Pastor
Mark Christopher
A
few years ago I was speaking at a conference on the topic of homosexuality and
same-sex marriage. Shortly after my plenary session, I was approached by a
Christian photographer who asked me what the Bible has to say about
photographing a same-sex wedding. This is a timely question, given the frenetic
pace of the moral revolution taking the West by storm. Not long ago a photographer
in the US state of New Mexico was sued by 2 lesbians when she refused to
photograph their lesbian wedding. The photographer reasoned it would violate
her conscience and impinge on her artistic abilities as photographer. The
lesbian plaintiffs countered with a charge of violating their human rights. In another
incident in Portland, Oregon, a family owned
bakery had to shut its doors as a result of refusing to cater for a gay wedding
in their area. Here in South Africa a wine
farm outside of Cape Town is currently being
investigated for not allowing a gay couple to rent their venue for their
wedding ceremony.
It
is clear that this one lightening-rod issue is being used like no other to curb
religious liberties in the West. Beyond that it highlights the sacrifice some
are making for the sake of their biblical convictions regarding what
constitutes a marriage. Their actions underscore the sacred nature of this
God-ordained institution called marriage. The related incidents above invite a
closely related query of a Christian’s attendance at a same-sex ceremony. Now
that gay marriage is becoming all the rage, more and more believers will face
the awkward and difficult situation of deciding whether to accept a same-sex
wedding invitation, or kindly decline. Society at large has already sent the
not so subtle message that to reject such an invitation will be met with all
the scorn and ridicule they can muster.
How
should a Bible-believing Christian respond to a gay wedding invitation? Well,
to answer this question we first need to entertain a few basic questions to
shed more biblical light on what is at stake biblically and theologically.
1. What, according to the Bible, is marriage? We
live in age that evades definitions because definitions are binding. For that reason
marriage has been radically redefined by our postmodern culture in order to
justify the fruits of the sexual revolution. But the default definition of
marriage extends all the way back to creation in Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:23-24.
It is there the essential elements of marriage are delineated being gender
distinction — male and female, numerical limitation of 2, and monogamy, for the
purpose of comprehensively becoming ‘one flesh’. It is through the one flesh
relationship that procreation is possible ultimately enabling the command to
have dominion over the rest of creation. Even in a post-fall world, the Bible
relentlessly promotes the default setting of the creation paradigm (Matt.
19:4-6; Mark. 10:2-11; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Cor. 6:15-18). Whenever sinful humanity
deviated from creation’s schematic it met with insoluble problems as evidenced
in the biblical portrayals of polygamy.
In
keeping with the Genesis ideal for marriage, Ray Ortland Jr. describes marriage
as follows: “At its very heart, marriage
is not a human custom, variable according to changing times; it is a divinely
created institution, defined for all ages and all cultures in our shared,
primeval, perfect existence.” Since
redemption is a return to creation, Christians of all people should understand
Ortland’s brilliant summation of marriage. In short, marriage is a parable of
the relationship that exists between Christ and His church, the bride (Eph.
5:22-33). When humanity arbitrarily changes the essential God-given
requirements for marriage, what you end up with is a forgery, a cheap
substitute that perverts the sovereign ideal. So the question the Christian
must honestly face is whether or not a same-sex wedding is following the divine
prescription or not. The answer here is patently obvious.
In
the case of polygamy the numerical requirement is exceeded and thus seeks to
extend the one flesh union beyond its ordained purpose. Where mono-gendered
ceremonies are concerned, gender distinction is violated insuring that the
couple will never approximate the one flesh doctrine. This results not in
matrimony, but fraternity. Call it what you will, but it is something less than
marriage, for a same-sex nuptial can never serve as a living illustration of
the unique relationship that exists between Christ and His church.
2. Is attending a gay ceremony really that big of a deal? This invites another question — what does
one’s presence at a wedding signify? Is a wedding just fun-filled frivolity
with some cake and dancing thrown into the mix? Or, is there a little more to
it? For starters a wedding guest is more than a mere harmless spectator. A
wedding guest is a witness, as Al
Mohler reminds his readers, who participates
as a “celebrating witness”. As a witness, those in attendance affirm and
approve the union in question. The witness is present to grant the
good-house-keeping seal of approval.
This
means that a wedding is more than just a party and a good time. It is a legal
occasion where both the witnesses, and those officiating over the ceremony,
actually join two people together before both civic and religious authorities.
As other commentators
have noted, given the significance of a wedding with the exchange of vows, it
simply isn’t possible to distinguish between one’s mere presence and
endorsement. By attending a gay ceremony the guest is both approving of and
promoting what the Bible clearly calls immoral and sinful. It is a mockery of
the God of creation and redemption. A wedding is not your average social
gathering. It is a social gathering with a spiritual and moral meaning, and
one’s attendance is not incidental of that meaning.
Recently
former US President George
H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara, presided over a
gay wedding of two lesbian friends. Mr. Bush’s presence was nothing short of a
ringing endorsement of that union and of same-marriage. Pro-gay forces are already
using the Bushes’ presence at that event as validation of the rightness and
efficacy of gay marriage. The sin of same-sex marriage has now gained further
traction as a result of the former president’s moral acquiescence. Rightly, Mohler
reminds us, “Attendance at a wedding is not a neutral act.”
3. But wasn’t Jesus a friend of sinners? Didn’t He
associate with tax collectors and sinners? Implied
in this line of reasoning is that failure to accept an invitation to a gay
wedding is fundamentally unloving and legalistic.
In
answer to the question at hand, most certainly our Lord ate with and associated
with those of questionable morals and standing in Jewish society (Matt. 9:11; Mark.
2:16; Luke 5:30; 15:2). So should we. Christ even conscripted a tax collector,
Levi, into His service as a disciple. But this was because these outcasts acknowledged
their sin. At no time did Jesus ever affirm sinners in their sin. He never
dignified nor condoned their immoral deeds in any way. To do so would have been
to glorify their sin and their sinful ways. On the contrary, Christ called them
to repentance, and then encouraged them to make restitution, as in the case
with Zaccheus (Luke 19:1-10). The Lord’s mission was to seek and save that
which is lost. This He could not do if He had ignored their sin. Jesus told the
woman caught in adultery to “Go, and sin no more.” Christians in attendance at
an unbiblical wedding, like a gay ceremony, are sending the opposite message,
“Go, and keep on sinning until death do you part.” Serving as a witness at
mono-gendered celebrations is to revel in and actively extol the sin of
homosexuality, while lending credence to the lie. It is confirming the couple
in their sin while aiding and abetting the promotion of the lie in wider
society.
The
motivation to abstain from celebrating same-sex unions is cosmological, not legalistic.
This means the rationale for such a determination reaches all the way back to
the pre-fall paradigm established by God Himself in the beginning. God never
amended His original design and purpose for marriage even in a post-fall
context, as previously noted. If
God has not altered His original blue print, than neither should we. Nor should
we authenticate those who do.
In 1
Corinthians 9, Paul recounts how he became all things to all men that he might
win some. This never included participating in or affirming their sin in any way,
shape or form. One would not find Paul frequenting a brothel that he might win
prostitutes to Christ. Nor would you find Paul perched atop a LGBT float at a
Gay Pride Parade — though you might find him outside the venue preaching the
gospel and calling many to repentance while handing out gospel tracts. A true
believer should no more attend a gay wedding than he or she should accompany a
pregnant woman to Planned Parenthood to have an abortion. It is biblically
incongruous with true saving faith. In the end Romans 1:32 warns those who
“although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things
are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
4. What if I offend those who invited me?
There is no denying that society’s acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex
marriage has now created an awkward atmosphere for those who take their faith
in Christ seriously. Unquestioningly we will be misunderstood, maligned and
misrepresented for simply taking a stand for the truth of God’s word. The real
question here is what is to guide the decision making process — truth or
experience? Fact or feeling? Faith or fancy? Scripture or subjectivism? Apart
from truth, any professed love will tend toward sloppy sentimentalism. The
decision making process in these difficult situations should be driven by an
equal measure of both truth and grace to keep from erring on either side the
equation. Truth and grace serve as the painted lines on the highway to prevent
one veering off the road or crossing into the lane of oncoming traffic.
Christ
had much to say about the necessity of would-be disciples counting the cost and
taking up their cross daily to follow Him (Matt. 10:26-38; 16:24-28; Mark.
8:34-38; Luke 9:57-62; 14:25-35) because there is one relationship that
pre-empts all others — the believer’s union with Christ! The commandment to
love your neighbor is meaningless if it is not preceded by and rooted in the
commandment to wholly love God in a comprehensive manner. So the logic that
insists that “I must attend this wedding or risk appearing unloving” just
doesn’t wash. That dog just doesn’t hunt because in the hierarchy of divine
priorities the Christian is to please God first and foremost.
While no one should desire to be unloving to our fellow man, the alternative in this case is to demonstrate an unloving attitude toward the God we say we love and serve. It is the love of Christ that should constrain the believer (2 Cor. 5:14) instead of the appeasement of a culture devoid of moral barriers. It was Christ who warned His disciples that He came not to bring peace but a sword … “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me …” In other words, Christianity was never meant to be a popularity contest. The same truth that unites the believer to Christ in heaven will often result in division on earth. In light of the fall, this should not surprise us.
While no one should desire to be unloving to our fellow man, the alternative in this case is to demonstrate an unloving attitude toward the God we say we love and serve. It is the love of Christ that should constrain the believer (2 Cor. 5:14) instead of the appeasement of a culture devoid of moral barriers. It was Christ who warned His disciples that He came not to bring peace but a sword … “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me …” In other words, Christianity was never meant to be a popularity contest. The same truth that unites the believer to Christ in heaven will often result in division on earth. In light of the fall, this should not surprise us.
When
writing the Galatians, Paul challenged them with an either-or ultimatum, not a
both-and opportunity: “For am I now
seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were
still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ”
(Galatians 1:10). This is the question
every believer in Christ must always keep ever before them. The truth is we are
never more loving than when we obey God’s word. The most unloving thing a
Christian can do is to validate someone in their sin by participating in an
activity that glorifies and elevates that sin to the detriment of God’s established
standard. So in answer to the question “What if I offend them?”, I answer, “Who
would you rather offend, God or man?”
It
is biblically evident that marriage is to be defined by God, not man. It is for
man to recognize what God ordained, not redefine it. For this reason marriage
is unique and carries great import and meaning whether recognized by humanity
or not. Marriage, as portrayed in Scripture, is an apt illustration for the
sacred and mystical relationship that exists between Christ and His blood-bought
bride, the Church! No other relational combination beyond that outlined in
Genesis 1 and 2 can ever equal or improve upon what God has revealed and
commanded in His word. Given the sacredness and preciousness of God-ordained
marriage, the Church is called to be the earthly steward of this beautiful
parable by protecting it, prizing it, and promoting it, in keeping with His
sovereign directive.
When
Christians thoughtlessly or callously attend a mockery (like a same-sex
ceremony) of a sacred event, they are unwittingly helping to normalize and
legitimize[i]
someone else’s sin. No doubt this is one of the primary reasons gays desire the
formality of marriage. Peter
Jones sagely notes, “It obliges the rest of
society formally to affirm the righteousness of their relationship. As soon as
Christians attend gay weddings as a matter of course, in the name of friendship
and even ‘love,’ we will have lost the public attempt to preserve creational
marriage as society’s norm. If you want gay marriage as part of the law of the
land, supporting individual gay marriage is a sure-fire way to make it happen.”
When a Christian supports a gay wedding it amounts to the tacit promotion of matrimonicide
— the death of marriage. God will not hold those guiltless who debase what He created
and pronounced good.
Rather,
let us remember we are to be custodians of what God has entrusted to us by pursuing
the admonition of Hebrews 13:4: “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and
the marriage bed undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” So
for those who ask WWJD if He had been invited to a gay wedding? Look no further
than Hebrews 13:4!
Al Mohler
fittingly concludes, “Christians cannot affirm what the Bible defines as sin, and yet that is what
is demanded of us in our current cultural context. One of the hardest issues for
every Christian will be the responsibility to relate to everyone we know with both
love and truth.”
[i] As a sub-culture in western society the LGBT
community is not naturally predisposed to marriage as an institution. But the
promotion of marriage was necessary to gain acceptance and legitimacy as a marginalized
population. By campaigning for marriage “equality” the LGBT lobby seeks to
first normalize their sinful lifestyle, and then on the basis of new found
legitimacy, begin legislating against all those who disagree with and oppose
same-sex marriage. As partial indication that gays do not really esteem
marriage as an institution, just look at the actual numbers of gays who have
availed themselves to official civil marriage: In the Netherlands, the first country to legalize gay marriage in
2001, only 3% of the gay population in Holland has tied the knot. In South Africa the statistics are even more revealing. Since
same-sex marriage became the law of the land in December of 2006 only 3,327
mono-gendered unions have taken place through 2011. Given a gay population of
1.5 million this amounts to less than .45% of the LGBT community taking advantage
of their new found “right”. Based on these figures it is hard to believe the
gay community prizes, cherishes, and desires marriage as a traditional
institution.
No comments:
Post a Comment