When two armies happen to meet, the battle is not necessarily over the terrain they are fighting on. Sometimes it is that, of course, but there are also occasions when the place where they are fighting and the place for which they are fighting are two entirely different places.
The current battle is at the place of same sex mirage. It is where we are fighting right now, and may God grant success to us here, holed up in our little gender-normal Alamo. Our God is able to deliver us, but even if He does not, be it known, o king, that we will not consent to applaud the use of a man as though he were a woman.
Homosexual vice is a bad business, one that the apostle Paul describes as the end of the ethical road. But that is simply where the battle is right now, not what the battle is over. And so, since I have raised the point, what is the battle over? The battle is over the right to define the world.
Man wants to be God, and he wants to be able to declare the way things shall be, and then have them be that way. He hates God and wants to replace Him, and wants to replace how the way things stand fast whenever God declares them. Man wants to speak the ultimate and authoritative word.
Some people have asked from time to time, usually with some petulance, why I write about same sex mirage so much. The answer is found in the disputed nouns — the marriage/mirage issue. The issue is not an instance here or there of same sex coupling; the central issue is what we as a culture are going to call it when it happens. We have always had those who were in the grip of this lust; why should Christians raise an uproar about it now?
Well, I would say mildly, we are not the ones raising an uproar. You can tell what the real issue is by where the enforcement is. When do the cops show up? When do evangelical bakers get remanded to sensitivity camps? Whenever we refuse to use their vocabulary, the goons come out. That alone, that by itself, should tell you what the real issue is. Under their regime, you do not have to commit homosexual acts. But under their regime, you must agree to pretend that what they have decided to call it has in fact come to pass. But it hasn’t come to pass.
At the end of the day, you have two dudes in bed, with no decent place to put things, or two women there, with nothing real available for either of them. The emptiness, the vanity, the loneliness, the folly, is manifest. And comes now the state, demanding that whatever else we do about this, we must agree to call this state of high loneliness and desperation a state of holy matrimony. I might not be as courageous as I think I am, or as faithful to Jesus as I think I am, and so you might be able to get me to say something like that after pulling out my fifth fingernail. But if you think you can get me to do it by coolshaming me into an approval of round squares, then I guess I had better type a little bit more, in order to make my sentiments clear.
So in a city of one million, I would much rather have a thousand illicit homosexual acts, unrecognized by the public, than to have just one illicit sexual act, covered over with the thin film of all our solons calling it an official marriage. Why? In the former instance, we have a thousand instances of sin. In the latter we have a million. There is a difference between a city with sin in it, and a sin city. In the former, the sin is instances of homosexual sin; in the latter the sin is with our shared language, the currency of all. Both strike at the image of God in man, but the latter is far more serious.
Because the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the latter sin is heinous. You could drop the sexual element out of this altogether, and still have the same problem. I would want to be fighting in the same way if federal judges were declaring that two and two make five, and were applying stiff fines to all born-again mathematicians. We happen to be fighting in the sexual arena because when a people are addled by their lusts, or are grossed out by people so addled, it is far easier to distract them all from the real issue.
The real issue is that man bears the image of God. He is not a god in his own right. He cannot declare, and have it be necessarily so. He must be content to repeat what God has said. Man’s only possible glory and dignity is as God’s vicegerent. And that is dignity enough.
When he sets up shop on his own, everything spirals down into autonomous folly. Revolts against God’s holy order cannot achieve a higher dignity for us. We cannot achieve linguistic independence. God’s gravity is infinite, and there is no escape velocity. We cannot speak the word, and create a new sex — we can only blur the meaning of words, and go out in drag. We can also fine people who refuse to go along with our big pretend.
Compare with Justice Kennedy: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life….”
Society enacted inter-racial marriage bans for the exact same “it’s against God’s will” as same-sex marriage bans. Judge’s opinions confirmed this such as “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” It’s a foregone conclusion that same-sex marriage bans will fall nationwide because the bans are unconstitutional on 14th Amendment equal protection and 5th Amendment equal… Read more »
“We happen to be fighting in the sexual arena because when a people are addled by their lusts, or are grossed out by people so addled, it is far easier to distract them all from the real issue.”
Particularly a gnostic/pietistic church culture that holds a sub-christian view of God’s declared will and mistakenly thinks that sin is hated by God because it is ‘gross’ rather than thinking it is gross because He has declared it to be outside His will.
I wonder if the battle was lost when we started defining marriage as one man, one woman on a state-by-state basis. This was usually achieved through some sort of petition: constitutional initiative, etc. This “democratized” defining of round things as round, to use Pastor Doug’s analogy. To this day the traditional marriage crowd continues to say “but we passed the definition of marriage by x percent.” Instead of acknowledgement of reality, we are letting it ping-pong between the three branches of government. Pastor Doug, I’d be interested to hear your take on churches essentially getting out of the civil marriage… Read more »
“necessary pieces of paper”
Marriage is always before God, regardless of a church minister’s acknowledgement.
Marriage is optional before civil authorities.
But Doug, until we get an accurate definition what marriage is — God’s definition — it’ll be heard to rally the troops.
You’ve heretofore steadfastly been muddy on this, in my probably uninformed opinion.
Please start with Adam & Eve, if you think of them as married.
“marriage will always be both before God and the civil authorities”
Wait — who gave civil authorities any say?
Until we get God’s definition of what marriage is into our hands, twill be hard to yield this sword effectively.
“Man … cleave … wife = one flesh.”
How ’bout we get this one down?!
All I’m saying is that the state is required to acknowledge a marriage, not that it calls the shots in any way.
Tim
Eric, given your definition Man+Woman+Cleave=Marriage is there the possibility of Man+Woman+Cleave and not equalling marriage? If so then what differentiates the two? In simple terms if two people shack up are they married or living in sin? If this hypothetical couple become converted what (if any) changes do they need to make to their living arrangement?
Jonathan
Married.
when christians as when not they have the response ability to live marriage to the lord
Eric, and all, I will try to get to your question next. Thanks.
This.
Thank you.
@scott Dredge.
Thank you for confirming the point of Pastor Wilson’s post.
The church recognizes, not authorizes or constitutes, the marriage —
of me to Jesus
of me to wifey
Pastor Doug —
It might also help to ‘splain your (justified) appreciation of the movie Sweet Land in this context.
Sweet marriage — sans church & state
“When he sets up shop on his own, everything spirals down into autonomous folly. Revolts against God’s holy order cannot achieve a higher dignity for us. We cannot achieve linguistic independence. ”
Love this. Brings to mind this little exchange:
“The emptiness, the vanity, the loneliness, the folly, is manifest. And comes now the state, demanding that whatever else we do about this, we must agree to call this state of high loneliness and desperation a state of holy matrimony.”
As someone who’s been deep in homosexuality (and knows many others with similar backgrounds), I can verify this loneliness and despiration. I’ve seen firsthand that the gay lifestyle is a tease, endlessly drawing you deeper in while the emptiness in your chest grows larger. It is nothing to treat lightly. Thank you, Doug, for calling it like it is.
On television I’ve watched “Christians” discuss with unbelievers the topic of the State issuing marriage licenses to people of the same gender. Never once have I heard “Christians” simply say it is wrong to issue marriage licenses to people of the same gender. Nonetheless, the topic of who should get State-issued marriage licenses is a red herring. The topic should be about whether the State should be issuing marriage licenses at all. How were Americans convinced that the State should be in the marriage business? Are you convinced that the State should be doing this? Have you heard a convincing… Read more »
Here’s some good insight on the battle with a gov’t set on redefining and telling an alternative narrative of reality: The really great insight here is that the real struggle of faithful opposition to a godless regime is not that it is dangerous or risky (of course it is that as well and in incrementally increasing measure) but that it is tedious. It just takes so much time and effort. Reminds me of Screwtape and That Hideous Strength. It ain’t just the human gov’t bureaucracy one fights, its ultimately the bureaucratic legions of hell’s propaganda department. And their slogan is… Read more »
Oops, sorry about the funky link / comment mix up above. Didn’t mean to make my whole comment the link. However, it still gets you where you need to go.
Bro. Doug,
“viceregent”
Whoops, delete that. You taught me a new word!
Excellent article. We also have the libertarian conundrum. The government has a range of policies towards any issue, including same-sex mirage. Those are ‘Prohibit, Permit, Promote and Prescribe. When we left the Prohibit category, which some viewed as tyranny, the pendulum, almost magnetically induced, swung to Prescribe the other end of the spectrum of tyranny. Prescribe in this sense forces us to ‘celebrate’ that which we once Prohibited and we aren’t allowed even the option to ignore, or ‘live and let live’, the libertarian preferred options. This once again shows there is no neutrality to be found here.
Maybe Scott Dredge is a local troll whom nobody wants to egg on. But it chaps my hide to see his idiocy uncorrected. So here goes. Race is not Sex. Therefore your first argument (if we can call it that) is invalid. Biblical prohibition of homosexual acts is expressed as universal. Biblical laws prohibiting marriage outside the tribe are, on the rare occasion when they are expressed, only for ancient Israel. Your argument (such as it is) is invalid. Bans on same-sex-pseudo-marriage are not unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing about marriage. That Twentieth-Century liberal revolutionaries think it does only reflects… Read more »