Blog

by Charlie Wolcott

[This post is part of a series. The previous post is here, and the next post is here.]

I am now back to wrap up my series on Matthew Vines and his 10 Reasons Why the Bible Supports Homosexuality. I have three more posts to do including this one. Here is argument #8.

“Marriage often involves procreation, but according to the New Testament, it’s based on something deeper: a lifelong commitment to a partner. Marriage is even compared to the relationship between Christ and the church, and while the language used is opposite-sex, the core principles apply just as well to same-sex couples.”

This is an interesting argument and honestly, most people would not know what to say about this. I have seen a number of people stumble and stammer trying to find a response. The whole concept is so foreign that trying to process it really causes thinking malfunctions.

However, as I’ve been praying about how to address this, one thing came into mind. In order to call something “good,” it must be in full agreement with God’s standards. That means 100% agreement, a standard none of us can match. Because God is so holy and so perfect, it took a perfect, innocent ‘lamb’ to die in our place to take away what we truly deserve for our rebellion against God. But this also got me thinking about definitions.

When we define something, it has certain characteristics it must match or it is not that object. Geometry is a great example. Take the shapes of a square, rectangle, rhombus, and parallelogram for example. A square is a four-sided figure with all four sides being of equal length and with 90 degree angles in the corners. A rectangle is a four-sided figure with all corners at 90 degrees, however two sides are a different length than the others. A rhombus is like a square, however the corners are not necessarily 90 degrees, but all four sides are the same length. A parallelogram as a four-sided figure with two parallel sides regardless of length or angles of corners.

A square fits the definition of a rectangle AND a parallelogram. It however does NOT fit the definition of a rhombus. A rectangle fits the definition of a parallelogram, but being a rectangle does not make it a square. A diamond can fit the definition of a square, but it can also fit the definition of a rhombus. A rhombus has some of the characteristics of a square, but not all, and yet is also a parallelogram.

Now what does geometry have to do with marriage? Matthew Vines is suggesting we can define marriage generically in a similar way I described a parallelogram. The Bible describes marriage in the context of a square but his picture of a homosexual marriage is like a rhombus. Both squares and rhombuses have a lot of in common: four equal length sides, two sides parallel, and two other sides parallel. The only difference is that a square must have 90 degree angle corners and a rhombus does not. So likewise, a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage are almost identical (according to Vines) except that heterosexual is male-female and homosexual is same sex. That’s the argument being made.

But do not get lost in the argument. There is a deeper issue at hand here. Vines is suggesting he can define a marriage other than what God gave. He thinks he can suggest marriage involved a “deeper” issue than what the Bible actually describes. This thinking puts Vines in a position where he is above Scripture. Who really gets to define marriage? Vines? The courts? A preacher? Or God? If God defines marriage, Vines’ definition goes and any definition that does not 100% comply to that definition is not that thing. What is this definition? Without going in to excessive detail, the key thing to point out is part of the definition is “male and female.” That means any definition of marriage MUST include “male and female.”

If God defines marriage like a square, then anything that does not completely fit the definition of a square is not marriage. A rhombus looks a lot like a square but because it does not have 90 degree angles, it cannot be a square. I mentioned before that Vines’ arguments tend to show hints of jealousy and coveting. He desires in a homosexual relationship that which God ordained for heterosexual relationships. Anything that violates that ordination is a corruption of what God intended. A homosexual relationship is a relationship, but because it does not fit the definition God gave, it cannot be a marriage.

If you look throughout the history of the Bible, one of the things Satan has sought to destroy over and over again is the institution of marriage. It started in Genesis 3. Satan maneuvered to get between Eve and her husband. Adam’s sin was far more treacherous than Eve’s because he simply let Eve go her way to death and then followed. Marital issues have occurred ever since. The family institution has been attacked every step of the way.

Today, divorce rates are right on par with marriage rates. Some say the church is the same as the world, however that stat is relatively misleading as these count total marriages and divorces, not WHO is doing the marrying and divorcing. One person marrying and divorcing four times counts as four marriages and divorces. That being said, divorce in the church is still incredibly high.

Divorce is not the only issue. Single parents are an issue, because the lack of a father is rampant, especially in the poorer communities. In wealthier communities, the father may be there but he is often not around because he’s working 80 hours a week. And now we have a Supreme Court that states homosexuals can get married. But can they actually define that? The answer is no. God defines marriage and anything differing is not marriage. “Commitment” and “loving” does not make a marriage. It is God that makes a marriage.

Notice how I have not addressed the issue of “committed and loving” in this post until now. That is because that really is not at the core of the argument. Committed and loving does not make it right. Samson was committed and loving with Delilah and where did that get him? David was committed and loving with Bathsheba and where did that get him? Into a lot of trouble. God can still restore us despite our sin, but we need to be seekers after God, his heart, and his character. You cannot do that if you are trying to redefine terms God clearly laid out.

Next week is argument #9, dealing with how humans are relational so homosexuality should be just fine.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.