The Western Church’s Conflict Over Same-Sex Marriage: What is at Stake

The ethical status of homosexual behavior continues to be one of the most controversial theological issues in the Western Church. Some denominations adopt an “affirming” position and give their blessing on same-sex marriages, other denominations hold firmly to the traditional position, and other denominations divide and split over the issue. I have already discussed the topic of homosexuality and Christian ethics at length in a previous five part series. In this post, I offer some further reflections on this issue and discuss what is at stake and why it is important.

Scripture, Tradition, and Theology

The overwhelming consensus of the Christian Tradition is that God intends marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that homosexual behavior is a distortion of how God intends human sexuality to be expressed. It is, of course, possible for traditions to be mistaken. However, if we are going to contradict the overwhelming consensus of the authoritative tradition of the universal Church across many times, places, and cultures over the past 2,000 years, there is a high burden of proof on us to demonstrate that this change is warranted. The “affirming” members of the modern Western church have not met this high burden of proof, not by a long shot.

The fact is, God’s Word is as clear as it could possibly be that homosexual behavior is sinful. Yes, there are some biblical interpreters who try to argue that that is not what the Bible really says. Whenever there is a theological truth that is unpopular, unfashionable, and inconvenient, there will be some people who will use special pleading to try to argue that this truth is not actually taught in Scripture. In the early 19th century, there were books and books written by American “Christians” arguing that the enslavement of blacks by whites was not only allowed but even authorized by Scripture. This is, of course, completely and utterly absurd, but this did not stop people writing books and books about it. And the revisionist interpretations of Scripture that try to argue that the Bible does not really say that homosexual behavior is sinful are equally absurd. In his book, Same-Sex Attraction and the Church, celibate gay pastor Ed Shaw points out that these revisionist interpretations are fallacious because they don’t interpret passages in their full biblical theological context, focus too heavily on extrabiblical sources at the expense of what the biblical text actually says, and set scripture against scripture; as a result, revisionist biblical interpreters have to use appeals to emotion, polarization, and doubt to distract people from the clear teachings of Scripture.^[1]Ed Shaw, Same-Sex Attraction and the Church: The Surprising Plausibility of the Celibate Life (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2015), 153-160.

And, no, Church’s traditional prohibition regarding homosexual behavior is not based on isolated proof texts from the Old Testament and the apostle Paul. As celibate gay biblical scholar Wesley Hill puts it, “In the end, what keeps me on the path I’ve chosen is not so much individual proof texts or the sheer weight of the church’s traditional teaching against homosexual practice. Instead, it is, I think, those texts and traditions and teachings as I see them from within the true story of what God has done in Jesus Christ–and the whole perspective on life and the world that flows from that story, as expressed definitively in Scripture. Like a piece from a jigsaw puzzle locked into its rightful place, the Bible and the church’s no to homosexual behavior make sense–it has a ring of truth, as J.B. Phillips once said of the New Testament–when I look at it as one piece within the larger Christian narrative. I abstain from homosexual behavior because of the power of the Scriptural story.”^[2]Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 61. It is the theological teaching of Scripture as a whole that informs the Church’s orthodox position regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. 

And are gay people outside the Church impressed by the decision of some modern Western Christians to reject the clear teachings of our own Scriptures in favor of what is popular and fashionable in the surrounding secular culture? When the Anglican Church decided to approve of practicing gay bishops, this was gay atheist Matthew Paris’s very insightful response: 

“Can they honestly say that they would have drawn from Christ’s teaching the same lessons of sexual tolerance in 1900, or 1590, or indeed 1950? Surely not, for almost no such voices were heard then.

In which case, to what does this “reform” amount? Like changes to Church teaching on divorce or Sunday observance, the new tolerance gains its force within the Anglican Communion from a fear of becoming isolated from changing public morals. Is that a reason for a Christian to modify his own morality? I cannot recall that Moses took this view of golden calf worship. Whispering beneath the modernisers’ soft aspirational language of love and tolerance, I hear an insistent “when in Rome, we must do as the Romans do. Times have changed.” Gays in particular should be very wary of that message; some of us remember when it was used against us, and such a time may come again.

A religion needs a compass. Logic alone does not point the way and religion adds to the general stock of human reasonableness a new directional needle–if it adds anything at all. I cannot read the Gospels in any way other than as declaring that this was revealed to man by God through Jesus. Revelation, therefore, not logic, must lie at the core of the Church’s message. You cannot pick and choose from revealed truth.”^[3]Matthew Paris, “No, God would not have approved of gay bishops,” The Times, August 9, 2003.

Thus, by abandoning clear Biblical teaching about homosexual behavior, modern Western Christians not only lose the respect of the rest of the global Church, they also lose the respect of all gay people outside the Church who are capable of being thoughtful, reasonable human beings.

The American church is under enormous pressure from certain social and political forces to become affirming of homosexual behavior, and a number of denominations have succumbed to this pressure. But, as celibate gay Christian David Bennett, a former anti-Christian atheist gay activist, points out, “What truly matters is not our view as the church or as a society. What matters is what Jesus Christ is saying to us. The lie we’re telling ourselves is that compromising holiness will ensure church growth. That’s false. Embracing and raising up those who are sexually faithful and obedient, as witnesses to our culture, will attract the world. Without holiness, Jesus Christ can’t be seen in us by the world; and without love, the world will resist the truth of this holiness . . Simply changing the doctrine of the church is the most unloving thing that can be done for Christians like me.”^[4]David Bennett, A War of Loves: The Unexpected Story of a Gay Activist Discovering Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 179-180, 259-60. When the fifth century Church decided to start using violence in the name of Jesus, in direct contradiction to what the entire Church had believed since the time of the apostles, it seemed like a good idea at the time. But it was ultimately devastating to the Church’s faithful witness. Becoming affirming of homosexual behavior, in direct contradiction to what the entire Church has believed since the time of the apostles, may seem like a good idea at this time. But it will ultimately be devastating to the Church’s faithful witness. 

What is at Stake: Deeper Issues

Jackie Hill Perry is a same-sex attracted Christian who for years lived a lesbian lifestyle. But, after a powerful encounter with the living God, she chose to walk the difficult path of repentance. She later reflected on her experience: 

“There is no other way to please God except to obey by faith. Obedience for those who are SSA [same-sex attracted] deals in the terrifying because it means to deny the body of what often feels as natural as smiling. SSA is usually not concocted or becoming of a particular imagination. It’s a real affection experienced by real people. So when commanded not to act out on these affections, even when they pulse through the body loud enough to make a sound, it takes an unearthly commitment to self-denial. Many will hesitantly but willingly take on the challenge, until they notice that such a task is not an easy one.

But usually, the crescendo into a steady string of temptations that return just as quick as they were put to death. Frustration and discouragement leads some into considering unbelief and all that it has to say about what they are to do. Unbelief, just like Satan, will always take the easy way out. It will tell us to eat the fruit in exchange for knowledge, instead of fearing God to gain real wisdom. Unbelief will unravel our perceptions of both suffering and the blessedness of life and beckon us to skip self-denial at all costs with the faux promises of comfort that can’t extend beyond the grave. And for so many others, unbelief has convinced them that they can serve both God and homosexuality. Both God and flesh. Both sin and Savior. For this, we know, is impossible. “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep sinning, because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9).

The Christian that deals with SSA should never look for another way to obey God that is outside the will of God. For we know that just as it was His will for Jesus to be crucified, it is also His will for us to abstain from all forms of sexuality that are not in accordance with His Scriptures.”^[5]Jackie Hill Perry, Gay Girl, Good God: The Story of Who I Was and Who God Has Always Been (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2018), 170-171.

When I hear my sister’s testimony, and the testimonies of many other same-sex attracted Christians who hold firmly to the biblical Christian view of homosexual behavior,^[6]See Costly Obedience: What We Can Learn from the Celibate Gay Christian Community by Olya Zaporozhets and Mark A. Yarhouse (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Reflective, 2019). I know I am hearing something very real that aligns perfectly with the teachings of Jesus (Matt 5:29-30), the apostles (Col 3:5), and the Church Fathers, as well as the universal testimony of the saints about what it means to live a holy life. But when Christians holding to the “affirming” view claim that they are suffering “violence” and “injustice” just because the Church asks them to practice some self-denial regarding their sexual desires, what are we to make of this? Saints simply do not talk like that. 

What this reveals is that the problem with the “affirming” position is not just that it contradicts the clear teachings of a few passages of Scripture. The problem is that it involves repudiating major theological teachings of the New Testament as a whole that have been regarded as central to the holiness and faithfulness of the Church by the entire Church for almost 2,000 years. As Stanton L. Jones points out, among those advocating the “affirming” position on homosexuality, “Absent are passionate calls to righteousness and to obedience to God’s revealed will. Gone is the New Testament repugnance for sexual immorality and an alternative passion for purity. Gone is a vision for the chaste life of singleness as a lifestyle of dignity and delight. Gone is any sense of how our sexuality, and indeed our faith, can serve purposes beyond meeting our own needs. Absent is a vision for how our sexuality must be harnessed and channeled to serve higher ends. Absent is a cautious awareness of just how contaminated our lives are by the fall and by sin, and of how profound is our capacity for self-deception and desperate need for God’s guidance in how to live our lives.” In other words, absent is biblical Christianity. The “affirming” position regarding homosexuality is based on a narrative that is fundamentally incompatible with the story of Scripture, a twisted narrative that sees personal self-fulfillment as the ultimate value and thus blasphemously considers God’s call to chastity and self-denial to be “unjust” and “oppressive.” 

It is deeply spiritually and morally irresponsible to abandon the objective truth of God’s word and to have the church’s doctrine be based on personal anecdotes and feelings. Yet that is exactly what many modern Western churches are doing by uncritically adopting LGBTQ ideology, in spite of it being radically incompatible with biblical teaching. One of the most important moral responsibilities of the American church (in addition to opposing violence, nationalism, and greed) is to resist the sexual revolution and its demonic lies, which have caused incalculable devastation in American culture: the lie that a person’s identity is defined by their sexuality, the lie that sex is where true intimacy is found, the lie that everyone has a “right” to sex, the lie that celibacy is a bad thing. LGBTQ ideology is just one manifestation of the sexual revolution, but its acceptance by many modern Western Christians is a sign that the modern Western church is surrendering to these lies and being absorbed into the world, rather than firmly taking a stand for truth and righteousness. 

I have no doubt that many of those supporting this change do so with good intentions, just as I have no doubt that most inquisitors tortured people and burned them at the stake with good intentions, sincerely believing with all their hearts that they were faithfully serving the cause of Christ. But, as the saying goes, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Sin and false teaching are objectively harmful to the Church, regardless of how sincere their proponents are. 

The abandonment of clear biblical teachings about sexual ethics in favor of the “inclusion” of everyone, no matter how they live, is supposedly justified by an appeal to “love.” But whatever concept of “love” this is, it is not the biblical concept of love. As New Testament scholar Richard Hays points out, the term love “has become debased in popular discourse; it has lost its power of discrimination, having become a cover for all manner of vapid self-indulgence. . . One often hears voices in the church urging that the radical demands of Christian discipleship should not be pressed upon church members because the “loving” thing to do is to include everyone without imposing harsh demands–for example, disciplines of economic sharing or sexual fidelity. Indeed, love is sometimes even invoked to sanction sexual relations outside marriage or the use of violence. Surely in such cases the term has been emptied of its meaning. The biblical story teaches us that God’s love cannot be reduced to “inclusiveness”: authentic love calls us to repentance, discipline, sacrifice, and transformation. . . We can recover the power of love only by insisting that love’s meaning is to be discovered in the New Testament story of Jesus–therefore, in the cross.” According to the concept of love taught by Jesus and His apostles, nothing could be more loving than a firm rebuke that calls a brother or sister in Christ to repent of their sin, and nothing could be more cruel than encouraging a brother or sister in Christ to choose to sin. Encouraging people to practice homosexual behavior while saying “God is love” makes exactly as much sense as encouraging people to slaughter infidels in a crusade while saying “Jesus Christ is Lord!” In both cases, the words are biblical. But, in both cases, we have something which, however sincere it may be, is so far away from anything remotely resembling a biblical vision of the Church that it is merely a parody of Christianity. 

All that to say, the recent affirmation of homosexual behavior by many modern Western churches is not an isolated moral issue. It is, rather, a manifestation of deeper and broader currents of unfaithfulness. When a church becomes officially “affirming” of homosexual behavior, it is giving in to and embracing these currents of unfaithfulness. When a church holds firm to the biblical position regarding homosexual behavior, that is (hopefully) at least a starting point for it to resist these currents of unfaithfulness. 

This is why, if the Western church is to be faithful, it must resist the enormous social, cultural, and political pressure it is under to become “affirming” of same-sex marriages. There are, of course, other very important moral issues regarding which the Western church needs to remain faithful or repent. But the importance of the Church being faithful regarding this issue should not be minimized.