On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Although four justices dissented, the majority sided with the perceived surge of public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage. As the implications of this ruling filter through the country, conservative Christians, who still hold to biblical guidelines concerning marriage, feel the mounting pressure to adjust their views to conform to culture. Perhaps the wave of criticism has caused you to rethink your views. If so, let me offer some analysis for a few seemingly persuasive arguments.
Argument 1 – The Bible doesn’t speak often about homosexuality, and people always refer to the same verses.
Interestingly, this argument actually concedes that the Bible does speak about homosexuality. How many times does a topic need to be addressed in order for it to be considered prevalent? The threshold seems intentionally vague. The topic of homosexuality appears in Scripture a number of times: Genesis 19:5-8, Leviticus 18:22-23, Leviticus 20:13, Judges 19:22, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:46, Romans 1:24, 26, 27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9, 10. That certainly seems like enough references to draw a clear opinion. This argument implies that Scripture must contain multiple references to a topic in order to be accurate or trustworthy. We cannot judge accuracy based on frequency. All Scripture is inspired by God.
Argument 2 – The New Testament does not speak to the topic of homosexuality.
This argument is patently false. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly and explicitly addresses the topic: Romans 1:24, 26, 27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9, 10. This argument derives from an erroneous view that the Old Testament and the New Testament present two vastly different views of God and two vastly different understandings of sin. In reality, the New Testament depends on the Old Testament. They are inextricably linked. The argument that the New Testament does not speak to the topic of homosexuality ignores and denies the inherent unity of Scripture.
Argument 3 – Jesus does not address the topic of homosexuality.
Technically, this statement is accurate. However, the statement does not support an argument in favor of homosexuality. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17-20), Jesus exclaims that He came not to abolish the law but to fulfill the law. Jesus agreed with and adhered to the law. Later in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus identifies several areas where the Jewish people had misunderstood or misinterpreted the law (anger, lust, divorce, oaths, etc.). In this section of the sermon, Jesus clarifies his meaning to ensure that his followers accurately interpret the law. Of the 600-plus laws contained in the Old Testament, Jesus only addressed a handful. Should we assume that Jesus only accepted the laws that he spoke about? Actually, we could make a strong case based on Matthew 5:17-20 that Jesus’ silence on an issue clearly addressed in the Old Testament implies agreement, not disagreement.
Additionally, while Jesus does not directly address the topic of homosexuality, I would contend that Jesus did address the issue indirectly in the encounter recorded in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6. When the Pharisees questioned Jesus on the issue of divorce, he specifically defined marriage as a union between male and female. This definition clearly excludes homosexual unions.
Argument 4 – In the past, Christians used the Bible to argue for slavery, and now they use it to argue against homosexuality. Conservative Christians should change their views or they will find themselves on the wrong side of history.
Based on the logic inherent in this general argument, we should stop attempting to understand the Bible because we misunderstood it in the past. Certainly, the Bible has been misinterpreted in the past to condone and perpetuate all sorts of injustice. However, mistaken interpretation in the past should not prohibit interpretation in the present.
Proponents of this argument presume that the interpretive issues related to slavery are equivalent to those associated with homosexuality. This is not accurate. In the Bible, slavery is described, but never prescribed, as an existing social institution. In some instances, the Bible offers guidelines and stipulations for living in the midst of that institution, either as a slave or as a master. In the past, Christians erroneously assumed that the descriptions were prescriptive. They inaccurately interpreted the descriptions as mandates. However, most of the verses that address the issue of homosexuality are prescriptive rather than descriptive. For example, Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Notice the prescriptive nature of the statement. Here the Bible is not merely describing the existing social structure; it is providing explicit guidelines for believers.
The final piece of this argument warns Christians against standing on the wrong side of history. This assumes that believers should concern themselves with the court of public opinion. Rather than watching the polls like politicians to determine their beliefs, believers must continue to look to God’s Word. The unchanging nature of God’s Word provides a solid place to stand in the midst of swirling public opinion. Ultimately, we must seek to stay on God’s side of history as that is inevitably the right side!
The days of widespread and unopposed acceptance of Christian values have disappeared in our country. While this reality causes us appropriate concern, we must not abandon our beliefs at the whim of public opinion.
— Kristopher Barnett is associate dean of the Clamp Divinity School and an assistant professor of Christian studies at Anderson University. He and his family are active members of Capstone Church in Anderson.