 6-28-2011 at 11:28 AM · [top]
I prefer this version: Mark 7:21-23 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders 22. “Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23. “All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
[10] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-28-2011 at 11:28 AM · [top]
The idea that a 1st century Jew would not have understood any kind of sex act between people of the same sex to be “sexual immorality” is absurd. Had Jesus intended to set it apart for blessing, he would have needed to do so specifically because otherwise his Jewish hearers would have naturally assumed homosexual sex was in the stew of sexually immoral behaviors along with incest and adultery.
[11] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 6-28-2011 at 12:14 PM · [top]
Matt+ (11),
Absolutely. It’s a powerful argument to cover both the prescriptive and proscriptive angles of Jesus on the subject.
Darin+
[12] Posted by frdarin on 6-28-2011 at 12:29 PM · [top]
True love can’t be wrong.
Sex, on the other hand, has many opportunities to (ahem) “mess” up.
That’s why Jonathan and David, in a mutually loving same-sex relationship knew better than to have it go sexual. That would have meant mutual defilement. No 2 people who truly love each other would intentionally defile each other, would they?
Love isn’t sex. Sex isn’t love.
[13] Posted by Ralph on 6-28-2011 at 01:19 PM · [top]
There are a lot of things that Jesus did not teach against. This is a weak argument at best.
[14] Posted by Pb on 6-28-2011 at 01:21 PM · [top]
(14)
Yet - it is used often!
(13)
It’s tiring to hear people use Jonathan/David and (!) Naomi/Ruth (yes, I’ve actually heard that one…) as examples of blessed same-sex relationships in the Scriptures (blessed in the sense that they are positive examples). The argument goes that (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) these are included as examples of positive same-sex relationships, without actually specifically stating they are condoned - because we couldn’t handle it if they were overtly sanctioned. One of those “I have much more to tell you, but you can’t take it right now” moments from Jesus, I suppose. Seriously - I’ve heard this.
Darin+
Darin+
[15] Posted by frdarin on 6-28-2011 at 01:27 PM · [top]
To say that Jesus was no more than a 1st century Jew is to deny His divinity. A heretical argument that can be ignored by the faithful.
Jesus is the Word. Jesus is God. God gave the Torah to Moses. Everyone knows that. Unless they’ve studied Holy Scripture in a liberal seminary.
Thus, Jesus knew the Hebrew Holy Scripture perfectly well. In any respectable scholarly word study, porneia would be inclusive of all forms of sexual immorality, and there are many to choose from.
[16] Posted by Ralph on 6-28-2011 at 01:31 PM · [top]
Yes, we’ve all heard it ad nauseam, and it’s really getting quite annoying, isn’t it? In fact, the whole set of arguments presented by same sex proponents is sickening.
[17] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-28-2011 at 01:33 PM · [top]
But, Jonathan/David and Naomi/Ruth ARE positive examples of same-sex relationships in the Scriptures. The point being that there’s absolutely no evidence that they were in a sexual relationship with each other. Rob Gagnon treats this very thoroughly.
“Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” So, if in wartime a guy in a platoon covers a live grenade to save his friends, is THAT a sexual act? Hardly.
The “Love Wins” argument is a loser.
[18] Posted by Ralph on 6-28-2011 at 01:36 PM · [top]
(18)
Yes, in the sense that it’s possible to have a loving friendship without it becoming sexually active. I’m not sure the modern liberal establishment (in and out of the church) thinks that is either possible or commendable.
Darin+
[19] Posted by frdarin on 6-28-2011 at 01:43 PM · [top]
Homosexual love can never be Trinitarian. The very sterility that is at the center of that union makes that impossible. Unlike the marriage of a man and woman which may be sterile because of medical reasons and therefore not deliberate, these unions mock the very idea of life giving love.
We as Christians are drawn into the life of the Trinity. I wish I could explain better. To me it is a wonderful dance celebrating the total joy of fullness in Christ. Men and women are each in themselves whole but even so we are created to complete one another. Not just in an emotional sense but in a very real physical sense. Sex is more than a bodily function it is the act of completeness which witnesses the truth of our creation. To me homosexual relationships just can not do this and therefore are a corruption of what God desires and commands for us.
[20] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 6-28-2011 at 02:47 PM · [top]
Matt+, Very well written response to your friend. I do want to remind us all that the 2010 Mere Anglicainsm conference was about sexuality especially homosexuality. Here is a link to the 2010 Mere Anglicanism conference.
There are 4 videos on this page. All are relevant to the topic except for that given by Archbishop Duncan. In particular, Dr. Robert Gagnon and Dr. Paul McHugh gave excellent talks. Dr. Mc Hugh is emphatic that there is no gene for homosexuality. Dr. Gagnon delivers a clear case as to why this behavior is condemned in Scripture. Rev. Mario Bergner gave another excellent talk as to how homosex attraction can be overcome. Rev. Bergner’s talk is not on this page. I will see if I can find it. Until then, check out Rev. Bergner’s website: RedeemedLives.org.
If your friend is not familiar with these gentlemen, suggest viewing these videos and learning more about them and their work. Will definitely broaden your friend’s knowledge about homosex attraction and why it is not “blessable”.
[21] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 6-28-2011 at 03:02 PM · [top]
Ralph, do you know for certain that Ruth and Naomi had a same-sex relationship, and if so, where is that proof? Please cite chapter and verse.
[22] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-28-2011 at 03:18 PM · [top]
I think Ralph is showing that devoted loving friendships do not prove there is a sexual aspect to same sex relationships.
[23] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 6-28-2011 at 03:26 PM · [top]
My good Welsh friend, I’m trying to make the point (ineptly, perhaps) that not all relationships are sexual.
Ours, for instance.
[24] Posted by Ralph on 6-28-2011 at 03:28 PM · [top]
Good. The relationship between Ruth and Naomi was one of mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law, but there are those who imply that it was sexual.
[25] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-28-2011 at 03:38 PM · [top]
I’ve always thought the “God is love” argument was only half the story. Yes, God is love and we are called to love as God loves. However, part of being Christian is not only believing the we are loved but that we are called to respond to that love by “turning away from sin and being faithful to the Gospel.” We can’t just say “God loves me, therefore I’m good as I am.” No. God’s love calls us to repentence and transformation. The call to Christianity is dynamic, not complacent, IMHO.
[26] Posted by advocate on 6-28-2011 at 03:48 PM · [top]
Well reasoned, well written. Don’t expect any rejoinder from the other side. There is none. That is why such writings ought to be more widely distributed. The ‘gay’ movement seems to thrive by spreading really lousy arguments, retreating when they are refuted, and repeating them somewhere else in hopes no one is capable of critical thought.
[27] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 6-28-2011 at 03:49 PM · [top]
Cennydd, there’s a whole (offensive) pseudo-academic discipline of queer theology and queer biblical exegesis. Pretty easy to find via an internet search, and there are published books on Google.
They also claim that Jesus and the Apostles were in sexual relationships, etc. Folks have sexualized the Holy Eucharist. It goes on and on.
It’s been many years since I’ve heard a new argument supporting the notion that homosexual practice isn’t sinful. They just keep recycling the same tired old ones, like the “Love Wins” t-shirts. Rob Gagnon has them pretty well catalogued and refuted in The Bible and Homosexual Practice.
[28] Posted by Ralph on 6-28-2011 at 04:08 PM · [top]
Ummm, I meant to say published books available on the various online booksellers websites.
[29] Posted by Ralph on 6-28-2011 at 04:09 PM · [top]
It’s only wrong if it at all sexual**.
**(Except for parent/child relationships, adult/child relationships, human/animal relationships, human/shoe relationships, friend/friend relationships, clergy/lay relatioships, non-sexual friendships etc)
Er, what was the question?
[30] Posted by J Eppinga on 6-28-2011 at 04:52 PM · [top]
Correction:
“It’s only wrong if it isn’t at all sexual”
[31] Posted by J Eppinga on 6-28-2011 at 04:53 PM · [top]
“Love” in the Christian sense is not an emotion or a feeling nor does flow from an orientation. A full definition is given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:4-13.
A good treatment of love and the limits of love is C.S. Lewis’s The Four Loves.
[32] Posted by moheba on 6-28-2011 at 04:54 PM · [top]
A tour of Scripture reveals that God has set very strict boundaries for two things - worship and human relationships - most especially our sexuality.
These are the basic core issue in Scripture and one that is central to our being and joins us to the other person. The sexual act has spiritual, emotional, physical and relational repurcussions and God has said to keep it within a marriage relationship.
Only worship of the True and Living Holy Good GOD is true worship. All other is false and we are to avoid it, not marry anyone who does it…not pray with them, not enter their temples, not combine worship services, buildings, etc. This is an abomination and abhorrent to GOD.
Some pagan religions even blur the the distinction between worship and sexuality incorporating sexual acts into their false worship with temple prostitution, and in the orgies that took place during the false worship of Baal, etc. (TEC is coming awfully close, in fact there have been rumors of such things taking place in certain ‘cathedrals’ in California)
It is God’s will for us to cherish, respect, honor, encourage, protect and nurture one another in God’s Truth, Love and Life as defined by God’s Character and in His Word. Nature also witnesses to God’s definitions of Male, Female, Marriage, Father, Mother, Family. Jesus reinforced God’s design.
We are not to abuse, manipulate, dominate, exploit, use another sexually, physically or emotionally or depart from God’s Father/Mother pattern.
We ignore God’s boundaries and design at our own and others’ peril. A trespass always has negative, painful, costly consequences whether it is done to us or by us. Sin is self-wounding as well. It is an evil destructive two-edged sword that cuts, divides, fractures and destroys both the bearer and the one who is attacked by it. That is why the damage of clergy or parental sexual abuse of a child is so evil.
When a child’s (or anyone else’s) sacred boundaries are trespassed by seduction, exploitation, or rape, the damage is severe. If the child does not the support of good family (and many predators purposely choose children with absent fathers and emotionally abusive mothers because they are vulnerable and needy.) the trespass sets up spiritual/emotional disturbances that will ruin his/her life.
The perpetrator might as well have beaten the child to a bloody pulp and then said, ‘this is love’ ‘this is God’s way’ (and some of these beasts say exactly that.
A tour of nature and science, including medical and mental health clinical research and CDC/police statistics reinforce the wisdom of honoring and keeping within God’s boundaries and the consequences of not doing so.
No theologian, scientist or politician can change or negate the truth or the evidence - they may only deny or ignore it with great cost to spirit, soul, body, family, church and society.
We can’t change or break God’s Law, we only change and break ourselves in the attempt.
With Jesus, there is no middle road, no compromise, no half-way. Jesus said, ‘You are with Me or against Me. Whoever is not gathering with Me is scattering.’ Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23.
[33] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-28-2011 at 04:59 PM · [top]
Br Michael:
It’s not the sole purpose. This Christian site (sorry, I don’t know who they are) agrees that sex has a number of purposes: procreation, intimacy, companionship, comfort and pleasure.
After all, if procreation was the sole purpose of sex, couples would only do it when they wanted a baby, and they would stop having sex when the woman entered the menopause - and gays wouldn’t have sex at all.
[34] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-28-2011 at 06:21 PM · [top]
The purpose of a Christian marriage and family is to glorify God, to live His Word, Truth, Law, to reflect and witness to His holy Trinititarian love, to be a model, unit or fractal of the Church and to bear God’s life to the world. Sexual activity is surrendered to and subordinate to these high callings and purposes.
It is a manifestation of God’s holy love and it produces His (true) Joy which is greater than what the world experiences as pleasure. There is no substitute in the world/flesh/devil’s repertoire. God’s joy can even be found in abstinence, even just holding hands. There is the element of cherish, respect, honor, valuing someone beyond what they can give or do for us or how they look. God’s Joy experienced in a true marriage is far more satisfying and wondrous. It is an eternal gift from God, true riches and part of the abundant life.
[35] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-28-2011 at 07:13 PM · [top]
Gnu…
Sex can be used for procreation, or not. But, procreation can be accomplished without sex.
Sex can be intimate, or not. But, there can be intimacy without sex.
Sex can be one aspect of companionship, or not. But, people can be companions without being in a sexual relationship.
Sex can be comforting, or not. There are many ways that people can comfort each other without it becoming sexual.
Sex can be pleasurable, or not. There are many ways that people can provide pleasure for each other without involving sex.
Sex can be holy and mutually sanctifying, or not. But there are other ways to be holy and sanctified, standing before God.
[36] Posted by Ralph on 6-28-2011 at 07:20 PM · [top]
“Now canst thou see how wholly those are blind
To truth, who think all love is laudable
Just in itself, no matter of what kind.”
From XVIII 34-36 of Dante’s Purgatory as translated by Dorothy Sayers.
Ross
[37] Posted by Ross Gill on 6-28-2011 at 08:11 PM · [top]
St Nikao:
Sure, but not all marriages are Christian. Here in the UK, non-Christians have been allowed to marry in registry offices since 1836, without reference to any god. Those marriages are legal and recognized by society.
So your definition of marriage applies only to Christians. You’re free to define it as you wish, you’re free to ‘recognize’ certain marriages but not others, and you’re free to conduct your own ceremonies as you see fit.
And you’re free to oppose civil marriages between non-Christians if you want. But expect some resistance, because we don’t want to live according to your religious dogma.
[38] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-28-2011 at 08:14 PM · [top]
I’m with Darin. I think the positive case here is much stronger than the negative case. The teachings of Genesis and of Christ - and from there the rest of the OT and NT - are clear: the sole and normative godly sexual relationship is one man, one woman joined “permanently” to form a new family. The negative teachings are simply restating strongly in the negative this positive teaching, and thus not vulnerable to quibbling about the precise scope.
Asserting the affirmative strongly presents the Christian position on marriage and sexuality in general, rather than just one specific instance. It also presents a social as well as purely theological argument, which is a benefit when championing the cause of marriage outside the church.
I also think Matt’s reply fails to deal adequately with #3. The first half of the assertion is true, if we define “love” correctly. And Matt doesn’t critique this. When the Scriptures claim “God is Love”, they don’t have in mind “approval”, “feelings of affection”, or “sex”, all of which are modern synonyms. “Love” is better defined as “a commitment to the other’s well-being”. In some manifestations, this may include any of the modern ideas, but none of them - especially sex - are foundational. As has been mentioned also in the comments, “we love each other, let’s have sex” massively cheapens the concepts of both love and sex (and most in our society would still be, rightly, scandalised if this argument was used of parent and child).
[39] Posted by Andrew W on 6-28-2011 at 08:23 PM · [top]
Gnu Ordure at #34,
Why did you selectively quote from Br. Michael’s post at #1?
Here is the quote from his post with the important initial qualification (which you omitted) put back in:
Br Michael did not argue that the sole purpose of sex for a Christian was procreation. He was rather pointing out that even on a purely utilitarian and secular view (which he does not share), there is a strong argument against homosexuality.
Somehow you have managed to paint him into saying something which he clearly did not!
[40] Posted by MichaelA on 6-28-2011 at 08:42 PM · [top]
34, biologically, the only purpose of sex is to reproduce the species. I don’t expect gays to to understand this. Christians might assign some higher purposes to this, and as a Christian, I do myself. But sex is a means to reproduce. It might be pleasurable and fun, but bottom line, it produces children.
Only today, in our “enlightened” period of time, has this become a difficult concept to understand.
[41] Posted by Br. Michael on 6-28-2011 at 08:44 PM · [top]
Yes Andrew W, I did fail to critique the last assumption regarding the nature of love. I meant to do that when I started writing and must have forgotten when I got to the end of the note. Thanks for the catch.
[42] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 6-28-2011 at 08:48 PM · [top]
40, thank you.
[43] Posted by Br. Michael on 6-28-2011 at 08:54 PM · [top]
MichaelA:
Sorry, I can’t see how the ‘initial qualification’ affects what Br Michael said at all.
He said exactly that.
He didn’t mention utilitarianism or secularism or homosexuality.
I quoted his words. If I misunderstood him, he can correct me.
[44] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-28-2011 at 09:45 PM · [top]
RE: “But expect some resistance, because we don’t want to live according to your religious dogma.”
Right—just according to your own dogma, which includes hypocritically discriminating against any number of less popular minority sexual orientations by not advocating for society and the law to expand their definition of marriage to include the other minority sexual orientations—which discrimination is one of the more despicably inconsistent acts I have observed in a long time.
[45] Posted by Sarah on 6-28-2011 at 10:05 PM · [top]
Br Michael:
And there are also psychological, emotional and social reasons for having a sexual relationship. It’s not all about reproductive biology.
They understand that sex isn’t just about procreation. I don’t expect conservative Christians to understand that.
[46] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-28-2011 at 10:10 PM · [top]
Fr. Kennedy, thank you for this article. It is brief but says everything that needs to be said. I especially appreciate that you brought in the Christian teaching on man’s fallen nature. Theology is a science in the same way that biology or chemistry is. Theology is able to explain what other forms of science cannot. Thank you again.
[47] Posted by Te Deum on 6-28-2011 at 10:39 PM · [top]
Gnu,
Read the stuff about the solemnization of marriage in the 1662 (old enough to counted ‘conservative’, usually considered ‘Christian’). There marriage’s purpose is three-fold: procreation, sexual release without sin, and social/emotional security.
[48] Posted by Bo on 6-29-2011 at 12:35 AM · [top]
Thanks Matt for the article and response. I thought it a little odd that you set up three misconceptions and then only dealt with two-and-a-half of them.
[49] Posted by Andrew W on 6-29-2011 at 01:22 AM · [top]
No, you selectively quoted his words, i.e. misquoted them.
And he already has corrected you, as you well know.
Your post amounts to just another of your attempts to assert that black is white. Nothing new there.
[50] Posted by MichaelA on 6-29-2011 at 03:05 AM · [top]
sub
[51] Posted by Bo on 6-29-2011 at 04:37 AM · [top]
#38 writes: “we don’t want to live according to your religious dogma.”
That’s your ‘choice’ Gnu. But stay out of the Church’s business. Marriage is a ‘God Thing’ of which you proclaim you have no part. However, you secularists and pansexualists have no right to try to re-define and degrade something holy, good and Biblical to suit your perverse self-focused sexual appetites.
You have and will reap the negative consequences.
[52] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-29-2011 at 08:38 AM · [top]
AMEN, and well said, St. Nikao! In other words, stay out of our face!
[53] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-29-2011 at 09:23 AM · [top]
In the Church, the word “marriage” has a very specific, and rather narrow, meaning. TEC defines it in its canons, and in the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.
In civil society, the same word has been taken over by liberal activists and given new meanings, thus extending the word’s range of meaning in contemporary English. Obviously, a new word should have been coined to denote civil unions.
Because of the wide range of meanings, the word “marraige” now has to be qualified, if discussions are going to be at all productive.
[54] Posted by Ralph on 6-29-2011 at 09:36 AM · [top]
OK, then, here’s that new word: Shackup.
[55] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-29-2011 at 11:39 AM · [top]
#38 you seem to think that because marriage does not necessarily imply Christianity, it can include anything involving genital stimulation. I don’t think you should be able to redefine marriage that way, any more than you should be able to define “parenthood” as perhaps owning a pet rock.
If that is not what you meant, can you please clarify your comment in #38? Thanks.
[56] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 6-29-2011 at 12:27 PM · [top]
St Nikao:
I do stay out of your business. As I said before, You’re free to define it [marriage] as you wish, you’re free to ‘recognize’ certain marriages but not others, and you’re free to conduct your own ceremonies as you see fit. I don’t have a problem with you doing that and I have no desire to interfere.
But in return, you should grant the State (and/or other religions) the freedom to do likewise, to define marriage as they see fit and so on. You may not like the idea of two atheists getting married in a civil ceremony, but we’ve had that right in Britain since 1836 - and we’d like you to stay out of our business.
Sorry, but Christians don’t own the concept of marriage. People have been getting married since pre-Biblical times. Other cultures and religions have defined marriage in various ways, and your Christian definition is one of many.
As above - you Christians have attempted to re-define marriage as Biblical, and in Britain you succeeded for many centuries in monopolizing official marriage. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, all marriage ceremonies (except for Jews and Quakers) had to be performed by an Anglican priest.
So, we have indeed re-defined marriage. And because we live in a democracy rather than a theocracy, we have done so legitimately.
[57] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-29-2011 at 03:44 PM · [top]
Gnu,
The state can define civil unions, but until it becomes God it can’t define marriage.
[58] Posted by Bo on 6-29-2011 at 04:18 PM · [top]
Sarah (#45):
That makes no sense at all, Sarah.
I have never said that all minority sexual orientations should be allowed to get married - and I certainly don’t believe that. So I’m not being hypocritical if I support gay marriage but oppose sibling marriage. The situations are different and need to be considered and evaluated separately.
But apparently you don’t want to make such distinctions. As you recently said elsewhere:
If you want to bundle a number of different scenarios into an ‘all or nothing’ decision, you’re free to do so, but it makes no sense to me. And nobody is obliged to accept your terms. I prefer to evaluate each scenario separately.
[59] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-29-2011 at 04:27 PM · [top]
Gnu Ordure, Marriage may not be a Christian thing but the with the exception of polyandry the model of one man and one woman pledging themselves to each other and rearing children together is the model in most cultures. Whether such pledging is of a religious nature or strictly civil one.
I strongly believe marriage as we know it is not just right because God has ordained that form it is right because the rearing of children, the protection of women, the civilization of men and the good ordering of society all are best served by such a model. This has long been recognized which is why the State has a role in the protection and support of such marriage.
[60] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 6-29-2011 at 05:18 PM · [top]
Beyondmarriage would disagree with Gnu:
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
The problem for Gnu is that having kicked the door open for everyone, he can’t close it for just him or people similarly situated. But he doesn’t accept that.
[61] Posted by Br. Michael on 6-29-2011 at 05:33 PM · [top]
Ralph at #54, I respectfully disagree.
Marriage existed (and was ordained by God) in its fundamental form before the Church existed, even before the Old Testament covenant existed.
The Church has a duty to speak out and put God’s point of view to the world, because what the world is presently doing (by interfering in the fundamental nature of marriage as a lifetime bond between a man and a woman) is foolish, ill-advised, short-sighted, incompetent and will lead to terrible consequences for everyone.
I also disagree with both St Nikao and Gnu Ordure: marriage is not just a matter restricted to the church. It has always been a matter for all of society.
That is why our society for thousands of years has viewed marriage as between a man and a woman only. Gays have no right to be married to each other - never have, never will.
They might (through activism) obtain a temporary change in the law for a brief period now, but that won’t make them really married, and even if they do get it through, it will be overturned.
[62] Posted by MichaelA on 6-29-2011 at 05:47 PM · [top]
Paula:
Don’t you mean polygyny, Paula? Anyway…
It’s not the model in Islam, where men can have up to four wives. So there’s 1.7 billion people who don’t agree with you. Different cultures and religions define marriage in different ways. As I said, Christians don’t own the concept.
Yet Muslim States perform the same role in supporting their polygynous view of marriage, for exactly the same reasons.
If you want Muslims to recognize and respect your marriages, you should recognize theirs. Respect each other’s frame reference, even though you may disagree with it. It’s not as if a Muslim man having two wives affects you at all. Likewise if two atheists get married in a civil ceremony. You may not like it; but live and let live.
Gnu.
PS Plenty of polygyny in the Bible, by the way; Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, to name a few. And little sign of God’s disapproval.
[63] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-29-2011 at 07:14 PM · [top]
Little direct sign of His disapproval, until you get to Christ’s discussion on the matter…
[64] Posted by Bo on 6-29-2011 at 08:30 PM · [top]
Yes I did mean polygyyny> Muslims are allowed to take up to 4 wives I know this. It has been argued this came about because of so many men of marriagable age dying in war and Mohammed wanting to put single women under the protection of a man through marriage. I don’t know if that is true.
I do know that all wives are supposed to be treated equally so in theory if a man can not provide for them all in the same manner polygamy is not an option. I also know that the status of women is polygmous(sp) cultures is less than what I certainly would desire. So I think they may have a different idea of just what the protection of women means.
Was there polygamy in the Bible? Oh dear how did I miss that? Let’s not mention that it never turned out well and that Christ restored marriage to its original intent.
Just what contribution to the public good does the marriage of two people of the same sex serve and why should the state sanction and protect it? I am not being snarky I really do want to know why besides love we should uproot the consistent understanding of marriage for such a small segment of the population?
[65] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 6-29-2011 at 09:07 PM · [top]
In this instance, I think it’s worth making a clear distinction between a Christian ideal of marriage and marriage as a social institution. “Recent” social policy has been busy demolishing the social institution, without minding that Christian institution is caught up as collateral damage.
Historically, marriage is about procreation - providing a secure environment for the raising of future generations; an emotional connection between husband and wife was desirable but secondary. Modernly, marriage has been redefined to recognising / formalising that emotional connection, entirely at the expense of children. Indeed, many moderns regard children as a luxury and object to governments spending money on “other people’s children”, even as demographers warn that our populations are becoming non-self sustaining. We (corporately) have become dangerously self-sighted and short-sighted.
Most of the “benefits” that accrue to married couples are historically grounded in the idea that a married couple is raising the next generation, and thus performing perhaps the most vital social role. Once we divorce (pun intended) marriage from procreation, very few of those benefits are meaningful or justified, and the remainder can be trivially subsumed by other existing mechanisms (one doesn’t require marriage to create power-of-attorney or visiting rights).
As Christians, we want to go further, and assert that marriage is also a sign of certain spiritual realities (eg complementarity and unity of husband and wife, model of God/Christ and his people). But marriage has a particular role as a social institution - which is now in the last stages of being buried - that is meaningful even if God is not recognised.
[66] Posted by Andrew W on 6-29-2011 at 11:03 PM · [top]
66, I agree. And once marriage has no real social value why should the state offer it as giving couples benefits that it does not give to singles? In other words we have an “equal protection” problem. This leads to the conclusion that in the United States marriage is unconstitutional and should be abolished entirely.
[67] Posted by Br. Michael on 6-30-2011 at 04:52 AM · [top]
When is love wrong in the eyes of Spong and Shori?
The Anglican Curmudgeon and MCJ have posted the story of the appointment of Rev. Bede Parry, a TEC priest, who had been a Roman Catholic priest and who was refused entry into a monastery because he was guilty of multiple incidents of sexual abuse of a minor. Shori knew about one incident before she appointed him when she was bishop of Nevada.
Again, this creates a question that must be answered - when is love wrong in the eyes of Spong and Shori?
For example, do they approve of ‘intergenerational love’ as well as ‘same-sex love’?
[68] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-30-2011 at 11:19 AM · [top]
George Conger says Shori is subject of a lawsuit for knowingly appointing a child molestor to the priesthood in Nevada.
[69] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-30-2011 at 11:32 AM · [top]
Fr Nelson is right….this whole thing stinks to high heaven! The nerve of that woman….hiding in her Ivory Tower!
[70] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-30-2011 at 11:45 AM · [top]
Paula:
King David did all right though, siring nineteen sons by eight wives, including Bathsheba, the direct ancestor of Mary/Joseph/Jesus (depending on your genealogical interpretation). God let him be King and he lived to a ripe old age before dying of natural causes. He was punished for the adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, but God ignored everything else, including the numerous concubines. Given that God regularly communicated with David through Samuel and Nathan, I don’t understand why He wouldn’t have mentioned the polygamy thing.
It’s an interesting question which I haven’t considered before. Off the top of my head:
1. SSM strengthens family ties by formally uniting two families ie the couple both get a set of in-laws.
2. Any children of the SS couple, either from a previous marriage or by surrogacy or by adoption, become legitimate (and have stronger ties to aunts and uncles and cousins).
3. If marriage helps couples stay together, then SSM encourages fidelity and monogamy.
[71] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 7-1-2011 at 03:47 PM · [top]
That isn’t the half of it. Matthew in chapter 1 of his gospel goes out of his way to tell us that the genealogy of Jesus included:
* Jacob the fraudster
* Tamar who seduced her own father-in-law
* Rahab the prostitute
* Ruth the foreigner
* David the murderer and adulterer
* Solomon the idolater
* Rehoboam the oppressor of the people
* Manasseh who “filled Jerusalem with innocent blood”
* Jeconiah the rebel
[72] Posted by MichaelA on 7-2-2011 at 01:35 AM · [top]
I know I’m late in the game, but, an excellent piece, Fr. Kennedy.
[73] Posted by farstrider+ on 7-6-2011 at 09:32 PM · [top]
Matt,
Thank you for this. Very helpful is combating the prejudice against a Christian view. My previous church (TEC) would have had me drawn and quartered for rejecting this behavior. You clarified the scriptural reasons. Grateful.
[74] Posted by episcopal100 on 8-11-2011 at 06:23 AM · [top]
Gnu - marriage was designed and created by God, the Creator of the universe. It is designed to be between one man and one woman, and is also of a reflection of Jesus’s love for His bride, the church.
The fact that so many of the folks in the Bible messed it up, and the fact that so many of us today mess it up doesn’t change God’s design for marriage now, does it?
It’s so obvious man and woman are designed to be together physically. It is also just as obvious that man/man and woman/woman are not. If you need me to explain this to you….well your parents should have taken care of this when you were in your early teens.
[75] Posted by B. Hunter on 8-31-2011 at 05:21 PM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.