The Gospel & Same-Sex Marriage

Russell D. Moore, Andrew T. Walker

• Publisher: B&H Books
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781433690495
• eBook ISBN: 9781433692215
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Christian's should be known by what they arefor, not simply what they areagainst.

The Bible is unambiguously clear about marriage's definition and purpose.So, Christians are for marriage.The Bible's witness on marriage doesn't allow for same-sex marriage, not because the Bible gives attention to same-sex marriage, but because the biblical narrative on marriage doesn't conceive of same-sex marriage as within the realm of possibility. Yet, many Christians live among neighbors and under law-makers who disagree.

So, what now?

Editors Russell Moore and Andrew T. Walker of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) assemble leading voices to frame the issues with a gospel-centered perspective.The Gospel for Lifeseries gives every believer a biblically-saturated understanding of the most urgent issues facing our culture today, because the gospel is for all of life.

Chapter

What Are We For?

Andrew T. Walker

THERE’S ALWAYS A LOT OF EVANGELICAL ANGST AND DISCOMFORT about our tendency to be against some things more than we are for other things. If you take this line of thought, evangelical Christians are often depicted as oppositional by nature, eagerly looking to knock down any and every newfound cultural concept that doesn’t align with Scripture. Our critics accuse us of this mind-set, which leads to a growing self-awareness that evangelical identity shouldn’t be grounded merely in what we reject, but what we should contribute to, cultivate, and promote.

In order to answer the question, “What are we for?” in regards to marriage debates in our culture, we need to define who “we” are and to what moral authority we are accountable. We are Christians who belong to the church of Jesus Christ, Christians who are ruled by God’s Word. We are those who believe the Bible is inspired, inerrant, infallible, sufficient, and clear. The Bible is God’s Word. And we are those who believe God gets the final word on marriage and sexuality.

The Bible is unambiguously clear about marriage’s definition and purpose. So, the opportunity to be for something is what the Bible gives to us when talking about marriage. The Bible’s witness on marriage doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage, not because the Bible gives attention to same-sex marriage, but because the biblical narrative on marriage doesn’t conceive of same-sex marriage as within the realm of possibility.

Using the Bible to advocate for same-sex marriage is akin to using the Bible to advocate for using surf boards as a mode of transportation on interstate highways: The Bible doesn’t give footing to any categories that it doesn’t recognize.

The Bible is silent on offering any constructive case for same-sex marriage because the Bible’s definition of marriage prohibits the very concept of same-sex marriage. Looking at all that the Bible says on marriage, same-sex marriage simply isn’t fathomable without contorting and twisting the Bible beyond the bounds of reason. Even still, that hasn’t stopped some individuals from suggesting that the Bible can be used to endorse same-sex relationships. We’ll tackle those claims further on.

First, I want to argue that the Bible presents marriage as something fixed and unalterable given by God for the sake of creation and human fulfillment. Secondly, I’ll discuss how marriage, in the Bible, is a shadow or image of the greatest truth of the universe: the gospel of Jesus Christ. Third, I want to argue that the Bible’s definition of marriage is natural in the sense that its definition translates to people and cultures that are not distinctly Christian. Here, I’ll discuss why marriage isn’t just a private institution, but a public institution. In the field of ethics, we call this a natural law argument, since it’s an argument believed to be universally valid and known across all cultures.1 When we’re finished, we’ll see why same-sex marriage fails to satisfy the criteria of what properly constitutes a marriage according to the Bible.

Marriage by Design

The most basic and significant place to begin discussing marriage is the beginning of marriage itself—at Creation.

Assigned as ruler and caretaker of the Garden of Eden, Adam was to “have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Gen. 1:26). He told Adam: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28).

Adam found himself without an adequate counterpart that would help share in the mission God had given him (Gen. 2:20). Even in a sinless state, God declared that it was not good that Adam should be alone (Gen. 2:18); and so from Adam, but different than Adam, God knit together the perfect counterpart for him—a woman. They were alike in their humanity, but different in their design. But this difference is a complementary difference. Male and female difference contributes to the overall betterment of the pair. Think of a tongue and groove joint and how the pieces, though designed differently, when put together, form something new.

From this differentiated pair, a divine spark went forth from them, a spark that only a man and woman can unite to fulfill: “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). The “one flesh” symbolism is a powerful metaphor for how profound the union is of a man and woman. Man and woman fit together in a way unique to their complementary design. This simple story captures the essence of every human society; for at the foundation of every society is the union of one man and one woman. For from man and woman comes the only possibility for the continuation of mission and society through the bearing of children.

From the biblical narrative, we see the definition of marriage take a shape. God designed a man and a woman to become a husband and a wife so that they might become a father and mother to any children their union produces. A marriage forms when a man and woman join together in a permanent union for the purposes of building a family. The emphasis on procreation is important. Were man and woman not capable of reproducing, it is questionable whether marriage would be an institution ever conceived of by God. The very fact of procreation makes marriage exclusive to men and woman alone.

The simplicity of the marital structure is of supreme importance. Take note that Adam and Eve’s union is a gendered and complementary union, which means it consists of a man and woman whose anatomical structure is designed, literally, to fit together for the creation of offspring. This is very important, because many advocates for same-sex marriage must downplay or altogether remove the male-female complementarity to argue for same-sex marriage.

Also observe that the marriage union of a man and woman consists of just one man and one woman, making their marital union monogamous (married only to one another). Sadly, as Israel deviates from God’s divine mission, their leaders and its people begin taking on multiple wives, thwarting God’s intention that marriage be reserved for only one man and one woman. Adam and Eve were to be sexually exclusive (having sexual relations only with one another).

And nowhere in the narrative is the union of Adam and Eve assumed to be anything other than permanent, meaning that their union was to persist throughout the duration of their lives. When you enter marriage, marriage is assumed to be lifelong.

What Marriage Is

“A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing.”2

Complementary. Monogamy. Exclusivity. Permanency. Here we see the structure of marriage take shape in final form according to the Bible. But what does “structure” mean? For something to have a structure means that it has a definite composition. And were one of the elements that make up the structure removed, you would no longer persist in having the original structure.

An illustration from chemistry class might help explain this in greater detail. Think of the atomical structure of water: H2O. Water is something. If we take away either a hydrogen molecule or an oxygen molecule, water will cease to exist. Now, perhaps a creative individual might want to add an additional oxygen molecule and call the resulting structure “water,” but any person who knows what water is—or who has experienced the quenching effects that only water can give—will know that just calling something by an original name does not, in fact, make it the original thing.

The same is true for marriage. Marriage is something. Once marriage is redefined as no longer complementary, the whole matrix of marriage’s foundation collapses. If marriage is no longer complementary, why must it be permanent? And if marriage is no longer permanent, why must it be exclusive? Why is the number two so important to retain if marriage is no longer complementary? Marriage revisionists refuse to answer these questions beyond saying such questions are a “slippery slope,” but I’ve not yet heard any satisfying answers on why redefining marriage wouldn’t logically lead to these possibilities.

From the foundation of the complementarity of the man and the woman springs the shape of marriage itself. If the complementary basis of marriage as man and woman is removed, the other strands that make up marriage become arbitrary and endlessly subjective.

What Marriage Is Not

This is why the advent of same-sex marriage is, slowly, bringing with it entirely new paradigms for human relationships, all of which chip away at the trust, beauty, and sanctity that biblical marriage promises. One lawyer in a prominent, elite newspaper suggested that marriage should be term-limited and renewable after an allotted period of time. He called the arrangement a “wedlease.”3

A popular writer, Dan Savage, wrote that monogamy is simply unrealistic, and so he created the novel term monogamish to suggest that spouses could have multiple sex partners as long as it happened in an open, honest atmosphere where the other spouse knew such actions were happening and were not hiding anything from one another.4

New York Magazine introduced a word into the American vocabulary when it wrote of a three-person couple—a “throuple”—that lived together as a sexual triad.5

The contrast to this always-changing, always-adapting understanding of marriage is to v...

Table of contents

• Series Preface
• Chapter 1: What Are We For?
• Chapter 2: What Does the Gospel Say?
• Chapter 3: How Should the Christian Live?
• Chapter 4: How Should the Church Engage?
• Chapter 5: What Does the Culture Say?
• Additional Reading