On the Bible and Homosexuality, Religious Freedom, and Freedom of Association

I recently posted on my facebook this article from Erick Erickson on the now vetoed bill in Arizona that was supposed to protect religious business owners from being forced to provide their services to events that conflicted with their religious beliefs.  I have not read the actual bill, but if written poorly, I can understand why it shouldn't have been passed.  However, by no means should there not be this sort of protection of religious freedom.  Either way, a colleague, former classmate, and friend of mine, who is openly gay, asked me a few questions about the topic.  The questions focused on an "inconsistency" with scripture and my viewpoint of homosexuality and same sex weddings.  In addition, he attempted to make a direct connection between interracial marriage and same sex marriage. 

My response turned out to be very lengthy, and the conversation is on-going, but I felt what I wrote was pretty good, and thought I would share it here for posterity.  I posted this on my fb wall last night:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Two general thoughts have been raised which I plan on addressing.  First, the consistency of the Biblical message on homosexuality, and second, the comparison of interracial marriage to same sex marriage.  I’ll try to take these one on one, and then follow up with any other general thoughts.

The most complicated discussion will be the consistency of the Biblical message, because on the surface it certainly seems there is a mixed message.  However, when placing the connection between the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) in proper context, the message remains consistent.  Ultimately, the OT and NT are the same story; however the NT fulfills and elaborates the OT.  With that comes some changes, but not to the actual law of God.

Through both the OT and NT, the message is that man is fallen.  There has been a separation between God and man that prevents reconciliation without a sacrifice.  In the OT there were specific directions on how to go about making sacrifices to receive this reconciliation.  In addition to the actual sacrifice, there were rules about remaining clean to offer this atonement (this is where all the crustacean talk comes in).  In addition, there were certain rules on how to punish those who offended God’s law.  All of this was a precursor to God’s ultimate plan of redemption through Jesus Christ; something foretold throughout the OT beginning in Genesis 3 (at the time of the original fall).  This is better explained by my pastor’s during a recent message.

So transitioning into the NT, things change.  Jesus fulfilled numerous prophesies (at least 44 times; Exodus 12:46, Numbers 24:17, Psalm 22:18, Psalm 78:2-4, Zechariah 11:12-13, Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53:3, Isaiah 53:9,  Hosea 11:1, and Micah 5:2 to name a few) from the OT and became the replacement of the sacrifices formerly needed in the OT (I share the scripture simply to create the connection between the OT and the NT).  By doing this He eliminated the need for animal sacrifices, removed the rules to remain “clean”, and changed the rules on how to respond to sin (such as stopping people from stoning an adulterer in John 8:1-11).  He did not, however, change the law itself.  What was a sin remained a sin.  Jesus simply offered forgiveness (which cannot be offered without acknowledging a transgression) and ended the earthly punishment of sin by religious leaders who have continuously missed the point (which sounds striking similar to folks like the Westboro Baptist “Church” whose “teachings” are rejected from pretty much every Christian church).

One of the things I’ve seen as helpful is to compare the OT and the NT together to see what has or hasn’t changed.  On the topic of homosexuality, the OT is pretty clear.  In the NT, it’s also pretty clear, but not necessarily as straight forward.  Scriptures in the NT outline that homosexuality is still against God’s will (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and others).  Some will say Jesus never talked about homosexuality specifically, and while that’s mostly true, it doesn’t mean he didn’t give directions about it.  The most translated term Jesus used in regards to this topic was “sexual immorality” (Matthew 15:19).  Admittedly, that’s a pretty vague term, but it’s not too difficult to unpack when placing it in context.  To Jews in the first century, what would have been considered sexually immoral?  After all, if Jesus was speaking to them using this terminology, they probably already knew.  Well, they would have based their understanding off the OT laws, which would include adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.  Now yes there are example of people partaking in sexual act along these lines in the OT, but that doesn’t make it okay with God’s law.  For example: David was a “man after God’s heart,” but he screwed a lot of things up.  He was an adulterer and a murderer.  Yet he was forgiven.  And one cannot be forgiven without the person forgiving acknowledging there was some sort of transgression.  I’m getting a little off topic, though.  The point is that Jesus’ words of “sexual immorality” had pretty clear meaning when He spoke them.  Today, we can kind of see it as a “junk drawer” type term.  Something that includes all sorts of things that would be a considered a deviation of God’s decrees on sexuality.

In addition, in Matthew 19:5 Jesus specifically indicates marriage is between one man and one woman, when He says “therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

So as to why my attitude about “old ways” are different: If by “old ways” you mean how the OT frames things, that explanation has been made above.  If by “old ways” you are referring to the Bible as a whole, my views are pretty consistent with what the entirety of scriptures say.

Ultimately, sin is sin, and all have following short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).  In the Christian faith, we are called to perfection with the understanding that we will not reach it, nor will anyone else.  Yet, the cross offers forgiveness to anyone who believes Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.  That belief should manifest itself by honest attempts to end sinning and through demonstrating forgiveness to others. Yes, the church has not always done well with that, but that harkens back to my point a moment ago about not being able to reach perfection.

Now, before addressing the comparison between same sex marriage and interracial marriage, I need to mention that I find the entire comparison to be complete and utter horse crap.  Marriage, traditionally defined, has always been about the union of a man and a woman.  Gender is the distinction.  There is no discussion about race having anything to do with it.  However, I know that the immediate argument to this is the history of racists to attempt to quote scripture to prevent interracial marriage to take place.  They were, and remain, completely ignorant of what scripture actually says.  Here’s why:

Typically, the interpretation of scripture confuses that God desires His people not to marry those who do not recognize him as Lord, not because of someone’s race.  One common attempt to compare the two comes from Exodus 34, where God argues for Moses to not make covenants with peoples of other land, nor should they “take their daughters for your sons.”  However, also in Exodus 34, God makes it clear that the issue is that the people from other lands do not worship God, but multiple pagan gods.  It has nothing to do with the fact that they are from another land.  This is actually already expanded upon in Exodus 12:48, where God says that “if a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised.  Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land” (the needs for circumcision falls under the OT “clean” laws that as mentioned previously are no longer necessary through Jesus Christ).  It makes no reference to race.  It does not say that someone has to change their race to be accepted as a native of the land, but to change their religious belief.  This thought is echoed in the NT, when 2 Corinthians 6:14 says, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.  For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?  Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”  The point is it’s a bad idea for someone who believes in Jesus Christ to marry someone who doesn’t.

The application of this law to prevent interracial marriage is wrong.  Christians for hundreds of years (not all, but many in power) were wrong about this topic.  But just because they were wrong about the application of this, doesn’t mean there is a direct correlation between interracial marriage and same sex marriage.  Biblically, marriage was set up for one man and one woman.  Deviations of that, though sometimes often cited as occurring in the OT, were never approved of by God’s law.  There is no one-to-one correlation between interracial marriage and same sex marriage.  In fact, this particular argument to change public policy regarding same sex marriage is entirely flawed.

To say that Loving v. Virginia “ultimately collapsed the institution of marriage” is a fallacy.  Loving v. Virginia ended racist laws.  No more.  Race has never legitimately had anything to do with marriage, while gender always has (until, obviously, recently).  That’s why the idea that a business in 1967 refusing to serve an interracial marriage on religious grounds is false.  There are no religious grounds (at least not in the Christian faith) to do so.  Again, there is no direct correlation between the two.  That also makes your question of whether I “support my fellow white in refusing to support that which God approves of” irrelevant.  Your premise is wrong.  There is no basis in scripture for Christians to reject interracial marriage.

This is why I find the post on International Business Times to be nonsense.  The brave “staff reporter” who blogged this makes a claim that just because someone says they are not prejudiced doesn’t make it so.  Okay, well by that logic, what makes his/her argument so?  Just because someone argued incorrectly that race matters in marriage doesn’t make the argument that gender marries incorrect.  The blogger’s thoughts are essentially an incomplete comparison, or possibly even a fallacy of comparison.

The post from Faith & Heritage (which I can gladly say, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of them, and from what I see so far, this site would oppose most all what the Christian church stands for) I’ve mostly already broken down prior to reading it.  At the beginning of the post it mentions John Piper as someone who is very adamantly against anti-miscegenation (which is a new term to me).  Well, John Piper is pretty much the patriarch of the modern reformed Christian believer, which I would mostly consider myself as being.  I’m glad he’s used as an example of someone who knows the Bible clearly says nothing against interracial marriage.  Ultimately, his use of scripture is wrong because, as stated above, these separations that were made between peoples were so because of their religious beliefs.  At this time, different races/nations/peoples had different religious beliefs, so obviously it would be difficult at that time to marry across those lines.  But I referenced Exodus 12 as reason this argument does not actually hold weight.  As far as this blogger’s general argument that there will be many different races/nations/peoples in heaven does not mean there should not be intermingling, so to speak, among races/nations/peoples here on earth.  That fallacy seems to be a bit along the lines of affirming the consequent; just because various races/nations/peoples arrive in heaven, doesn’t mean they are not permitted to co-mingle on earth.

As for my personal beliefs regarding same sex marriage, those beliefs are conflicted.  As a Christian, it’s clear to me that the idea is unbiblical.  However, I also readily acknowledge that we are not, in fact, an actual Christian nation.  I do argue that our values, our founding, and the fabric of this country is interwoven with Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is not an unimportant fact.  But, regardless, the laws (particularly federal laws) cannot be based on the Bible.  We do not have a test for our presidents and legislators to be a certain faith to allow them to be elected.  By the same token, much of our society prefers people with a similar faith as them and choose to elect personnel partially based on this.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Point being, we are not a theocracy.

So with that understanding, I cannot honestly say that our government can deny the right of two consenting adults, regardless of gender, from entering into what are essentially legal documents.  Personally, I would prefer government being out of marriage all together, but this would require an overhaul of our tax code (which I want anyway, but that’s an entirely different topic).

But while this freedom should be allowed, it, like any other freedom, cannot interfere with freedoms of other people.  In this case, I reserve the freedom of speech to share information on how same sex marriage would be a detriment to society.  I also reserve the freedom of speech and religion to state that this kind of union is against the Christian faith.  I also reserve the freedom to assemble to associate myself (thereby my production) with events I so choose.  If I cannot produce something and have some sort of say over where it goes, than I am not a free man.  That freedom has been partially curbed in the name of discrimination laws.  In the United State I cannot choose to whom I sell my goods based on certain criteria.  However, if my right to not sell my goods/services to events that I fundamentally disagree with is infringed, that is crossing a new line.  The editors of the National Review make a decent argument on this here:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371856/live-and-let-live-law-editors.  While most people think it’s wrong to deny goods/services to certain individuals, they also agree that people should not be forced to produce goods/services to occasions that conflict with their religious beliefs. 

One argument against that rationale is that the production is different than the person producing.  I wholeheartedly disagree.  In a classically liberal sense, my production, goods, property, possessions are mine to do with as I see fit.  Crumbling this would be an outright attack on democracy and the free market (with the free market being the only justifiably moral interaction between people, but that’s, again, another topic).

Well, I typed this in a word document and it’s now four pages single spaced.  I imagine these won’t be the last words on the topic, but I hope that I answered your initial questions and did so in a respectful way, despite the fact that I obviously have a disagreement with something not only very close to you, but what you see as a significant part of you. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since writing this, I found two additional articles to be outstanding.

From Matt Walsh (pretty controversial)

From Cato Institute