De-Gendering Marriage

Can a human court redefine what God has defined?

The Supreme Court ruling on marriage has not changed God’s ruling. His design and purpose for marriage stands. Man may attempt to redefine marriage, but we don’t stand in the position to do that. When we accept same-sex marriage as an option, we’ve ripped the design from the Designer and re-engineered our own invention for our own purposes—and what we’ve designed is not marriage.

Like I said yesterday, I am not opposed to same-sex marriage because of the individuals who are asking for it to be legalized. I’m not opposed because I’m a “homophobe” or a hatemonger or because I like to push people’s buttons. I don’t enjoy controversy and would rather sit back and let others speak to this issue. But, I can’t remain silent when God is being mocked.

I am opposed to same-sex marriage because it stands in direct opposition to the truth about God. I’m opposed to same-sex marriage because God created marriage as a model to reflect a picture of the Gospel. Gender matters to God, and serves a much bigger purpose than what we can see in the physical realm. When we choose to discard traditional marriage and de-gender marriage, we are throwing aside the beautiful picture God designed for displaying the gospel. 

I’m opposed to de-gendering marriage because it strips God’s purpose from the fabric of marriage.

In contrast to God’s model for marriage, the same-sex marriage model follows the pattern recorded in Romans 1 where three exchanges take place.

The First Exchange

Exchanging: The glory of immortal God for . . . images resembling mortal man (v. 22–23)

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

The Second Exchange

Exchanging: The Truth about God for . . . a Lie (v. 25)

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!

The Third Exchange

Exchanging: Natural sexual relations for . . . unnatural sexual relations (vv. 26–27)

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another . . .

Do you see what is happening here?

The exchanges eventually result in homosexuality (“homo” originally borrowed from the Greek “homos” meaning: same). The first exchange denies God’s “otherness” and degrades Him by placing God on man’s plane of existence, bringing Him into a “homogeneous” relationship to man (as though God is of the same corruptible nature or essence as man). The first exchange denies the existence of God as God. God is no longer “other.”

Homogenizing God

When I say that God is totally “other” I mean He’s not common but is unique to man; immortal as opposed to mortal. Creator in contrast to the created. However, in the first exchange, God is stripped of deity—He’s removed from His transcendent position of other and dragged into our realm as nothing more than a mere mortal—the same as us.

The first exchange is an attempt to homogenize God—which denigrates Him. 

It’s putting God on the same playing field as man—where the Creator is no longer different than the created—but the same. He’s no longer above, beyond, and greater—but is homogenous (the same as us).

The second exchange twists the truth about God (namely that He’s divine) into a lie. Putting God in the same category as man leads to the last exchange which results in homosexuality.

But don’t miss the point—I’m not railing against people who struggle with same-sex attraction, I’m not even focusing on sexual immorality. What I’m talking about is much more serious than homosexual activity—homosexuality simply mirrors the spiritual dynamic that’s occurring—placing God in the same category as man or other created things.

That sameness presents a model of God that is degrading. And that God-model—God stripped of His divinity—is what homosexual unions reflect. 

When partners unite in a model where there are two of the same rather than opposite genders, the picture of the “Transcendent Other” (infinite God uniting with finite man) is missing. In contrast to that, when we have a heterosexual marriage model, it is a celebration of the fact that the transcendent God, the One who is like no other, chose to initiate a relationship with finite man.

Although we are in a relationship with God, it is a relating of two very un-homogenous natures. God will never become “one” with mankind in the sense that He loses His divine nature or is no longer “other” (the transcendent deity). The marriage model of two opposite genders reflects two different—rather than same—natures in relationship. As male and female unite, they retain their distinctive genders within this relationship and marriage even serves to highlight those gender distinctions. In the same way, when we enter a relationship with God, our distinction as a finite being is highlighted as we relate to this infinite deity. Two different natures uniting in one love relationship.

What is the big deal about preserving the idea of traditional marriage?

What is all the fuss about?

When heterosexual marriages are exchanged for same-sex relationships, marriage’s ability to serve as a model or visible portrayal of Infinite God uniting with mortal, finite man is destroyed.

The command to be fruitful cannot be fulfilled.

The model for the gospel is decimated.

Please don’t miss the importance of this—this is why heterosexual marriage matters. This debate is about much more than the visible and temporary. This debate goes to the heart of the gospel as revealed through the marriage model.

The Supreme Court may have spoken, but they do not have the last word. There is a higher court.

Image courtesy of Surachai/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

read more

Why I Wrote “Fierce Women”