What’s Wrong If The Church Marries Gay Couples?

            Some Christian denominations marry same-sex couples whereas others do not [1]. Evidently, denominations endorsing same-sex marriages justify their stand through several methods; a common tactic is to misinterpret Scripture passages that condemn homosexuality.

            For instance, Genesis 2: 18-25 is misinterpreted. The word “helper” in this section is twisted to import an illicit understanding that Eve was a mere helper or companion to Adam. So anyone can choose anyone else as their helper or companion irrespective of their gender.

            Beware of “The Reformation Project” [2] – another recent deception of Satan masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11: 14-15). This deceptive venture is camouflaged as Bible-centered and Gospel-based to advocate endorsement of gay marriages from a Christian perspective, whereas in reality, they are far away from God and Bible.

            Many Christian denominations, being swayed by such false hypothesis, endorse same sex marriages at an alarming rate in the USA.

            However, certain Christian denominations refuse to endorse same-sex marriages. Pastors of these churches will either face arrests or pay exorbitant fines if they do not perform same-sex marriages. 

            Given this backdrop, a pertinent question is “What’s wrong if the church marries gay couples?”

            Bible unequivocally deems homosexual practice as sin. (Leviticus 18: 20-22, 20: 13; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-11 et al). So the teaching that same-sex marriages are biblical is a devious deception.

            Consider the misinterpretation of Genesis 2: 18-25. Deceptive teaching based on this passage conveniently conceals two most important facts:

            A. God intentionally created Eve as a female companion to the male Adam. (The chief function of marriage is procreation. The reproductive systems of male and female are created to complement each other for procreation.)

            B. Eve was created so that Adam and Eve would become “one flesh,” which denotes a lifelong marital union between the male Adam & the female Eve.

            Christ speaking from within the context of marriage appealed to Genesis 2: 24 to reinforce the teaching that heterosexual marriage is God’s only plan for marriage – “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

            When God intended marriages solely between male and female, churches performing same-sex marriages disobey God consciously. No well-meaning Christian or Christian church would disobey God intentionally.

            The church obeys God by obeying God’s word – the Bible. God, through HIS word, revealed the sinfulness of homosexual practice. Hence genuine Christians and Christian churches would not marry same-sex couples.

            Disobedience to God is the primary problem when the church marries gay couples.

            Endorsement of sin is the other problem.

            The Bible mentions the sin of homosexuality together with sexual immorality, adultery, theft, drunkenness, etc (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10). When churches marry same-sex couples, the sin of homosexuality is blessed.

            When churches bless a particular sin, what prevents them from blessing other sins? If churches marry homosexuals, by implication shouldn’t the church bless adultery, theft, drunkenness and all the other sins?

            Sin removes people from God. When churches bless homosexual marriages, the church removes itself from God’s presence and leads others away from God.

            The face of the church is its pastor. Pastors know that it is easier to preach than practice.

            When popular culture opposes Christ and Bible through its affirmation of homosexuality, pastors will have to either stand for or against Christ. Pastors standing for Christ will refuse to marry same-sex couples. Thus they will be under intense scrutiny and persecution.

            These are difficult times for pastors aspiring to obey Christ. The threat is genuine. Fear of shame, imprisonment, and joblessness will be intense. Pressure from their families could destabilize these pastors to accommodate the demands of contemporary culture over Christ.  

            The dialogue between the serpent and Eve in Genesis 3 would become an intense reality in the lives of these pastors. The plaguing doubt in them would be the serpent’s question to Eve, “did God really say…?”

            Did God really say that homosexuality is a sin?

            Variant questions prompted by Satan into the minds of these pastors would be: what if homosexuality is not a sin? What if my understanding - that homosexuality is a sin - is incorrect? Have I misunderstood the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality?

            To stand firm or to doubt God’s word is the first temptation that should be overcome by pastors.

            Crisis situations should not alter our understanding of God’s Word. Our understanding of God’s word during peaceful moments of our life cannot change during moments of crisis.

            If we change our theological position during crisis or due to popular demands of culture, then we allow crisis and/or culture to supersede God. We sin against God when we relegate HIM to a secondary position in our lives.

            There surely is no merit whatsoever to doubt our understanding of God’s word during calamity and due to cultural demands.

            The second temptation that ought to be overcome is whether to live for Christ or ourselves. When suffering and pain is an imminent prospect, the disciple of Christ could selfishly protect himself than face the wrath of the world.

            When our lives are committed to Christ, our lives are surrendered to HIS Lordship. Selfishness cannot exist if Christ is the Lord of our lives. When a disciple backslides into selfishness, Christ’s Lordship reduces or ceases. A selfish disciple of Christ commits to being politically and culturally correct by denying Christ.

            If a pastor protects himself by denying Christ, he rejects the Lord and HIS calling in his life. This is another spiritually dangerous situation for the pastor to be in, for he trusts himself more than Christ, which is effectively to not trust in the Lord.

            To live for Christ is to deny the world. To live for Christ is to deny our material comfort and security. To live for Christ is to love the Lord our God more than anyone or anything else.

            It’s easier said than done.

            Not everyone will inherit the kingdom of God. Those who are en route to inherit God’s kingdom should “set your minds on things above, not on earthly things” (Colossians 3: 2, NIV). Therefore, we ought to pray for those pastors who desire to stand firm with Christ.

            Mere prayers would not suffice. Our constant physical support and our encouraging presence ought to be with them during their trials. This is the need of the hour.

            The Bible categorically asserts that our allegiance to God cannot be compromised, “If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us” (2 Timothy 2: 11-12, NIV).

            May the Lord grant us the strength to live for HIM and HIM alone.

Endnotes:

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

&

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/02/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/

[2] For a profound refutation of the “The Reformation Project” please read:

http://www.str.org/Media/Default/Publications/Aug%202015%20The%20Reformation%20the%20Church%20Doesn't%20Need%20Part%201-1.pdf

&

http://www.str.org/Media/Default/Publications/Solid%20Ground%209-2015%20Reformation%20the%20Church%20Doesn't%20Need%20Pt.%202-1-1.pdf

Consequence of Same Sex Marriages: Disaster

Homosexuality is not a creational intent. Therefore, it's a sin against God. Procreation is a function of male-female union. Two men or women cannot procreate naturally; human bodies are not created for same sex procreation. When creational (original) intent is violated, the violation is against God. Hypothesis such as Darwinian evolution also implies that gay marriages are an aberration. There are no survival chances in a gay marriage (procreation doesn’t exist). Thus, ‘survival of the fittest’ dogma remains unexplained and same sex union under the Darwinian theory remains an aberration.

There are some miracles God will not perform; creating children through gay marriages is one such. Miracles would never violate God’s original intent (e.g. a tree will never give birth to humans). But God will allow HIS creatures to dig their own grave (sin) through the employment of their freewill. Unless science sinfully intervenes through same sex procreation (employment of freewill); same sex marriages cannot produce children.

A person with same sex persuasion is NOT born a homosexual. There is no conclusive finding on ‘gay gene.’¹ Homosexuality isn’t genetic. However, “the gay community hopes that some genetic predisposition will be found by the researchers working on the Human Genome Project,” writes Scott Rae.² Nurture (from childhood into adolescence) is the cause for homosexuality than creation.

Pro-gay groups are actively lobbying for government’s endorsement of same sex marriages. Many governments around the world have endorsed same sex marriages. Is there a downside to this? On the surface, a government endorsement seems commendable, but are there destructive ramifications?

Politics is the realm of policy decisions. One method of influencing a policy decision is to enter the realm of decision making process. If one wants to eliminate a person or a past decision in a church, he would strive to enter the policy making body– the governing board, council, committee etc. Once he enters that entity, he is at par with the most powerful to activate his holy or unholy agendas. This then is the first step for the homosexual marriage – to enter into a realm of power to gain significance at par with the presently powerful traditional marriage.

Once homosexual marriages gain that powerful equality and associated benefits, it will force traditional marriage out of existence. If pro gay groups succeed in getting the governments to approve same sex marriages, homosexual marriages will deem itself equal or a viable alternate to a traditional marriage. In the future, homosexual marriages could even eliminate traditional marriages to become the primary norm for marriage. Additionally, trans-sexuality³ (male in a female body and vice versa), pansexuality⁴ (sex with whomever), and object sexuality (love with an object) could then become the norm. In the process, traditional marriage between man and a woman will be destroyed rather irreparably. Stop for a moment and think about the ramifications to our descendants.

In general, adults think of getting married to a member of the opposite sex. When homosexuality, trans-sexuality, pansexuality, and object sexuality gain government endorsement, a young mind will be legally exposed to an immense spectrum of evil and unnatural or ungodly covenants. A young mind, in the future, would think it is reasonable to love, marry and have sex with whomever, whatever and whenever. Can you comprehend this beastly situation? A young man in the future will think that marrying another man or an animal or an Eiffel tower is perfectly legitimate. This is one significant consequence of a government endorsement of homosexual marriage. Let me offer you another example. Today, incest is considered a sin, but when pansexuality becomes normative in the future, incest will not be considered a sin.  

When gay marriages are endorsed and promoted by the government, all who oppose gay marriages will be deemed violators and penalized appropriately. The Bible and any other religious books that deride gay marriages will be deemed as hate-books, and could even be prohibited. Pastors and teachers who proclaim monogamy and advocate heterosexual marriages will be considered haters and law breakers, and run the risk of spending a vast portion of their life in courts or in prison. Teaching against sin will be an act against the law of the land. Battle against depravity will be rewarded with punitive actions. Consider this as another significant ramification if homosexual marriages were to be promoted by the government. (This isn’t a conjured or a fictitious thought. In 2011, CISCO and Bank of America fired the award winning author and an advocate for traditional marriage, Frank Turek, from conducting leadership and teambuilding seminars.⁵ Turek was fired when a homosexual manager at CISCO lodged a complaint against him. The surprise was that the manager was not directly insulted or discriminated for his homosexuality by Turek. If this was the situation in 2011, please let your imagination wander to ponder over our future.)

What happens to children raised by gay parents? A precursory comment to this question is that these children are only raised by these parents; these children cannot be born to gay parents. While we are on this topic, we observe that science can be utterly duplicitous. Or shall I say that scientists can be duplicitous (just as any other men). In other words, science can be manipulated to yield results that the scientist or his funding agency requires. Researchers are funded and researches conducted to yield favorable results for gay parenting. But a close observation of these asymmetrical researches exposes a grave manipulation of the research methodology and components to obtain favorable results. If you are interested, do read this article where Prof. Dean Byrd, a clinical professor with the University of Utah School of Medicine, debunks a research done by Gartrell and Bos for The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) and published by American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).⁶

It is scientific and also common sense that a child needs both the father and mother for a well rounded and holistic growth. Mothers and fathers as individuals are diverse, so they bring distinctive values into a family. The love of a mother and father are distinct and needed for the child. Take the instance of breast feeding. Breast feeding proves a mother’s love for the child and science proves that breast feeding is imperative for a child’s wellness (e.g. resistance to diseases).⁷A father, on the other hand, expresses his love to the child in other ways. Although science has affirmed the necessity of mother and a father in parenting, it now contradictorily strives to prove that same sex parenting is as effective as conventional parenting. Thus, science strives to nullify the importance of a father and a mother in the life of a child. Same sex parenting will never be an adequate substitute to a child, let alone replace the presence of either a father or a mother. Same sex parenting is yet another significant ramification of same sex marriages. (For a more comprehensive treatment of the benefits of a traditional marriage, please read Frank Turek’s essays.⁸)

God allows sin in this world for a brief period of time, but HE doesn’t promote sin. Frank Turek states that governments/societies have three options to deal with any behavior; it can prohibit, permit or promote, and Turek emphasizes that gay marriages should not be promoted, but permitted.⁹

How should the church respond to same sex marriages? First, it should teach the truth to its members. Second, it should protect itself against doctrinal corruption, much unlike the Metropolitan Community Church and other rogue denominations, which hold homosexuality and Christianity together. Third, the church should permit homosexuality. In other words, the church should never condemn or drive away a person or a couple in a gay relationship. Christ came to this world for the sake of sinners (cf. Mark 2: 17; Luke 5: 32), if that be the case, why should the church drive sinners away from her presence? The church should lovingly and graciously communicate the truth of the gospel to the errant person or couple. Christianity is all about transformation of hearts. Fourth, Churches should not perform gay marriages. Performing gay marriages is equivalent to promoting homosexual marriages, which is against the tenet of Christianity. Fifth and finally, the church should be dogmatic and courageous even amidst trials and tribulations. Church’s loyalty is only to Christ and not to the world. If the world promulgates an ordinance endorsing homosexual marriages, the local church should continue to teach the truth of the gospel courageously to her flock.

Educating children is more a prerogative of a parent than the church, so parents should talk these matters with children. Let us not misguide ourselves in thinking that government endorsements of same sex marriages happen only in the West, and that it will not happen in East. It is a fact that homosexuality is a prevalent practice in the East. Drift of thought and practice occurs between East and the West, so it’s only a matter of time before East reels under the turbulence of this evil.

Homosexuality is an aberration and a sin. Multitudes have been delivered from homosexuality and are leading normal lives now. All things are possible with God (Matthew 19: 26), so deliverance from homosexuality is certainly possible. God will deliver those who honestly and earnestly seek HIM. Amen.

References:

¹ The three studies in the early 1990’s which were hailed by the media as providing evidence for a “gay gene” (or at least for an innate and biological cause for homosexuality) have long since been discredited by the failure of any other researchers to be able to replicate those early results.

In fact, the American Psychological Association itself has actually moved away from asserting certainty about the origins of homosexuality, declaring in their most recent statement on this question that: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. . . . Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.” (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/09/why-science-doesnt-support-orientation-change-bans)

² Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p281, 2009.

³ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexualism

⁴ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

⁵ http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/06/16/the_cisco_kid/page/full

⁶ http://narth.com/docs/makesclaims.html

⁷ http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/benefits.asp

⁸ http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2013/02/28/the-case-against-equality-n1521881/page/full

⁹ http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2013/03/01/the-case-against-equality-part-2-n1523048/page/full