The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently did something
shocking (and no doubt Mark Joseph Stern will say disgusting) and upheld gay
marriage bans in four states. I haven’t
read the opinion yet, so have nothing to say about the legal reasoning. The Supreme Court will let us know later this
Spring, anyway. However, it offers up
another reason to re-think the debate that has been swirling around in
Christian circles the past several years.
Much of the ongoing discussion among Christians centers
around whether the biblical admonitions against homosexual conduct really mean
homosexuals in committed relationships are in sin. Whatever else is clear, no passage of
Scripture points to homosexual behavior with a positive outlook. That’s why so much of the debate has centered
on whether the biblical writers understood homosexuality in the same way we
understand it today and, therefore, actually were proscribing some other form
of conduct. It occurred to me that
perhaps we haven’t been really analyzing this the right way.
Paul talked much about the idea of conscience – 1
Corinthians 8, 9 and 10 all have something to say about this notion. Christians are not all bound to behave in the
same way, even under the same circumstance in
matters of conscience. In pondering
this truth, I wondered why more gay “Christians” haven’t argued this more
directly, instead of spending so much effort on mental gymnastics about the
language and context of direct passages regarding homosexual behavior. Perhaps some have, although I haven’t
observed it.
It dawned on me that we never talk about things like
adultery, murder, or thievery as issues of conscience. There is no Christian liberty to commit
adultery, for instance. It’s just
wrong. Christian adulterers aren’t
coming out of the woodwork trying to explain why when Moses brought the Ten
Commandments down from the mountain that those were for a different culture, a
different time, a different people, with different understanding. The Christian adulterers aren’t arguing
adultery is really okay, especially when your spouse isn’t living up to your
desires. Even the most craven atheists rarely so bluntly suggest adultery rises
to the level of a social good.
We all recognize adultery and murder are wrong, even by
Jesus’ more tightened standards (don’t look lustfully, don’t think angry
thoughts). Interestingly, there is no
passage in Scripture suggesting adultery or murder is acceptable. Regardless of context, or biological
understanding, the Bible never provides a safe harbor for homosexual conduct,
either. Wouldn’t that, then, suggest
that homosexual behavior, much like adultery, murder, thievery, or other
biblically prohibited conduct isn’t simply a matter of conscience, since no passage
allows for its acceptance?
Paul, who so many in the gay community abhor because of
Romans 1, among other passages, suggests in 1 Corinthians 10:23 that
“everything is permissible but not everything is helpful.” Yet, I don’t see gay advocates running to
this passage as support for their position.
Why not? Doesn’t “everything is
permissible” mean that homosexual sex is okay?
Doesn’t it mean that gay marriage is acceptable?
Well, no. It
can’t. Why not? Because Paul certainly isn’t suggesting that
Christians have liberty to commit adultery or murder, since such acts are
clearly prohibited by Scripture. So this
puts the gay “Christian” advocate in a conundrum. Conscience is an insufficient argument,
despite its obvious and tantalizing appeal, because Paul simply can’t be saying
that or he undermines much of what he
had just said earlier in the same letter!
Even gay advocates who seek an otherwise Christian life have to
recognize that “liberty” can’t mean open to anything
or Christianity crashes in on itself.
Does this not then suggest that homosexuality cannot simply be
a matter of conscience about which Christians can agree to disagree? If it were so, that would be fine with
me. I harbor no ill will here. However, doesn’t the biblical text have to
mean the same thing across time or lose its inherent value? In other words, the Bible can’t mean one thing
yesterday but something new today, can it?
If it does, then doesn’t that mean we just need to wait a while until
adultery, murder and thievery become acceptable?
Ultimately, the Bible cannot be read as if it is a human
legal document, subject to the whims of those in power. While the Supreme Court may, or may not,
uphold the Sixth Circuit later this spring, Christians have to stand firm on
what the Bible says. Since the Bible
never condones homosexuality, Christians simply don’t have latitude to make
this a matter of conscience. The Supreme
Court can manipulate man-made law all it wants; Christians don’t have that
luxury when it comes to the Bible.
