Supreme Shame: Part 1
This is the first of a three-part commentary on the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
On Friday, June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote to impose so-called "gay marriage" on all 50 states. The White House celebrated with a rainbow lightshow. What can I say? I say this: It's a shame.
It seems like a long time ago, but in 1997 when Ellen DeGeneres rehearsed her "coming out" television scene, she welled up with tears each time she said the line, "I'm gay." According to The New York Times, in a later interview Ellen said that crying was because of "shame" that came from society telling her that she was "wrong." Should Ellen have been ashamed? Was she wrong?
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The irony of the recent Supreme Court ruling is that Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, constructed the opinion around a moral argument for "gay marriage" as opposed to a legal one. The dissenting justices pointed this out and anyone who reads the majority opinion can see it right away. The Court majority's line of reasoning (feeling) was that America has seen the light, it is the good and loving thing to do, let's get on the right side of history, etc. As an American, I am happy to defer to the Court for legal arguments. But when it comes to ethical questions, no thanks. As a Christian, for moral issues, I rely on Holy Scripture.
So, what does the Bible teach about this subject? Justice Kennedy and company to the contrary, the Scripture is clear and consistent that homosexual practice is immoral, sinful, and leads to judgment.
The prima facie case against homosexual activity is found on the first page of the first book of the Bible:
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth…." (Genesis 1:27-28)
From this biblical text we know that human beings are created male or female and that sexuality was ordered according to a procreative pattern. Same-sex relations do not fit this pattern. Granted, not all heterosexual relations produce children. But all match a male-female procreative pattern. Homosexual practice does not.
This creation theme is found again in Romans 1:18-32, which is the most extensive teaching on homosexuality in the Bible. The interesting thing about this passage is that the Apostle Paul does not base his argument upon the Old Testament law that calls same-sex activity an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). He could have. But instead he goes back to the beginning. Paul's argument predates Israel and precedes the Law. Paul makes a creation argument. Namely, homosexual behavior is a rejection of the Creator and His created order of male-female sexuality. Paul does not mince words here. It is "vile." It is "not fitting." It is "shameful." There was a reason that Ellen felt ashamed. Sin brings shame. I know because I have felt shame in my own life caused by other sins, as has every Christian.
Speaking of shame, the second chapter of the Bible uses this theme as it develops the creation pattern further. Here we read:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed, (Genesis 2:24-25)
These verses establish a family pattern of father and mother, of husband and wife, and male-female sexuality that has no shame. Sex without shame is biblical and possible for a male and a female who become husband and wife. It is not possible for two people of the same sex and never will be, no matter what the Court says.
We hear a variety of objections. A pious sounding one is, "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality!" Actually, we don't know that. He may have. But what is meant by the statement must be that there are no "red-letter" verses in the Gospels specifically about it. At best, this is an argument from silence. I could equally say He did not support homosexuality because there is no specific record of it in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. It is not a weak argument; it is no argument.
Even though that objection cancels itself out, cutting both ways, it is also important to note that Jesus didn't specifically mention a lot of subjects. Why not this one? He probably didn't mention homosexuality because His ministry was in the Jewish context and there was no question or debate among His audience about it. Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Generic 1st Century Jews disagreed about much, but not about this. They all accepted the Old Testament teaching about homosexuality. It wasn't an issue and that's probably why He didn't address it, or at least why it was not recorded in Scripture.
However, Jesus was once asked a trick question about marriage based on the Mosaic code. But like Paul, He did not answer according to that law. Instead He based His answer on the aforementioned foundational texts, combining the themes in Genesis 1 and 2:
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female" and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate, (Matthew 19:4-6)
Because Jesus is Lord, Christians must come under His authority on three principles here: 1) Human sexuality was something established by God in creation, "by Him who made them at the beginning." Marriage is no mere human construct. It goes back to the beginning of the human race; 2) that creation pattern is man and wife, male and female. There is no same-sex pattern in creation sexuality; and 3) marriage is about what God joins together. We don't get to decide marriage rules. God does.
Considering the rich cultural history of marriage and the electoral majorities that have voted for "one man-one woman" marriage, the Chief Justice was right to ask in his dissent, "Just who do we think we are?" Considering the above scriptural teachings of Moses, Paul, and Jesus, "Just who do we think we are?" indeed. Does the U.S. Supreme Court deign to overrule the Supreme Being? Do five un-elected, unaccountable justices think they can overrule the Maker of heaven and earth?
Others object on the grounds that the biblical authors must have been simple-minded folk and didn't understand, and we Bible-believing Christians don't understand either. However, the enlightened ones today know that a woman can have a female "husband" and a man can have a male "wife." Actually, Paul was well acquainted with this kind of approach among the Gentiles. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Paul includes two words for same-sex activity in a vice list:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Why the apparent redundancy ("nor homosexuals, nor sodomites")? Actually, it is not a repetition. Paul is very specific, almost clinical, in his use of New Testament Greek language. While both of these words refer to homosexuality, one term is active and the other is passive. One refers to the "male" actor and the other to the "female" actor. Since homosexual practice is un-natural, someone must play the other sex role. With two homosexual men, one plays the male and the other the female. With two lesbian women, one plays the husband and the other plays the wife. This is true of the relationship and of the sex act. Without going into further detail, the reality is that the New Testament is not unsophisticated on this point. Paul was aware of dual homosexual roles and teaches that both are sinful as acted out in a same-sex relationship.
It is worth noting how "counterfeit" homosexual relationships and sex acts actually reinforce what Moses, Paul, and Jesus taught about authentic marriage and sexuality. The idea of "two" people, playing out "masculine and feminine" characters in a relationship, acting out "male and female" roles in the sex act, and now wanting to be "joined together" in "marriage" is telling. Why does a lesbian want a husband, albeit a female "husband"? Why do they want to get married at all? The answer is obvious. All this mimicry just proves the gold standard of male-female sexuality, marriage between husband and wife, is the real thing.
