The Biblical Case for Gay MarriageQueering the Church

In Denver today, judges of the USA Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments for and against the ban on same - sex marriage in Utah. Next week, they will hear arguments for a similar case in Oklahoma. Both states are among the most conservative in the country, and where religion looms large. Much of the public opposition in both states is based on a religious belief that homosexuality and Christianity are incompatible, but the arguments in court will be secular, based on law and evidence, not theology and the bible.

Outside the courthouse though, here as elsewhere, the challenge is different. Equality is clearly winning in secular law, but there’s a long way to go for fully inclusion and equality in church. Nevertheless, there are an increasing number of Christians, from all denominations, who argue in support of marriage equality. Erik Reitan, for instance, who is a professor of philosophy at Oklahoma State University, and author of books in defence of Christianity (“Is God a Delusion?”, and “God’s Final Victory”). In a blog post last year, he wrote that the advance of gay rights should not be seen as a sign of Godlessness, but as a “Victory of Christian Values”. Here are two key passages (read the full reflection at The piety that lies between) :

Whatever you think of the ethics of homosexuality itself, the cultural shift we are now seeing can only be a victory for core Christian values. Let me say that again, in a slightly different way: Even those Christians who think that homosexuality is morally wrong (which I don’t) should see the cultural shift towards inclusion as a victory of Christian values.

and

If we listen to our gay and lesbian neighbors, we will learn that a condemnation of their romantic impulses can’t be restricted to a condemnation of outward behavior. It cuts to who they are. Sometimes, treating something as a sin is an impediment to love. Conservatives are right to say that you can always love a sinner while hating what really is a sin. But this dictum cuts both ways: if we can’t love our gay and lesbian neighbors as we should when we treat their intimate relationships as a sin, we must conclude that homosexuality as such is no sin after all.

If we listen with compassion, rather than stopping up our ears with traditional denunciations, we will hear the serious damage that comes from viewing their love as abomination. If we listen with love, rather than refusing to hear their cries out of fear that they might jar us from our comfortable certainties, we cannot resist the conclusion that condemning homosexuality in a categorical way amounts to a failure to love our gay and lesbian neighbors as ourselves.

Reitan’s argument is a generic one for gay rights and inclusion, not specifically about gay marriage. He also describes himself as a progressive Christian, and so could be expected to be supportive, but there are also others, specifically conservative Christians, who do extend the argument all the way to marriage.

Matthew Vines is from another conservative state, Kansas, and with a religious background in the evangelical wing of the Presbytyerian Church. of the USA. Deeply committed to the primacy of scripture, when their denomination voted to remove barriers to ordination for gay and lesbian pastors, his local congregation disaffiliated. Vines and his family initially agreed, but as a young man, he was just beginning to come to terms with the fact that he was himself gay, and so (in terms of biblical teaching,as he understood it, doomed either to a life of lonely celibacy and sexual abstinence, or to wallow in sin outside the Church). In an effort to resolve his dilemma, he took a year off college to devote himself to thorough study of the biblical texts and other material, assisted by his father. He first came to public attention when his Youtube video, “The Bible and Homosexuality” went viral. On the back of that success, he used crowdfunding to pay for an ambitious program (the Reformation Project) to train others to take the biblical message of inclusion into local congregations across the country (and later, abroad). He has since written a book, “God and the Gay Christian”, which I reviewed here earlier this week.

This book has the sub-title “The Biblical Case in Support of Gay Marriage”, but also draws on other sources to make the case (including, surprisingly for a Catholic, Pope John Paul’s “Theology of the Body”). His argument rests on three key premises: we are not created to be alone, but need to live in the companionship of marriage to fulfill God’s plan; we know from science that sexual orientation is fixed, and cannot be changed, so that heterosexual marriage is inappropriate for inherently gay men and women; and that although celibacy is a valid choice for some, it is a gift which can only be granted, not imposed.

From these simple, uncontroversial premises, the conclusion is inexorable. If celibacy is a gift that cannot be simply imposed on all (an assertion made by Pope John Paul II), then it is also wrong simply to impose it on lesbians and gay men. If we are created for companionship and sexual intimacy (as we are told in Genesis 2, “It is not good for man to be alone. I will make him a companion”), then lesbians and gay men, too, need this intimacy and companionship - which, as a conservative Christian, Vines accepts must be within the bounds of publicly covenanted marriage. But if, as we know from science, heterosexual marriage is entirely inappropriate for those with a naturally same - sex affectional orientation, then that marriage can only be to a person of the same sex.

Q.E.D. - with support from the Bible, and from John Paul’s Theology of the Body.