An “Evangelical” Promotion of Same-Sex Marriage: A Case Undemonstrated

By Pastor Mark Christopher

A friend of mine recently sent me a blog article biblically endorsing same-sex relationships by Graeme Codrington and asked me to comment on it. The article in question is a summary article of a multipart treatment Codrington did on the topic. Rather than addressing every major assertion made in the article, I will limit my evaluation to one of Codrington’s primary assumptions. Codrington’s towering presuppositions is first stated about halfway through the article after he summarizes key Old Testament passages related to homosexuality. He concludes, “These are the lessons we learn from the Old Testament. They still apply today. But they do not apply to loving, same-sex couples who wish to have sex within the bounds of a lifelong, committed, covenantal relationship.” Then, after commenting on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10, he reiterates, “Neither of these passages has anything to do with lifelong, monogamous same sex relationships.” 

It is apparent from his statements that Codrington relies on part of the creation ordinance for marriage and sexuality while dispensing with a key element of God’s divine design for the same — namely, gender distinction. This is a common view by those trying to biblically promote same-sex marriage. The question is, how can one so easily accept some aspects of God’s creational blueprint for marriage and sexuality while conveniently eliminating the aspect(s) that contradicts the thesis, without explicit biblical proof? 

Here are a few observations from the creation context of Genesis 1-2 that ultimately undermine the thesis that life-long same-sex unions are biblically acceptable as long as they are monogamous and covenantally committed relationships in keeping with Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:23-24:

• The creation account offers a precedent setting paradigm for the divine prerequisites of gender distinction, marriage, and human sexuality. And while the creation narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, it is nevertheless precedent setting with assumed authority throughout the remainder of the Bible to include creation references to gender distinction, monogamy, and lifelong commitment by Jesus and Paul (Matt. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:2-12; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:22-32).

• From the “is” of creation (Gen. 1-2) come the “oughts” for marriage, gender distinction, and sexuality (Exo. 20:14; Lev. 18:6-23; 20:9-21; Matt. 19:4-6; Mk. 7:21-22; 10:2-12; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:8-10). A strong case can be made for the creation account serving as the touchstone for the 10 Commandments, which includes the 7^th Commandment serving as a category marker for all sexual deviations that depart from the creation ordinance.

• In Genesis 1:27-28, explicit boundaries are established from the beginning as the creation ordinance clearly differentiates between the “male and female”. This is in keeping with the rest of creation order and design. It is here that sexual boundaries are confirmed and evidenced in the first heterosexual couple who celebrated both their dissimilarity and similarity as “one flesh” by becoming part of each other through the symbolic picture of sexual intercourse (Gen. 2:23-24). This is something the uniformity of same-sex relations, of whatever sort, are never able to duplicate, because they lack the necessary dissimilarity required.  

• Thus, the fulfillment of Adam required a woman for a compliment. This is by divine design not by individual choice, or evolutionary happenstance. The Bible is unambiguous on this point.

• Scripture, overall, consistently upholds and reaffirms the creation ordinance of monogamy, gender distinction, and a lifelong covenantal commitment. In stark contrast to this, homosexuality insists that one gender by itself is an accurate representation of God’s divine plan. Yet, there is not one direct or explicit or implicit statement to substantiate the claim. It is an argument predicated on complete silence and advanced by philosophical sleight of hand.  

• Gender distinction was a unique characteristic of ancient Israel. Whereas gender blurring was a trait of many ancient Near Eastern societies (Cf. Deut. 22:5): a trait which is now enjoying popular resurgence.  

In light of the clear teaching and emphasis throughout Scripture on God’s blueprint for marriage and sexuality, it is interesting that some evangelical promoters of same-sex marriage insist on monogamy and a life-long covenantal commitment, yet, they so easily disregard the clear teaching on the necessity for gender distinction with no biblical warrant. With this as a major assumption, Codrington then seeks to limit all the contexts that reference same-sex distortion by relegating these variously related textual contexts to nothing more than limited prohibitions against same-sex activity in the worship precinct of ancient Israel and the early church. Yet, the unrelenting testimony of Scripture maintains the necessity of gender distinction from creation to consummation regardless of the context. This one truth alone undermines the entirety of his argument. 

In the end, any worldview that falsifies God’s created order, like negating gender distinction, is then prone to falsifying and distorting God’s created order (Rom. 1:18-32) culminating in the normalizing of sexual distortion (Rom. 1:24, 26-27) in every sphere, not just the religious realm. The only way to support such a thesis then requires one ignore the obvious and argue the ridiculous (Rom. 1:28).  

In summary, as Old Testament scholar Sidney Greidanus concludes, there is, “a universal transcendent standard for human sexuality which is an extension of creation itself: There is a norm for sexual morality that finds its origin in creation … it is a norm based on God-given nature of which all people ought to live by gender distinction and monogamy.” It is only by ignoring this truth, or part of this truth, that pro-gay interpreters, like Codrington, can promote what Scripture never condones. If Codrington is right, and gender distinction in marriage is no longer a requirement, then who is to say that marriage must be covenantally committed and or limited to only two people? Such is the terminus his faulty assumption.