By Jonathan Leeman
More and more commentators are saying that we have passed the tipping point on same-sex marriage in the United States. Almost daily another politician or public figure stands before a microphone to declare his or her support. It feels like the dam has burst; the paradigm shifted.
Whether or not same sex marriage is a political fait accompli, I don’t know. What concerns me in the present hour is the temptation among Christians to go with the flow. The assumption is that the nation no longer shares our morality, and that we must not impose our views on others and blur the line between church and state. Besides, we don’t want to let any political cantankerousness get in the way of sharing the gospel, right? So we might as well throw in our lot. So the thinking goes.
How hard Christians should actively fight against same-sex marriage is a matter for wisdom. But that we must not support it, I would like to persuade you, is a matter of biblical principle. To vote for it, to legislate it, to rule in favor of it, to tell your friends at the office that you think it’s just fine—all this is sin. To support it publicly or privately is to “give approval to those who practice” the very things that God promises to judge—exactly what we’re told not to do in Romans 1:32.
Further, same-sex marriage embraces a definition of humanity that is less than human and a definition of love that is less than love. And it is not freedom from religion that the advocates of same-sex marriage want; they want to repress one religion in favor of another.
Christians must not go with the flow. They must instead love the advocates of same-sex marriage better than they love themselves precisely by refusing to endorse it.
Read more at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/04/15/love-and-the-inhumanity-of-same-sex-marriage/
1 Comment. Leave new
Hi, Jonathan!
Like you, I don’t agree with the practice of same-sex marriage, but I’m a little reticent to tie those who practice and/or agree with it in an unqualified manner to “inhumanity.” So when I read the title of your article, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect when I clicked on the link. Having read through the article now, I find that I would have liked to see you flesh out that argument a bit more — what do you mean when you say that “same-sex marriage embraces a definition of humanity that is less than human and a definition of love that is less than love?” Since this is SUCH a hot-button issue right now, elaboration of your stance might go a long way to protect you from potential trolls. Thanks!
Blessings,
Jodi