Should we redefine marriage? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
At the start, it looks like there’s not a lot to disagree with. To his credit, Longman does agree that the desire to redefine marriage in the church even is something new. The Bible speaks about flourishing sexual relationships, but those are only heterosexual ones, and only in a certain context, between a husband and a wife.
So let’s go to the end where we do find disagreement. Should Christians try to seek to have the Supreme Court ruling on redefining marriage overturned? (I will not use the term “same-sex marriage” because that is as meaningful as talking about a square circle.) Longman doesn’t address that directly, but he does say some things that are concerning.
Rightly, he says we should not be anxious when the world does not go the way Christians prefer. The world will be the world. With this, I am in complete agreement. I understand that this is difficult and yes, I do struggle at times with this as well. That being said, this is our Father’s world and He will have the final say. Psalm 2 reminds us that the one who sits enthroned in Heaven laughs at the plans the wicked make.
He then says the church should not try to impose its sexual ethic on the world and this is where we start having problems. For one, what is imposing? If I go and vote according to my Christian principles? Am I imposing? If so, then why did he even write this book? Why write a book on how Christians should think on political issues if we are not to act at all on these political issues?
If it is not imposing, then there is not a problem. A worldview is going to be enforced one way or another. If Longman thinks all Christians have is the Bible, then I see his cause for concern, but Christians also have natural law thinking. It is not as if Christians just arbitrarily say “Scripture says it and there’s no other reason for it so we go along with it.” I am not saying that would be bad, but I am saying we do have more and Longman needs to acknowledge that. Most any book on Christian ethics would have helped him out in this case.
He does say Christians aren’t arguing for laws against adultery, but an important difference between that and the redefining marriage laws is that government can take one of three positions on actions. They can prohibit, permit, or promote. Now I would not object to a prohibition on adultery, but until that happens, the state simply permits it. If it were to promote adultery, that would be another matter. However, in a way, they are, because they are not only permitting the redefinition of marriage, but promoting it, and giving it the power of the State such as if you want to support a realist position on Christian ethics, you are going against the State. Redefining marriage gives more power to the State.
If the State promotes something, then that means it gets some benefit out of it. What is the benefit in this case? How is the State helped by having a registry of people of the same-sex being together who are incapable of producing children on their own for society? This lowers marriage down to just friends with benefits.
Longman would have been better served by reading material by the other side on natural law thinking and ethics. He should listen to his sparring partner Robert Gagnon. He should also consider a group like the Ruth Institute.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support Deeper Waters on Patreon!
