Easter: God’s Promise That It’ll Be All Right

It doesn’t take long when thinking about God and suffering to get stumped. Even if we don’t spend time pondering it, if we live long enough the predicament will be thrust upon us. We may be able to figure out God’s purposes in some suffering, but much of it seems to make no sense, nor to admit of any easy answers. I’m not trying to give any answers with this post, but I do hope that I might be able give a bit of encouragement.

When thinking about suffering and God’s purposes, we realize the limitations of our knowledge and our powers of comprehension. God tells us that as the heavens are higher than the earth, so his thoughts are higher than ours (Is. 55:9). Paul exclaims “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33, ESV)

An illustration that’s helped me is that of the screaming toddler being dragged in by his mom to get his shots. The mother’s intentions for her son are entirely loving, entirely good, and entirely reasonable. Unfortunately for her son, they are also entirely beyond the mind of a 2-year old. All he can know at the moment is the pain; the workings of vaccination and its benefits both for him and those around him are beyond his comprehension. His mother can’t explain it to him; the only thing she can tell him is, “I’m here with you. Trust me. Everything’s going to be all right.”

It’s the same way with God. He does not explain his purposes in the suffering he ordains in our lives and the world around us; he only tells us that he is working all things according to plan and working in all things for our good. Paul reasoned that our present sufferings aren’t even worth comparing with the eternal glory that lies ahead of us (Rom. 8:18). Ultimately, God has told us to trust him that it will all be all right. Yet in this sinful and dying world, how can we know that’s God’s promise is really true?

Here is where the gospel comes to us as the best possible news. Through the cross, Christ took sin and the death it deserved upon himself. And through the resurrection he showed that their power had been broken once and for all. He “abolished death and brought life and immortality to life through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10, ESV). The resurrection was not an isolated event; it is the foretaste, the firstfruits, of everlasting life, of the resurrection of all who believe in Christ. It is the first drop of water coming through the crack in the dam, and all that is behind it will inevitably come crashing through! It is that first ray of light coming over the horizon that assures us that soon night will be but a memory!

So this Easter (and every other day), remember the promise that has come to us in the gospel and the assurance that Christ’s victory over death has given. And with the joy that comes from that, shout along with the rest of the saints, “He is risen! He is risen indeed!”

A Quick Note of Hope on Inauguration Day

As part of that minority of people that doesn’t particularly feel like celebrating the election of a man who believes the lordship of Christ extends right up to the point where it clashes with liberal interest groups and that the right to life extends right up to the point where it clashes with our sex drive, I would like to sound a hopeful note on this Inauguration Day. While I don’t find Obama anything to celebrate, it is truly remarkable that a black man has been elected President in a nation that a century-and-a-half ago fought the bloodiest war in its history over slavery and ended segregation mere decades ago. Who could have conceived in the midst of those terrible struggles that a black President was not too far over the horizon? So while circumstances may look bleak for those of us who pray for justice for all, even the most vulnerable and defenseless, let us not give up hope, nor despair if victory looks far off and out of reach. God does, at times, grant repentance to a nation, and we may hope that his hand will move yet again to bring justice to the oppressed.

A Quick Thought About Wealth

When God asks us how we responded to him making us wealthier than about 98% of everybody who’s ever lived, how’s he going to react when we admit that our main response was to spend a lot of time trying to become wealthier than 99%?

Monarchical Thoughts On Election Day

As of yet, no election returns have come in, and I don’t know who will be our next President (although if, by chance, all the polls are right, it will be Obama). I’ve said my share about the election, and many believers have done their part to support the candidate who better measures up to biblical governmental standards. Yet as strongly as we may support one candidate or oppose another, ultimately our hope cannot lie in an earthly figure.

Psalm 146 reminds us, “Do not trust in nobles, in man, who cannot save.” Today it would undoubtedly say “don’t trust in politicians.” Even the best disappoint us. King David himself, a man chosen by God and said to be “a man after God’s own heart,” committed adultery and murder and also brought a plague on Israel. King Solomon, the wisest man on earth, put a heavy burden on his people and led them into idolatry. Nor did their successors faithfully follow God.

But rather than leaving us cynical and hopeless, the psalmist points us to a higher hope, a hope in Yahweh, who created all and is its supreme ruler. We look not to good but faltering kings like David, who were unable to bring perfect peace and justice, but rather to the Son of David, the King of Kings who is the Prince of Peace and whose scepter is a scepter of justice.

Regardless of who is Caesar (or President, or Prime Minister…), we know that, while they may be our lord, they are never our Lord. God is the one who sovereignly raises up and casts down all leaders. When he raises up good ones, we can rejoice and thank him for that. When he raises up bad ones, we can take comfort in knowing that he is in control. Our hope, joy, and peace are not dependent upon election returns. Regardless of earthly circumstances, we know that Jesus is Lord, seated at the right hand of the Father, reigning until God makes all his enemies a footstool under his feet. Whatever happens politically, the Kingdom advances as the glorious gospel of God’s grace is proclaimed, stone hearts are transformed into clay by the work of the Spirit, and believers live as citizens of a heavenly kingdom regardless of what earthly kingdom they’re passing through.

So while I thank God for our democracy, ultimately, I’m a monarchist: one King, Jesus Christ, with all authority in heaven and on earth, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion. Give your vote to the best candidate, but give your trust and your praise to the one whose term in unending, who can change not only laws but a sinful heart, whom we did not elect but in whom we are elect. That’s one platform that deserves a hearty Hosanna and Hallelujah!

How Many Lives Is Obama Worth?

As my final pre-election post, I’d like to ask anyone supporting Obama–who wants to use your tax money to pay abortionists to kill babies–a simple question: how many innocents would you willingly see murdered in order to see his policies implemented? While I disagree with Obama on most major policy issues, I can understand that others may reasonably see it differently. Maybe you think his health care plan is superior to McCain’s. Perhaps you’re convinced that he’ll have a more effective environmental policy. Maybe you’re just sick of Bush and (correctly) think the Republicans showed they didn’t deserve to be in power (although Republican unworthiness does not Democratic worthiness endow). Let’s assume that you’re right, and Obama’s policies actually will do what they’re supposed to without creating many harmful consequences. I ask again, how many lives would that be worth? If your answer is less than “millions and millions,” then please vote against Obama and for McCain.

The facts about Obama being the most pro-abortion presidential contender in history are out in the open, though not often mentioned in the media. In the very best case scenario–a single term where Obama replaces only liberal Supreme Court justices and a Republican successor is able to undo all of his pro-abortion policies–Obama’s presidency would “merely” lead to the deaths of a few million extra unborn babies compared to a McCain presidency. In the worst case–Obama replaces conservative Supreme Court justices and keeps abortion completely unrestricted for another generation–well, let’s just say we’d be talking multiple Holocausts worth of difference. So if your number wasn’t in the “2 to 20 million” range, vote against Obama.

Of course, some may object to this, saying that it makes us single issue voters. Well, I’m certainly not voting against Obama solely because of abortion (here’s a good list of reasons), but I think the issue is sufficient to disqualify him. If you don’t agree, let me ask you this: if I subbed in some other minority that historically has been unpopular and powerless (e.g. Jews, blacks, the mentally or physically disabled), would it be different? Of course. Nobody would vote for an anti-black candidate saying, “Well, I don’t like his pro-lynching policy, but I do think his health care plan is better than the civil rights candidate’s.” The aforementioned minorities deserve the protection of the law not because the majority sees them as useful but rather for the simple fact that they are made in the image of God. Likewise unborn children–human beings made in the image of God–must be protected.

Biblically, the first job of the government is to protect the innocent and punish evildoers, not to provide health care and try to “spread the wealth around.” A vote for McCain is a vote for someone who’s got some good ideas, is well-meaning but wrong on other things, and, all things considered, probably won’t be the world’s greatest President. He will, however, be one who tries to fulfill the basic biblical requirement of protecting the innocent and punishing evildoers. A vote for Obama is a vote for someone who flips God’s commands for governing on their head–punishing the innocent and rewarding (with your tax money) evildoers and murderers. For this reason, first among many others, I urge you to vote for McCain tomorrow.

A Christian Perspective on Gay “Marriage”

NOTE: This is a written version of my podcast on the subject. I’ve also written a response to follow up questions to this.

1. What is marriage?
2. How did we get to this point?
3. Common Objections
4. Consequences
5. A Christian Response

What is marriage?

Whether it be shows on television, court cases in the news, or a gay couple next door, it seems that the subject of gay “marriage” is unavoidable these days. The definition of marriage is under constant debate, with words such as “intolerance,” “hatred,” “old-fashioned,” and “discrimination” thrown around quite often. Were we to listen only to our televisions, it would be quite clear that gay “marriage” is a wonderful advance, the new civil rights struggle that all right-minded people ought to support. And yet, as Christians, we must look beyond the media, movies, and music to find out what marriage is; we must listen to what God says.

When we look in the Bible, we find that marriage is a foundational institution that was created and defined not by man but by God. In Genesis 2:24, right after God has created a woman for Adam, he defines marriage, saying, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (ESV). This is not something God created merely for believers; it is a creation ordinance, a blessing given to all of humanity.

Nor is this view of marriage confined to the Old Testament; it is consistently affirmed in the New. When Jesus was questioned about divorce (Matthew 19:1-12), he again looked to this passage to define marriage and made clear that this was not man’s opinion but God’s own unchangeable definition. Indeed, when a man and woman are married, Jesus says that God himself joins them together. The Apostle Paul likewise looked back to Genesis when discussing marriage in Ephesians 5:22-33 and revealed that the marital union of husband and wife represented the much greater union of Christ and the Church. Both the Old Testament and the New make clear that God created marriage as a lifelong union of a man and a woman.

Given the clear biblical teaching that marriage is not a man-made institution but a joining-together done by God himself, governments have no power to create or redefine marriage; they can only recognize it. Thus it clearly follows that governments should not recognize gay “marriage” for the simple reason that no such thing exists. Since marriage is by definition a heterosexual union, gay “marriage” is a meaningless phrase that makes no more sense than a “square circle” or a “married bachelor.”

To use a rather ridiculous example, imagine that Bill Gates decided that dogs truly are a man’s best friend and went on a massive campaign in favor of dog ownership, running commercials on its virtues and giving a golden collar and free dog food to all dog owners. Now imagine that the cat owners of America, longing for the benefits of dog ownership, used their clout to pass a law stating that felines shall now be classified as dogs. Well, regardless of what the government call them, cats would still be cats and not dogs. In a similar way, the union of two men or two women will never be marriage, whether or not the government gives them a marriage license.

How did we get to this point?

The shift in thinking necessary for gay marriage actually occurred long before there was a same-sex marriage movement, in times when the very idea of it would have been universally condemned. The ideas that led to gay marriage arose first in our conceptions of heterosexual relationships. Over the last few centuries, in countless books, songs, movies, and plays, the idea has gradually become dominant that marriage is simply when two people are “in love” and make some sort of commitment to each other. This, combined with the dramatic weakening of divorce laws, has created a culture in which marriage is seen as merely a private arrangement between two adults for their own romantic satisfaction. Some wedding vows now say “as long as love lasts” rather than “till death do us part.” Marriages where romantic love fades are derided as “fake marriages.”

With this shift, all the groundwork necessary for gay marriage had been done. Since then, the Sexual Revolution, the Gay Rights Movement, and the decline of Christian belief in America have erased much of the stigma of homosexuality. Because the romantic, “being in love” aspects of marriage came to be seen as definitional of it, it became quite easy to make the leap from marriage being “a man and woman who love each other” to “two people who love each other.”

Of course, when analyzed against the biblical and historical definitions of marriage, it’s easy to see the error of this overemphasis on romantic love. In many cultures, arranged marriages were the norm. For example, in the classic musical Fiddler on the Roof, there’s a rather humorous song called “Do You Love Me?” where the main character, Tevye, after 25 years of marriage, asks his wife if she loves him. And yet despite the fact that he’s not sure, he and his wife are no less married than their daughters who marry boys because they’re in love with them.

We also know that there are cases where people truly are in love and yet cannot be married. A current commercial in support of gay “marriage” shows a bride trying to walk the aisle to meet the groom but being held back by wedding guests. It ends with the question “What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?” It’s a powerful add, one that plays on our emotions (and manages not to put a gay couple in sight). And yet imagine one additional detail: imagine the bride and groom were brother and sister. Suddenly our perception of the situation would change dramatically. Romantic love may be a wonderful part of marriage, but it does not a marriage make.

None of this is saying that romantic love is bad. The Bible celebrates the romantic and erotic aspects of marriage, but it does not make them definitional of marriage. Marriage remains a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman who are joined together by God, not a private and temporary arrangement between two people for emotional satisfaction.

Common Objections

Aren’t we “legislating morality” and forcing our beliefs on others?

This whole objection is fundamentally flawed. All laws are based on someone’s conception of morality; for instance, anti-discrimination laws (quite popular among gay rights activists) are based on the belief that it’s wrong (immoral) to discriminate against people. The only question is whose morality the law will be based on. While Christians ground their morality in the revelation of our Creator and Judge who is morality’s very source, secularists ground their moral judgments in nothing greater than their own subjective, self-interested feelings and the ever-changing opinions of their culture.

However, for the sake of argument let us grant this premise. We need only look to human history to see that it is in fact gay “marriage” advocates who are forcing their beliefs on others. In thousands of different cultures, separated by great gaps in time, language, location, and religion, there has been an institution called marriage. The details of it and laws relating to it have varied greatly, and yet the great commonality has been the union of a man and a woman. The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is not merely the Christian understanding; it is the understanding of the human race. Against this we have a conception of marriage that is not even a few decades old, forced upon an unwilling public by a small group of media and political elites and put into law by a small group of judges who abused their power by ignoring both the law and the will of the people. Who is truly forcing their morality on whom?

Why aren’t you respecting the separation of church and state?

We are. Separation of church and state means that the state may not establish a state church, like the Church of England, nor may it legislate articles of doctrine, such as requiring people to believe in the Trinity. However, separation of church and state does not mean that people may not vote and pass laws based on their religious views. Many of our nation’s greatest causes, such as the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, were advanced by people who used explicitly religious arguments (e.g. Martin Luther King, Jr.).

Shouldn’t gay people have an equal right to marry?

Of course. Gay people have always had a right to marry whomever they desire. A gay man may marry any woman he pleases, and a lesbian may marry any man she pleases. This is not mere semantics. A gay person cannot “marry” someone of the same sex for the simple reason that marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman. What gays are really lobbying for is the right to change the definition of marriage. However, since God defines marriage and has not changed his mind, their efforts will be unsuccessful, regardless of how many governments pretend otherwise. Two men can no more be married than a shape can be a square and a circle at the same time.

Isn’t a ban on gay marriage just like a ban on interracial marriage?

No! Anti-miscegenation laws were wrong precisely because they banned marriages based on an arbitrary characteristic (race) that plays no part in the definition of marriage. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a gay “marriage” ban, because there is no such thing as “gay marriage.” Rather, laws that define marriage as a heterosexual union protect the definition of marriage from being cheapened by falsely calling homosexual unions marriage.

Why do you hate gay people?

We don’t. Christians are called to love all people and proclaim the glorious gospel of God, which offers forgiveness and new life to all those who repent and trust Jesus as Savior and Lord. However, love does not mean giving people everything they want or agreeing with them against God. It would actually be hatred to go along with the lie that is gay “marriage” and encourage gay people to persist in their sin.

Consequences

Government approval of homosexuality

If gay “marriage” is the law of the land, the government will officially consider homosexuality something good, worthy of promotion. Indeed, this is the very reason homosexuals have fought so hard for it. In California, for instance, gays already can have all the benefits of marriage through civil unions. They pursue gay “marriage” not for any benefits but because they know that it is a powerful sign of social recognition. It’s about respect and approval, not benefits.

A redefinition of family

God created children to be born in a loving family, with both a mother and a father exemplifying what it means to be a man and a woman, each playing their own special role and using their own special gifts for the child’s welfare. Commonsense tells us and science has confirmed that perhaps the most important factor in a child’s wellbeing is loving in a natural family with a mother and father. In this sinful world, children may lack a mother or father, but only through tragedy, whether by the tragedy of death or the tragedy of divorce.

Yet with gay “marriage” as official public policy, the state will be promoting a new definition of family, one in which it’s not important for children to have a mother and father, only “parents.” Saying that it’s tragic when children don’t have a mother and father will be considered hate speech. What constitutes a family will depend only on whatever arrangement gives adults the most sexual and emotional satisfaction, and children will suffer because of it. Rose O’Donnell’s six-year-old child asked her, “Mommy, why can’t I have a daddy?” and she answered, “Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.”

Further redefinition of marriage

If gay “marriage” is the law of the land, the popular conception of marriage will be “a union between two people who love each other.” Having successfully attacked as arbitrary the requirement that the two people be a man and a woman, claiming that “love” is all that matters, activists will eventually realize that the requirement of two people is just as arbitrary. I would challenge you to listen to the arguments used to advance gay marriage and simply substitute in “group marriage.” You’ll see that they fit quite nicely. If the battle for heterosexual marriage is lost, the exact same arguments will quickly be used to make marriage a union between any particular number of sexually involved people who claim to love each other. “What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?” will become “What if you couldn’t marry the person(s) you loved?”

Indoctrination in schools

In a world where marriage licenses no longer have fields for “Husband” and “Wife” but only for “Spouse 1″ and “Spouse 2,” children will be instructed from a very young age that marriage is just a union of two people, that homosexuality is a good thing, and that opposition to homosexuality is hateful, intolerant, and bigoted.

Government persecution of Christians

Government persecution of Christians is not some distant threat; it’s a reality in places very near to us. For instance, in Canada, where the gay rights movement has advanced farther than in the U.S., a pastor who denounced homosexuality was fined $5,000, ordered to apologize, and banned from making “disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” A Christian in England was arrested for passing out leaflets presenting the biblical perspective on homosexuality.

If gay “marriage” and “gay equality” become official government policy, Christians will officially be seen as bigots. One need only look to gay “marriage” advocates’ favorite analogy: interracial marriage. If gay activists are analogous to civil rights activists, then orthodox Christians are analogous to segregationists. We’ll be seen as similar to the KKK and Neo-Nazis, only minus the sheets and swastikas. Christians will be disqualified from holding government positions. Companies with Christian businessmen will be sued for discrimination. Christians will be fired from their jobs. Churches will be sued if they refuse to hire homosexuals. Pastors who read passages from Leviticus and Romans will be jailed. These things could take a while; they may not happen to you, but they will hurt your children or grandchildren if the gay rights movement achieves its goals. Nor is this a Christian scare tactic; gay rights activists themselves have acknowledged that religious liberties will be taken away when “gay equality” is achieved.

Our Response

Use what power God has given you in our government: Vote!

In this democracy we are blessed to live in, God has given us the opportunity to take part in its government. We may not be running the show, but we can use our voice to vote for laws and politicians who will respect God’s laws, rather than abuse their power to promote wickedness.

Pray

We’re self-deluded if we think we can accomplish anything of value or significance without God’s help. Pray for God’s intervention and grace in our nation. Also, pray that our leaders will govern justly and allow us to “lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2, ESV).

Boldly proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, which can alone change hearts

Laws can help restrain wickedness and promote virtue, but they have no power to save. Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can change the hearts of wretched sinners like us and change the lives of all those who trust in him. Our hopes do not rest in earthly politics. Regardless of political advances and setbacks, we find our hope in a Savior who defeated the powers of evil on the cross, our victory in the Lord who rose victoriously from the grave, and our future in the King whose Kingdom is ever advancing. Whether the future be friendly or hostile, we know that with God on our side we have nothing to fear.

Related Links

• Focus on the Family’s resource site
• A Christian Response to Homosexuality
• A Christian View of Sex

Obama: Paying People to Kill Babies

That’s a strongly worded title, but it’s true and I’m going to back it up. Barack Obama, if elected, would be the most pro-abortion president in history. Now abortion is a touchy subject, and while I stand firmly on the pro-life side of the divide, I understand that Americans as whole tend to be conflicted and mushy about it. (If you’re someone who wonders about abortion, I urge you to watch this video.)

Obama, however, is not mushy in the least: he is consistently, 100% in favor of abortion. A few pertinent facts:

• Obama voted against a bill that would have provided legal protection for babies born during an abortion. Let me say that again: Obama voted against a bill to protect already-born babies. He then lied about it and went on to accuse those who called him on it of lying.
• Obama voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, where a doctor delivers a baby until all but its head is left inside the mother, stabs scissors into its skull, and then sucks its brains out. In last night’s debate, he claimed it was because he wanted a health exception. What people don’t realize is that this so-called health exception can be for any health reason a doctor wants, including “emotional” health. There’s literally not a single abortion that wouldn’t be allowed by the “health” exception.
• Obama will appoint Supreme Court justices who find a phantom right to kill your baby in the Constitution and continue to ensure that no abortions may ever be banned, not even abortions of viable infants.
• Obama has a 100% NARAL voting record.
• Obama promised to make the first bill he signs in office the Freedom of Choice Act. While abortion is already legal in every state–a woman can have an abortion at any time for any reason at any stage in the pregnancy–this would abolish all state and federal abortion restrictions (partial-birth abortion bans, parental notification, etc.). Not only that, it would require taxpayers to pay for abortions through government health programs.

Let me emphasize that last point, which is the basis of this post’s title: Barack Obama wants to use your tax dollars to pay abortionists to kill babies. This is not a matter of dispute, it’s not a matter of me viewing his words in a negative light; it’s a matter of public record. Now I’m no genius, but last I checked, when the government starts paying people to do things, those things tend to happen more often. Funny how that works.

Now I’ll be straight with you: I’m not just writing about this just because I disagree with Obama on it. There’s plenty of those issues, but this is one that I think should affect everybody’s vote, yours in particular. There are 1.3 million abortions every year. Think about that; it’s like a new holocaust every decade. Obama supports it and wants to spend money for more of it. McCain doesn’t support it, and wants to end it. That ought to affect your vote.

America is, as the Bible says, “polluted with blood” sacrificed not to the idols of Canaan as in olden days but to the idols of Choice and What’s Best For Me. One day we’ll have to stand before God and give an account for how we used the governing power he gave us–our vote. And I can assure you, many of today’s popular answers–one candidate was young and gave better speeches and said “change” a lot, one candidate promised to tax rich people and give me some goodies, one candidate had really nice-looking bumper stickers, one candidate was really popular with the New York Times, Bush was a lousy President, the economy was tanking–well, I doubt God will be impressed.

The Most Important Thing to Remember at Election Time

“Now brothers, I want to clarify for you the gospel I proclaimed to you; you received it and have taken your stand on it. You are also saved by it, if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you—unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…“

-1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (HCSB)

Turns out it’s also the most important thing to remember when it’s not election time.

Various Comments About Gay “Marriage”

I’ve received a fair number of questions in response to my podcast about gay “marriage,” which I’m attempting to answer here. This is specifically about marriage. See these links if you’d like to hear my take on sex in general or homosexuality.

1. We shouldn’t legislate morality.

This isn’t a valid objection. Most laws deal with some moral issue. Society’s most basic laws, such as those against murder, rape, theft, etc., deal with moral issues, and no one questions those. Granted, the bare fact that something is immoral is not always reason to ban it; talking disrespectfully to your parents is a sin, but not a crime. However, we legislate on moral issues all the time, so this objection is unconvincing. I also tend to find a lot of inconsistency here. For instance, those who throw this at the Religious Right then turn around and rail against Bush and torture precisely because they believe torturing people is wrong.

Regardless of whether secularists can be consistent with this objection, I don’t believe any Christian should buy it. Romans 13:1-7 says that the government is to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do good. So Paul knows nothing of a government that strives for some so-called “neutrality.” And when it comes to gay “marriage,” the government would be exactly backwards from what Paul says: commending homosexuals who do evil in God’s sight while disapproving of Christians who speak the truth about marriage.

However, even if the objection were valid, I don’t think it would apply to gay “marriage.” The fight over gay “marriage” is a fight over the definition of marriage, not over whether it would be wrong for gays to marry. Christians are saying that marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman, so gay “marriage” is impossible. Indeed, it’s not even necessary to believe that homosexuality is wrong to believe that homosexual relationships aren’t marriage. There have been societies that had no problem with homosexuality but never thought gays could marry.

Also, I’ve not heard anyone who’s using this objection calling for the abolition of laws against incest, which can hardly be justified without the belief that incest is wrong. Until I see that, I’ll remain unimpressed.

2. Christians are upset about this because most of them don’t struggle with homosexuality. And how can they oppose SSM when heterosexual marriage is so screwed up?

As I’ve said, the definition of marriage is not dependent upon the morality of homosexuality. However, I do think there is some truth to the notion that Christians are more upset by homosexuality than other sins because they don’t struggle with them. Would that I hated my own sins as much as I hate others’. But not all the blame can be laid on this, because gays are openly campaigning to have their sin praised as something good. Other sexual sins don’t usually get praised like this. There’s no adulterers’ lobby.

I also think a lot of the passion comes from seeing the foundational institution of marriage attacked. Christians have high regard for the family in a way that secularists don’t. Most Christians who argue against SSM, myself included, sincerely believe that the definition of marriage will come to be seen as something infinitely malleable once the perverted parody of it that is gay “marriage” is accepted.

And this is why the deplorable state of marriage in America is not a good reason to accept gay “marriage.” Gay “marriage” would further damage marriage by writing in permanent marker, so to speak, the idea that marriage is just about “two people who love each other” (and I believe the two part would soon be crossed out). Gay “marriage” would affirm the self-centered ideas that have carried us away from a biblical idea of marriage and into the disaster zone we’re currently in. Marriage in the country requires drastic surgery, but, like a doctor, we must “first do no harm.”

As for marriage in the church, it certainly is in bad shape, although I don’t believe that it’s as bad as the world. When you don’t just look at self-designation (”I’m a Christian”) but also look at whether people actually attend church, Christians have lower divorce rates. Nevertheless, you don’t have to be perfect to oppose further degradation of marriage. And divorce, for all its shameful prevalence, is still not looked on positively by churches. I’d like to see more proposals for reforming divorce laws, but if you look at prominent organizations like Focus On Family, they’ve certainly tried to save marriages from divorce and have supported reforms like covenant marriage. But a society that’s debating SSM may not be a society that’s ready to reform divorce laws. You’ve got to win the battles you can.

3. To be consistent, Christians would also have to oppose second marriages for those who divorce without just cause, which are state-sanctioned adultery.

Divorce is a difficult issue. I support the reform of divorce laws so that they only allow divorce for just cause or at least make it more difficult to obtain a divorce, not the current “no-fault” option that devastated marriage in America. That’s not likely to happen in the short term. However, I don’t believe in the indissolubility of marriage (as does the Catholic Church), so I believe that those who divorce without just cause and remarry, while sinning, are truly married to the second spouse. So the government is not sinning in recognizing that. It’s a different situation than lying about what marriage is with SSM.

4. Since the government can’t actually change God’s definition of marriage, marriage laws don’t matter very much.

Although God’s definition of marriage won’t change, rebellion against his standards can lead to widespread damage in a society–witness the damage done by the Sexual Revolution and no-fault divorce laws. Gay “marriage” will lead to a further damaging of society’s conception of marriage, because what the government says does matter to people, even if God is unmoved. Children who grow up being taught by the government that gay “marriage” is a good thing will have a different concept of family, and that concept will lead to very real harm both for them and their children. And given the problem with sex and divorce within the church, I believe many Christians will be damaged as they are influenced by the surrounding culture. So SSM will be harmful both for society at large and the church. If you want to see how much laws can affect a society, look at the rise of no-fault divorce, which led us directly to divorce being commonplace. We’re not trying to save souls with marriage laws, we’re trying to save families.

5. Persecution will be a good thing because it will weed out the nominal Christians, leaving a purer church that loves in deed, not just in word.

I would largely agree with this. To take just one example, when there are 16 million Baptists on membership roles but only 6 million can be bothered to come to church, the purity of the church has been seriously compromised. Persecution would certainly trim the membership rolls.

However, there are multiple routes to a purer church. Persecution is one, but I would hope that it would come about instead through biblical reformation: proclamation of the gospel, faithful preaching of the word, a revival of church discipline, all empowered by the Holy Spirit. I believe much of the impurity in the church is a result of the gospel not being preached, so that many unregenerate people sit in the pews week after week, unconverted by sermons composed of moralism, self-help advice, and pop psychology. If we preach the gospel and hold believers accountable for its implications, persecution won’t be needed.

I also don’t want to fatalistically accept American decline. We’re called to serve God in every situation, and I don’t fear the future, but we have been blessed with a wonderful gift of religious liberty in this nation, and I don’t want to see it taken away. I don’t believe utter cultural degradation is inevitable; God may yet grant this nation repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. If the church can reform itself, I don’t believe persecution will be necessary.

6. Should Christians also oppose marriages between heterosexual couples who aren’t Christians since they don’t represent Christ’s union with the Church?

No. One of God’s purposes in creating marriage was to represent Christ and the Church. Therefore, marriage always symbolizes this, although imperfectly. It’s not changed by whether or not the spouses are believers.

As for being opposed to marriages between unbelievers, I see no reason to. Marriage is a blessing for all humanity, not just Christians. Even if we opposed it, the government should still recognize it, for they truly are married.

The Bible doesn’t condemn the marriage of unbelievers, only the marriage of a believer and an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:39). A believer and unbeliever can still be married, so we should still legally recognize their marriages, but God is displeased with their decision to marry.

Podcast: A Christian Perspective on Gay “Marriage”

My first podcast is a discussion of how Christians ought to view the issue of gay “marriage.” You may be surprised to find that the immorality of homosexuality is not the primary reason to oppose it.

Download