Skip to main content

Why bother to defend lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage?


Here in Australia we're in the throes of debate about same-gender marriage.  One of the issues in the debate is: from the secular side: "what right do Christians have to dictate how other people live?"; and from the Christian side, the exact same question in reverse: "why bother trying to impose Christian values on non-Christians?  They're unforgiven sinners anyway; just let them do what they want."

Here's some thoughts on why Christians care about other people's marriages.  Not specific to the same-gender marriage debate, though of course it has implications for it.

1. Biblically speaking, God instituted marriage in Genesis ch 1 & 2.  It's an aspect of being created male & female, for procreation - babies - and ruling the earth.  Jesus validates heterosexual lifelong monogamous marriage in Matthew ch 19 (and parallels).  There is a consistent Biblical metaphor of God and his people being compared to a groom and his bride, eg: Ezekiel 16; Hosea ch 1-3; Ephesians 5.  So marriage is a “creation ordinance”, not a “gospel ordinance”.  It’s good for everyone, not just Christians.

2. The Biblical picture of marriage is NOT about self-satisfaction, but about responsible service.  God doesn't (metaphorically) "marry" his people because they make him feel good; but because he cares about them, takes pity on them, and wants to bless them.  Similarly, human marriages are NOT about "baby, you make me feel good", but "for better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health" etc.

3. That means Biblical love is the opposite to modern secular love.
(a)  Modern secular love is an expression of freedom: we MUST be free to "love" whoever or whatever we want, just because we feel like it.
(b) Biblical love is the opposite: it's about UNfreedom, commitment, binding ourselves to care for someone else whether we like it or not- ESPECIALLY when we don't feel like it.

4. Unsurprisingly, that means the Biblical view of what is "good" for us is exactly opposed to the secular view.
(a) The Bible thinks it's good for our sexual desires to be managed - controlled, directed - and marriage is one way to control our sexual desires.  In marriage, we deliberately limit our freedom by subjugating our personal freedom to our words of promise, our commitment to our marriage partner.  This is another reason why Christians affirm lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage for anyone, Christian or not.  It's a good external discipline, which channels our desires away from potentially unhealthy, destructive ways of expression, and towards healthy, constructive means of expression.
(b) The secular view of human "goodness" is unlimited freedom, ESPECIALLY sexual freedom.  We must be free to do whatever we want, whatever we "feel" like.  And anyone who tries to stop us is "oppressing" us.  People rightly see marriage as limiting that freedom - so why get married?  Just live with the person / people / animal / thing you like to have sex with.  And when you stop liking to have sex with he / she / it, move on.

5. Unlimited freedom doesn't work.  ESPECIALLY unlimited sexual freedom.  Even atheist social commentators recognise that.  See my review of Clive Hamilton's book "The Freedom Paradox".

6. This is why Christians stand for lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage.  It's actually good for individuals, families, society, and the world.  We make a stand for lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage because we love everyone, Christian or not.

7. This is also why no-one understands us and will call us hate-mongers.  Sin is not rational - by it's nature, it's irrational and unhealthy.  It is irrational and unhealthy to reject the creator God, who gave us all things - including our bodies, with their sexual possibilities - and loves us so much that he gave us principles and guidelines for the good use of those good bodies.  So we shouldn't be surprised when people irrationally reject God's good purposes for ourselves, including our sexuality, and oppose those who try to make a stand for health and rationality.

8. And this is also why we have to patiently turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute us.  When we irrationally rejected God, he did not reject us, but sent his Son to die and rise for sinners.  Similarly, when people irrationally reject and persecute us for caring for them, we don't reject them, but continue to love them anyway.

Labels:

Comments

Student Life UQ Australia said…
Good article. It dispels many of the myth that secular society tells people.
25 January 2013 at 00:00
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more