Presidential Decisions?
Recently, President Obama made a statement embracing same-sex marriage. The president also referenced the Bible, claiming that when Christ sacrificed himself for mankind, and, that the Golden Rule are reasons for endorsing same-sex marriage. He also stated that his decision to make a statement at this time resulted from discussions he had been having with his family, speaking to his political team, and listening to friends on the matter.
It is no secret or some modern shift that the scriptures are being taken out of context to promote a moral stance. Aside from my general disagreement of the President's stance, and aside from his inaccurate use of the scriptures, there is another reason for my concern over how he came to the decision.
When our country starts to make decisions that are based upon peer thought and general consensus, we are making a shift away from absolutes that I believe will continue us down a spiraling path that we will not recover from. Since when did prevalence or consensus become the basis of our decision-making? Especially when it comes to moral and ethical standards.
This concerns me. And it should concern all of us. That we would come to crucial decisions on an issue because an issue is prevalent in pop culture or because certain people have endorsed a specific stance on the issue is of great alarm to me. What ever happened to absolutes that made our decisions much easier? Will there be no absolutes left in the coming years? Most of us would never argue the need for road signs and most of us would never question whether the use of curse words on television are inappropriate. But, when are these things going to be undermined? We can see that radio or television censorship is being loosened every few years and with every bold stretch of progressive adventure in language.
Now, I am not equating the Gay agenda with road signs on the highway or language on the radio or television. But, this issue is front and center in our culture. To be clear, my conviction on The Sexual Revolution, Homosexuality, and the Gay agenda is simple. I have not based this conviction on my understanding of culture. I have based it on my understanding of scripture. I have shaped my belief over the years through the biblical account of creation in Genesis and Paul's words in Romans. As well as other texts in scripture like Deuteronomy 23, 1 Corinthians 6-7, Galatians 5, and Revelation 20.
A Biblical Definition of Sexuality
To be clear, my conviction on The Sexual Revolution, including gender, marriage, and sexual immorality is simple. I have not based this conviction on my understanding of culture. I have based it on my understanding of scripture. I have shaped my belief over the years through the biblical account of creation in Genesis, Jesus’ words in Matthew, and Paul's words in Romans, 1 Corinthians 6-7, and Galatians 5. As well as other texts in 1 Timothy and Revelation.
The Genesis Intent (Genesis 1-3), or, the creation intent. This is the first and foundational rule to sexuality. It is a theology of firsts and types. Where God defines sexuality. There is no confusion on Male or Female in scripture. And there is no mention or need for a ‘third way’ or ‘transition’ or ‘neutral’ gender.
The Matthew Intent (Matthew 5, 15, 19), or, the messianic intent. This is Jesus on sexuality. And he quotes the OT words of Moses from Genesis. Isn’t that interesting? Jesus could have EVOLVED. He could have ADJUSTED to His day. But His definition of sexuality was taken from the creation or Genesis intent.
My conviction:
Here is the first thing that I say when asked about the sexual revolution today:
1. Our personal sexuality belief will come from culture or from scripture. It is the ideological and theological framework. It will be changing if it comes from culture, but, it will be constant if it comes from scripture. That is why the arguments have changed in the cultural arena and yet have stayed the same in the scriptural arena.
2. I know that we look at and interpret scripture differently. But there are enough clear guidelines in scripture to agree on.
3. There are constants in human sexuality theology - Genesis 1-3 and Matthew 5, 15, and 19, and Romans 1 are theological foundations of human sexuality. These are the words of Moses, Jesus, and Paul.
4. In these texts, Moses, Jesus, and Paul did have something to say about human sexuality. Definitions or prohibitions related to gender, marriage, sexual immorality (adultery, fornication, prostitution, idolatry, abnormality, incest, beastiality, and homosexuality) even if they did not directly address the specific word of the topic in question.
5. What we do know conclusively from these texts, is that each kept marriage and sexual relations within marriage between a man and a woman. And God created two binary genders in the human species – male and female. Any deviation from that form or ethic was not the creation intent or Jesus’ support of it or Paul’s address of it and becomes a secondary un-natural order; a cultural or personal order and not a scriptural order. And because of any new unnatural order or ethic, mankind must do mid-course correction to bring our ideas, experience, and feelings back to scripture.
6. There are many other verses inspired by the Holy Spirit to authors (including Paul in 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, 1 Timothy 1 and John in Revelation 18, 21) who spoke on this subject. All of these author’s words have these original texts from Moses and Jesus as foundational unity on their address to the subject.
7. Our differences should not divide us. So we have a different interpretation of sexuality in the scriptures than some people may have. Maybe you believe, as I have stated in this book, that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex before marriage, outside of your marriage, or with the same sex is sin, and that God created humanity male and female. But just because someone believes differently than we do, what right does that give us to treat them with partiality or judgement?
I contend that what we really need is a box. A code, or ceiling, or walls, and fence. Because otherwise, we land where we are today. With everyone analyzing and giving their own version of truth. Sure, we may read the same biblical text and see different things. But, there are some absolutes even in scripture. The important part of this parse to me is really simple. And that is making the determination of the argument by scripture and not culture. From an absolute box.
Soundbites:
It really is hard to get down to a soundbite in such an information age. But maybe this will help you get to your conviction on this matter as you read the scriptures yourself.
But this is my soundbite when I am asked:
The Sexual Revolution going on in America today with regard to sexual identity issues, the sanctity of marriage, and sexual promiscuity, is part of the sexual dis-order that is contrary to the clearly stated biblical principles – principles found in the words of Moses in the book of Genesis, Jesus in Matthew, Paul in Romans and other texts, Jude in the book of Jude, and John in The Revelation defining the creation of humankind as male and female, the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman, and romantic and sexual relationships between a man and woman within the sanctity of marriage.
The foundational truth of human sexuality is that God said He created them Male and Female and told them to come together as a family and to perpetuate the human race. That’s it. No other choice. No third way. No options for same gender marriage or unions. Or sexual relations outside of this intent. Whatever ideas or trends would come through the ages in culture that are non-conforming to the Genesis Intent of human sexuality are not God’s order.
The Sexual Revolution is part of the sexual dis-order that is contrary to the clearly stated biblical principles in the book of Genesis defining the relationship of humans between a man and a woman, in Matthew by Jesus, and, in the book of Romans and other texts by Paul.
The language in scripture is simple: the sexual sins are defined with words such as “an exchange of the truth of God for a lie”, or, “the abandoning of the natural relations of men and women for each other.” And Paul goes on to define these issues in Romans and other texts this way: “the shameful lust of what is un-natural relations between people of the same sex”, “flee fornication”, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman…but because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife”, and “the works of the flesh are adultery, fornication…and those who practice these things cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.”
The formation of decisions is difficult. George Wood, a long-time lawyer, and, the once superintendent of the Assemblies of God, made a statement about the presidents stance on gay marriage. "It has become popular to quote Scripture grossly out of context to serve a personal or political agenda, it still doesn't change what God's Word clearly states," Wood said.
Unfortunately, well meaning people have read the same texts and come to different conclusions. Yet, in light of what Scripture says, we should not be surprised by individuals and groups twisting Scripture to fit their own agenda. Look at 2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
Finally
Bottom line? The growing cultural shift toward forming opinions and decisions from ancillary means and not from the center of scripture will only hasten the loss of even the most sacred beliefs in our culture. A loss of absolutes may only quicken the moral spiral downward. Like road signs and television language, there are conventional and universal mores that are under attack. It is time Americans realize it is ok to declare a moral compass and standard to walk by. The prevalence of an issue is not the basis for that issue becoming morally acceptable. However, prevalence may be the reason for the decay of morality.