Re-blog from Kevin DeYoung: Why the Arguments for Gay Marriage Are Persuasive

Why the Arguments for Gay Marriage Are Persuasive (from Kevin DeYoung’s blog).

I should have re-bloged this post the day it came out:

Why the Arguments for Gay Marriage Are Persuasive

With two landmark gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court we are already seeing a flurry of articles, posts, tweets, and status updates about the triumph it will be when America finally embraces equality for all and allows homosexuals to love each other. These tweets and posts and articles perfectly capture the reason why the arguments for gay marriage have become so persuasive so fast. Given the assumptions and patterns of thinking our culture has embraced in the last fifty years, the case for gay marriage is relatively easy to make and the case against it makes increasingly little sense.

I don’t think the arguments for gay marriage are biblically faithfully, logically persuasive, or good for human flourishing in the long run, but they are almost impossible to overcome with most Americans, especially in younger generations. By and large, people don’t support gay marriage because they’ve done a lot of reading and soul searching, just like people didn’t oppose it on high flying intellectual grounds either. For a long time, homosexuality seemed weird or gross. Now it seems normal. More than that, it fits in perfectly with the dominant themes and narratives shared in our culture. Gay marriage is the logical conclusion to a long argument, which means convincing people it’s a bad idea requires overturning some of our most cherished values and most powerful ideologies.

Think of all the ways gay marriage fits in with our cultural mood and assumptions.

1. It’s about progress. Linking the pro-gay agenda with civil rights and women’s rights was very intentional, and it was a masterstroke. To be against gay marriage, therefore, is to be against enlightenment and progress. It puts you on the “wrong side of history.” Of course, most people forget that lots of discarded ideas were once hailed as the inevitable march of progress. Just look at Communism or eugenics or phrenology or the Volt. But people aren’t interested in the complexities of history. We only know we don’t want to be like the nincompoops who thought the sun revolved around the earth and that slavery was okay.

2. It’s about love. When gay marriage is presented as nothing but the open embrace of human love, it’s hard to mount a defense. Who could possibly be against love? But hidden in this simple reasoning is the cultural assumption that sexual intercourse is necessarily the highest, and perhaps the only truly fulfilling, expression of love. It’s assumed that love is always self-affirming and never self-denying. It’s assumed that our loves never require redirection. Most damagingly, our culture (largely because of heterosexual sins) has come to understand marriage as nothing but the state sanctioning of romantic love. The propagation and rearing of children do not come into play. The role in incentivizing socially beneficial behavior is not in the public eye. People think of marriage as nothing more than the commitment (of whatever duration) which romantic couples make to each other.

3. It’s about rights. It’s not by accident the movement is called the gay rights movement. And I don’t deny that many gays and lesbians feel their fundamental human rights are at stake in the controversy over marriage. But the lofty talk of rights blurs an important distinction. Do consenting adults have the right to enter a contract of their choosing? It depends. Businesses don’t have a right to contract for collusion. Adults don’t have a right to enter into a contract that harms the public good. And even if you think these examples are beside the point, the fact remains that no law prohibits homosexuals (or any two adults) from making promises to each other, from holding a ceremony, from entering into a covenant with each other. The question is whether the government should bestow upon that contract the name of marriage with all the rights and privileges thereto.

4. It’s about equality. Recently, I saw a prominent Christian blogger tweet that she was for gay marriage because part of loving our neighbor is desiring they get equal justice under the law. Few words in the American lexicon elicit such broad support as “equality.” No one wants to be for unequal treatment under the law. But the issue before the Supreme Court is not equality, but whether two laws–one voted in by the people of California and the other approved by our democratically elected officials–should be struck down. Equal treatment under the law means the law is applied the same to everyone. Gay marriage proponents desire to change the law so that marriage becomes something entirely different. Surveys often pose the question “Should it be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to marry?” That makes it sound like we are criminalizing people for commitments they make. The real issue, however, is whether the state has a vested interest in sanctioning, promoting, and privileging certain relational arrangements. Is it unjust for the state not to recognize as marriage your group of four friends, close cousins, or an office suite just because they want their commitments to be called marriage?

5. It’s about tolerance. Increasingly, those who oppose gay marriage are not just considered wrong or mistaken or even benighted. They are anti-gay haters. As one minister put it, gay marriage will eventually triumph because love is stronger than hate. Another headline rang out that “discrimination is on trial” as the Supreme Court hears arguments on Proposition 8 and DOMA. The stark contrast is clear: either you support gay marriage or you are a bigot and a hater. It’s no wonder young people are tacking hard to left on this issue. They don’t want to be insensitive, close-minded, or intolerant. The notion that thoughtful, sincere, well-meaning, compassionate people might oppose gay marriage is a fleeting thought.

So what can be done? The momentum, the media, the slogans, the meta-stories all seem to be on the other side. Now what?

For starters, churches and pastors and Christian parents can prepare their families both intellectually and psychologically for the opposition that is sure to come. Conservative Christians have more kids; make sure they know what the Bible says and know how to think.

We should also remember that the church’s mission in life is not to defeat gay marriage. While too many Christians have already retreated, there may be others who reckon that everything hangs in the balance on this one issue. Let’s keep preaching, persevering, pursuing joy, and praying for conversions. Christians should care about the issue, and then carry on.

And if we are interested in being persuasive outside of our own churches, we’ll have to do several things better.

1) We need to go back several steps in each argument. We’ll never get a hearing on this issue, or a dozen others issues, unless we trace out the assumptions behind the assumptions behind the arguments behind the conclusions.

2) We need more courage. The days of social acceptability for evangelicals, let alone privilege, are fading fast in many parts of the country. If we aren’t prepared to be counter-cultural we aren’t ready to be Christians. And we need courage not only to say what the Bible says, but to dare say what almost no one will say–that gay sex is unnatural and harmful to the body, that abandoning gender distinctions will be catastrophic for our society and for children, and that monogamy and exclusivity is often understood differently in the gay community.

3) We need more creativity. Statements and petitions and manifestos have their place, but what we really need is more than words and documents. We need artists and journalists and movie makers and story tellers and spoken word artists and comedians and actors and rappers and musicians who are galvanized by the truth to sing and speak and share in such a way that makes sin look strange and righteousness look normal.

4) We need a both-and approach. In the months ahead I imagine we’ll see Christians wrestle with whether the best way forward is to form new arguments that appeal to people where they’re at, or whether we simply need to keep preaching the truth and trust God to give some people the ears to hear. I’m convinced we need to do both. Let’s keep preaching, teaching, and laboring for faithful churches. Let’s be fruitful and multiply. Let’s train our kids in the way they should go. Let’s keep sharing the good news and praying for revival. And let’s also find ways to make the truth plausible in a lost world. Not only the truth about marriage, but the truth about life and sex and creation and beauty and family and freedom and a hundred other things humans tend to forget on this side of Adam. The cultural assumptions in our day are not on our side, but if the last 50 years has shown us anything, it’s that those assumptions can change more quickly than we think.

When You Sense Your Church is Dying

Friends at christianity.com have posted my, “When You Sense Your Church is Dying.” Here is an excerpt:

One of the most wonderful experiences believers can share is being part of a strong, growing church. What a joy it is to share in a congregation that has unity, love, holiness, a sense of the Spirit in worship, Christ-centered preaching, God-fearing leaders, members of all age groups and ministries towards all members, and a passion for reaching the lost. In contrast, it is burdensome to be part of a dying congregation: Worship is mundane, large age group segments are absent, there is strife among members and coldness toward visitors, and there is no purposeful preaching of the gospel to the lost or the baptized.

Having been part of both thriving and dying churches, I have witnessed believers make choices that have either blessed or harmed the recovery of their congregations. Here are some humble suggestions on how to live godly when you are facing a dying church.

My true concern is that we do not think long and hard about the Gospel when church becomes uncomfortable to us. Instead, we simply look for greener grass, not thinking about the possible ways the Lord can use us to be part of his work to sanctify his Bride, which includes one’s own, individual sanctification.

Recently I spoke with three young adult believers between 25 and 35 years of age,  each from different congregations, about staying in their churches of aging membership(s) and/or mediocre preaching and/or traditional corporate worship style(s). I appealed to them to consider the growth in their lives that could come from learning to endure and serve in imperfect settings. I attempted to explain that the substance of worship music is more important than the style, and that much could be learned from less contemporary styles. I spoke with urgency about the need to see the value of continuing in one place for a long time in order to see disciples formed and in order to maintain relationships saturated in the love of Christ. I wished for them to gather with other members in their churches to pray for the hearts of their older congregants, pastors, and leaders to be open to changes that would glorify the Lord and bring signs of life and health back into the church — and that for the sake of the local and international mission fields each of their churches could reach.

I think of the three that one heart was won to stay. One-third is not a bad bating average. However, I wish more saints would learn to remain in tough situations, pursuing the glory of God through prayer, meekness, and faithfulness. I am not suggesting that anyone accept false doctrine, ongoing infighting, or sub-Gospel lifestyles. Yet I am saying that where churches are seeking to honor the Lord but have lost their way slightly, it is better not to abandon such assemblies.

I am grateful for the ministry of christianity.com. I was glad to meet some of the faithful staff at TGC13.

Related:  Gospel Departures , and Committing to One Another (@amazon).

 

Carson at TGC National Conference

What a challenge it is to attempt to capture D. A. Carson’s most significant exegetical and theological insights while he is speaking! He brings such a thorough perspective to almost every topic on which he speaks it is difficult to chose which insights should get the modifier, “most significant.” Instead, allow me to offer some commentary from his message, “Jesus’ Resolve to Head Toward Jerusalem” from Lk. 9:18-62, given at TGC13:

On Lk. 9:22-23: “Talk about seeker sensitive: Want to be a Christian? The Cross!”

On Lk. 9:24: “Jesus uses extreme language because it is an extreme death.”

On Lk. 9:41: “[Jesus basically says], ‘I really am looking forward to going home!’”

On Lk. 9:43-49: “[The disciples] could not get his death because they are having an argument about greatness rather than death… They are not clamoring to join him in his suffering… They want to be close to Jesus, but Jesus wants to see how [they] welcome a child, for then [they] are not showing off or brandishing [their] résumé[s]… They want to climb the corporate ladder and get rid of messianic competition” (with reference to the parallels in Mt. 20 and Mk. 10).

On Lk. 9:51-53: “Raw terror leads him to Jerusalem. But nothing will weaken his resolve to die on the Cross.”

On Lk. 9:57-62: “This is not [some] abstract cost of discipleship, but the demands of a to-be-crucified-Messiah.”

I chose not to write down any notes from Carson’s lecture, “What Do We Mean When We Confess Jesus to be the Son of God?” since he recently published a book addressing the topic: Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed (Crossway, 2012; Credo Magazine has a link to the audio of a lecture of the same title). Instead I simply listened and enjoyed Carson’s discussions concerning the convergence of the OT Messianic expectation with the NT / First Century sonship concepts.

Carson gave a great analogy on the difficulties faced by those translating the Scriptures for highly Muslim populated contexts – contexts where the idea of God having a “son” sounds like a blasphemous, divine-human copulation: The French Canadian equivalent of the English idiom, “I have a frog in my throat” is “I have [a] cat’s throat.” If you were translating the French into the English, would you use the English idiom, or something retaining “cat’s” if “cat” was a term with deeply invested theological meaning? A fuller discussion can be found in the book.

I am hoping that Crossway will compile the edited texts of the TGC13 expositions through Luke’s Gospel account. I will look for it in 2014. I also hope the Lord has willed from eternity past for Carson to produce a commentary on Luke.

(Link to Carson’s Jesus the Son of God at Amazon)

 

Endorsement of The Ascension by Chester and Woodrow

The good people at Christian Focus Publishers (CFP) kindly invited me to preview and endorse Tim Chester and Jonny Woodrow’s, The Ascension: Humanity in the Presence of God (96 pp.; also available through WTS Bookstore). Here is the endorsement (with my name misspelled on the Amazon page):

 Tim Chester and Jonny Woodrow pull back the curtains of the true temple to disclose the glories of the ongoing work of the Savior on our behalf. They powerfully reveal the Ascension as fulfillment of what all of Redemptive History foreshadows—that the Lord’s own will enter his presence only through the work of the one who can go up into the very clouds of God Almighty.  Along the way the seasoned churchmen teach us how to read the two Testaments with great Biblical-theological insight. Meditation upon this exposition of Christ’s “going up” will strengthen all aspects of our private and corporate worship, prayer, evangelism, of public kingdom living and of Gospel preaching. Chester and Woodrow have given us a gift that will lift our eyes from this temporal horizon to the steppes of eternal joys of our High Priest in heaven.

From the book, please consider this passage on the question of the Ascension within the flow of Redemptive History:

Near where we live is the parish church of St Mary and St Martin in the village of Blyth, Nottinghamshire. Along the south side is a series of four stained-glass windows which date from around 1300. Each of the four windows consists of three pairs of stories. In each case the lower image is a story from the Old Testament while the image above depicts a New Testament story that fulfills the promise implicit in the Old Testament story. This is a medieval biblical theology in coloured glass.

Many of the pairings are predictable. Naaman being cleansed of leprosy in the River Jordan is paired with Jesus healing the leper in Mark 1. Isaac carrying wood up Mount Moriah is paired with Jesus carrying the cross. The Passover meal is paired with Jesus being stripped for crucifixion.

Two panes relate to the ascension. One shows Mary Magdalene grasping hold of the Risen Christ with Jesus saying, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended’ (John 20:17). The second shows the ascension itself. Which Old Testament stories would you choose to match these New Testament fulfillments?

In the windows of St Mary and St Martin’s the scene underneath Jesus saying to Mary, ‘Touch me not for I am not yet ascended’ is Abel’s acceptable sacrifice (Gen. 4:4) and underneath the ascension itself is a picture of Abraham meeting the priest-king Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18). As we shall see, the medieval craftsmen who made these windows rightly identified the ascension as the fulfillment of all that sacrifice and priesthood represented in the Old Testament. (13-14)

I will not give away the riches of the presentation.  I encourage you to get it and read it for yourself and those you serve.

I am grateful to have met Willie and Kate Mackenzie of CFP at TGC13.  I enjoyed my time of fellowship with them.

 

TGC Clippings

Piper says that we live in a time in which people do not live with safety in our (doctrinal) knowledge: “We know them like clouds and not mountains… Ask [believers] what they think and they tell you the cloud truth…. Luke is countering that.” Comments in sermon at Lk 1:1-4.

Anyabwile and Wilson: Black and Tan Thoughts

I have been following the irenic exchange between Thabiti Anyabwile and Doug Wilson concerning Wilson’s Black and Tan: A Collection of Essays and Excursions on Slavery, Culture War, and Scripture in America (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2005). Anthony Bradley previously kicked-off an exchange with Wilson: Post, Reply, Rejoinder, Surrejoinder, Rebutter, Surrebutter (?). This new debate began with Brian Lorritts’ comments about Wilson’s work.

I was preparing a post to round up the links for entire discussion when Thabiti spared me the headache.  Thabiti and Doug have since added their own final words.

Doug is my brother in Christ, and I like him—as much as I can know him through his writing and speaking. I have been one of his followers for many years – at least for a year before Credenda Agenda published an extremely funny comment in response to Jerry Falwell’s gaffe over the Teletubby: Anyone who has seen even 60 seconds of Teletubbies is gay; (as best I can remember that was the line and I roared with laughter for a very long time after reading it). While Doug tends to use wit to make his point as well as does George Will (and Carl Trueman), he writes with great seriousness and I take his thoughts seriously. I have enjoyed his works on family, manhood, and marriage. I used his book on rhetoric as a required text the last time I taught homiletics. I have utilized his study guide to Calvin’s Institutes in personal study and hope to use it in ministry to the young adults at my current church. So I have no personal dislike of or grievance toward Doug, and I find him to be a tremendously gifted thinker and blessing to the body of Christ.

Yet I readily admit that something about his paleo-confederate views still strike a note of discord with me. However, I have not yet discerned the real point of my own concern: Could it be that Doug is not wrong in his conclusions? Or is it that the error is beyond the direction of the current discussion?

Back to Black and Tan it is, along with much more prayer, a rereading of all of the Anyabwile-Wilson discussions, and much more pondering over the Scriptures and our beliefs. Maybe the Lord will be kind and show us where we all have erred in our discussions on race and society.

The Little Redheaded Girl and Relativism: Senator Portman and Same Sex Attractions

Below is a large portion of the text from the article, “GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out,” (Yahoo News: The Ticket, March 15, 2013).

A prominent conservative senator said on Thursday that he now supports gay marriage.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters from the Columbus Dispatch and other Ohio newspapers that his change of heart on the hot-button issue came two years after his son, Will, told him and his wife that he is gay.

“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have—to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Portman said.

In an interview with CNN, Portman said his son, then a freshman at Yale University, told him “that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it’s just part of who he is, and that he’d been that way for as long as he could remember….”

He also told CNN that he sought guidance from former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is gay.

Portman said Cheney’s advice to him was simple: “Follow your heart.”

This report of Senator Portman’s reasoning on same sex marriage is so simplistic, it is almost unbelievable that we are entrusting this man to make decisions for our country. First, if his basis for a “new perspective” on a national issue with moral implications only considers a limited personal experience – Portman’s marriage – and a positive value judgment on it, then he is admitting that he cannot separate biased personal feelings from political decision-making. Yet he also is admitting that he has no objective basis for making decisions of this type or magnitude.

Second, if Portman believes his son has been “that way” since childhood, he is not able to discern the difference between the confused, private urgings of a child and the moral choices of an adult who chooses to participate in homosexual behavior. Yes, many members of the homosexual community claim to have had same-sex urgings for as long as they can remember – for almost as long as I have been African American – and that not by any choice of their own. However, I would hope a man who is responsible for participating in our democracy’s lawmaking would consider that if his son had spoken of his “way” to his parents when he a child, then he might have been able to help his son distinguish between immature confusion about primary age infatuation and what it means to be “gay.” Certainly Portman does not think his son desired to participate in acts of intercourse at the age of four. Instead, if the son had expressed his feelings and thoughts to dad at that age, and if the thoughts had been toward a four year old girl, Senator Portman probably would have thought, “That’s cute, son,” and not, “Son that’s a gross thought for someone your age!” He might have communicated to his son that it is natural to look at “the Little Red-Headed Girl,” as did Charlie Brown. But he would not have communicated, “Well son, it’s not too early for us to talk about safe sex.”

Third, are we to believe that one with Senator Portman’s stewardship makes decisions by following his heart alone, and that he sees this as wisdom? I will give the senator the benefit of the doubt: What Senator Portman means is that he should follow his heart once he is past his initial feelings of shock (and maybe even some feelings of disappointment, rejection, embarrassment, and anger). Otherwise he would have made a very impulsive, possibly regrettable, decision. I hope, however, that he would follow his mind also, before he makes a policy decision based on emotional and/or physical urgings alone. But it seems that the senator is going to follow in the train of his son, rather than lead our country intelligently, and with prudence.

I guess I should be grateful that Senator Portman’s son does not want to give military aid to North Korea or marry a warthog.

Related Resource: Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air