Does Christianity Endorse Gay Marriage? By Francisco I.

Victa III May 12, 2012

A few months ago, Franklin Graham suggested that President Obama was not a Christian, or at least he was unsure if Obama was a Christian. In contrast, Graham was certain that Republican candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were Christians. After hearing this interview, I was disgusted at the polarization of Christianity based upon Republican and Democrat politics. Making a judgment on an individuals faith based merely on the complexity of policy is shortsighted. I state this opinion just so it is clear that I am not antagonistic towards the President. The vicious, judgmental tone of many of my Christian brothers towards President Obama is troublesome to me. In many ways, I think our rhetoric about the President is more reflective of a Pharisaical mentality than it is of a Gospel-driven concern for our nation. We have been more interested in standing on our soap-box and pontificating our positions than we have been concerned about getting on our knees in supplications, prayers, and intercessions for all those in high positions of authority (1 Timothy 2:1-2). That being said, quite a buzz has been generated by the fact that President Obama became the first sitting president to endorse gay marriage. In his remarks to ABC News, the president cited his Christian faith as the basis for his decision. In particular, he referred to Jesus own words in the Golden Rule. He says, (Michelle and I) are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but its also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. To wander into this discussion and question the presidents viewpoint will be deemed culturally insensitive and lacking good taste. However, It is ironic that the president appeals to his Christian faith and Scripture in

support of gay marriage. How would he reconcile other passages of Scripture that address marriage and homosexuality? Normally, those who are defending a secular, unorthodox position are at odds when one appeals to the Bible with a counter-point. But in the instance, it is the president who mentions that Bible as the basis for his position on gay marriage. What specific passage does he use to defend gay marriage? Matthew 7:12, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. By referencing this verse in support of endorsing gay marriage, the president does three things. Firstly, he pits one Scripture against another. To casually use Matthew 7:12 as the basis for the support of gay marriage lacks respect for the whole of Scripture. For instance, are Jesus words at opposition with the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27? Or how about Jesus clear explanation that the creation template defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman? (Matthew 19:4-5; Genesis 2:24). Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. It is pretty clear from Jesus statement that he viewed marriage as only between a man and a woman. Furthermore, the presidents use of the Golden Rule found within the Sermon on the Mount is bizarre when one considers that Jesus message not only affirms the Old Testament norms of sexuality, but also actually intensifies them (Matthew 5:27-30). You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. All of this is to say that if Matthew 7:12 can legitimately be used to defend gay marriage than we must be brave enough to say that the Scripture is not authoritative and should not be appealed to in defense of any ethic or position. If the Golden Rule becomes the permission slip for homosexual relationships, than the Scripture horribly contradicts itself and should no longer be used as a code of conduct for any aspect of life. Fortunately, the Scripture does not contradict itself. Certainly, the Scripture gives no double talk in the subject of homosexual relationships, or for any other deviant act of human nature for that matter. Historically, Christians have viewed the Bible as inerrant, infallible, and the authoritative rule over all mans actions. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). Secondly, the president implies that endorsing gay marriage and homosexual relationships is the Christian, neighborly thing to do. In this, the president has a partial truth. Yes, Christians should love people no

matter what their sexual orientation. Christians should love and accept people unconditionally. This is the way we have been loved by God, unconditionally. Admittedly, we havent always been a good example of this. There has been no shortage of cruel and contemptible things said about and to homosexuals by conservatives.1 We have all seen the person who purports to be a Christian protesting with a sign that reads, God hates fags. Such an act is detestable and a flawed portrait of a true Christian. Christians know that we are all sinners who are loved by a merciful God. Being neighborly, loving, and accepting of all people is Christ-like. But where the president veers in his explanation is to imply that endorsing gay marriage is the Christian, neighborly thing to do. In contrast, doing whats right, not whats politically correct is what is beneficial and loving to our neighbors. To make a decision based upon the ultimate well being of a community should not be viewed as intolerant and hateful. When Christians stand for Gods design for marriage as between a man and a woman, they are loving their neighbor and promoting the flourishing of society. And yet, as the president hints, this is in some way unchristian and unneighborly. Any view that opposes gay marriage is considered intolerant. For example, when she was still Miss California, Carrie Prejean was asked what she thought of gay marriage. She replied that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but thats how I was raised. In response to her mild yet succinct comment, Perez Hitlon, a gay columnist, said that she was a dumb bitch with half a brain. Another news anchor called her An ignorant disgrace who makes me sick to my stomach. 2In what way were these words neighborly and loving? Thirdly, in his support for gay marriage, the president appeals to Christs sacrifice for humanity. The president alludes to Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf. It is actually encouraging for the president of the United States to allude to the sacrificial work of Christ that ultimately took place at the Cross. But one must wonder whether the presidents understanding of the Cross of Christ is comprehensive enough. Does he see the Cross of Christ as necessary for an expiation of mans sin, or does he see the Cross as merely a demonstration of Gods love for humanity? In the context in which the president alludes to the sacrifice of Christ, it can be inferred that he sees Christs death merely as an act of love. In this view, Jesus loves homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Jesus loves us all,
1 2

Carson, 40. Carson, 40.

therefore, there is no more commentary needed on the subject of gay marriage. Why shouldnt they be permitted to marry? To think otherwise demonstrates an unhealthy fear of God and a bias against other human beings. We should be sympathetic towards gay marriage because we see at the Cross how much Jesus loves the world in that he gave his own life. However, viewing Christs sacrifice merely as a demonstration of love for humanity minimizes such qualities of God as justice, holiness, and righteousness. It also bypasses the fact that man stands condemned as a sinner before a holy and just God who cannot simply overlook sin. This truth makes the Cross of Christ more than a demonstration of divine love; it was also a demonstration of divine justice. Ultimately, Jesus died the death that every man deserved. As Erickson says, For God to ignore the guilt of sin without requiring a payment would in effect destroy the very moral fiber of the universe, the distinction between right and wrong.3 That, ironically, is the point that the president is missing in his citing of the sacrifice of Christ------there is a right and wrong. Christs substitutionary sacrifice proves that there is a right and wrong; he paid the penalty for what was wrong in order to give us what is right. Such a sacrifice doesnt just forgive for what we have done wrong, but it also empowers us to do what is right. The Apostle Paul says, We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin (Romans 6:6). In effect, by endorsing gay marriage, the president is saying that it is acceptable to be enslaved to sin. It is obvious that such an interpretation of the sacrifice of Christ is tragically lacking. When the highest office in the land endorses gay marriage, it is a sign that the problem facing our nation runs much deeper than this specific talking point that will soon be trumped by an overriding concern for the economy. This endorsement reveals a mantra that our culture has been confessing for some time: we believe in pursuing our happiness, our desires, and our selfsatisfaction at any cost. Surely, God made us the way we are, our natural desires should not be denied, and there is no one who has the right to tell us how to live our lives. Blogger Rod Dreher writes: The reason gay marriage is so widely accepted by young Americans is not because the media have propagandized them (though it is certainly the case that the media have played a significant role in normalizing it), but because same-sex marriage follows naturally from what young Americans already believe about sex, intimacy, love, liberty, and the nature of the human person. In other words,
3

Erickson, 833.

the primary problem in our country isnt the president or his endorsement of gay marriage; the primary problem is that we no longer believe it is necessary to agonize over our sin. Our unbridled pursuit of self-fulfillment dominates and buries any sense that we are responsible to our Creator. As Colin Hansen puts it so well when he says, The pursuit of self-fulfillment covers a multitude of adultery, divorce, and pornography in our churches. Why shouldn't it also cover homosexuality?4 This is what makes the presidents leaning upon his Christian faith in his endorsement of gay marriage so incongruous. The Christian faith calls on us to face the fact that God sees us as sinners, people who are in need of a Savior. This Christian faith urges us to deny both our propensity to sin and our habit of self-justification. This Christian faith calls on us to gaze heavenward for divine help that cannot be found in ourselves. The Christian faith reveals that the moral fiber of both man and the universe is agitated and disturbed. And yet, the Christian faith promises us all that whether we are gay or straight, president or pauper, there is One who can heal and make us whole again. This is a faith that is worthy of being endorsed.