Why I Do Not Support “Homosexual Marriage”

My more libertarian friends seem to believe we as Christians can get off scot-free in the political debate over so-called homosexual marriage. “Why not let the homosexuals have their heyday in the secular realm?” I am afraid I must vehemently disagree. Right off the top of my head, here are five reasons I do not support homosexual marriage even though I strongly sympathize with libertarian sensibilities:

1. “Homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron.

Christians have conceded the debate before it has begun by adopting the language of “homosexual marriage.” Marriage is, in terms of Christianity, between one man and one woman. The very concept of homosexual marriage is incoherent. How can any incoherent concept do anything other than harm society? While legal language and laws cannot put asunder that definition which God has joined together, legal language does define marriage in the legal realm, right where biblically derivative concepts have, until very recently, resided.

2. Homosexual marriage promotes a culture of death.

Homosexual couples, in principle, cannot bear children. Children are necessary to the continuance of a culture. The very existence of homosexuals depends upon the proliferation of heterosexuals. Homosexuality is a parasitic perversion of heterosexuality. Homosexuality rips the pro-life aspect of sex right out of heterosexual practice and thus promises only death. A homosexual race is self-destructive. There’s no such thing as a pro-life homosexual. But life is necessary to liberty.

3. Homosexual marriage harms children.

Homosexuals will, of course, want children to go along with their marriage. Since homosexuals cannot have their sexual interfail and children too, they will want to take children from others. A society where homosexual marriage is recognized is a society where homosexual couples attempt to raise children. The difficulty is the overwhelming amount of research showing that children, to oversimplify matters, turn out better with a father and a mother at home, not a father and a father or a mother and a mother. Advocates of homosexual marriage cannot consistently condemn the adoption of children by homosexual “parents” even though this practice permits the psychological rape of children.

4. Homosexual marriage infringes upon the rights of others.

Not just children, but others as well, must be harmed by homosexual marriage before all is said and done. Already we have seen report after report of Christian business owners who are forced by law to violate their consciences in serving, in some significantly symbolic way (wedding cakes and photos, for example), the desires of the homosexual lobby. Legally, all looks well and good. Christian business owners just need to deal or face the consequences. And that is where the problem is. What was once no legal implication at all has become one, and that legal implication infringes upon the rights of Christians who desire to both liberally exercise their religiously informed consciences and own and/or operate a place of business without the strong arm of the state government intervening. Not much legal wiggle room stands in between that corrupt state government and the church.

5. Homosexual marriage is far too socially conservative.

The arguments proffered on behalf of homosexual marriage aren’t nearly progressive enough. Some have rightly pointed out that homosexuality is an “extra right,” if you will. Given a number of legal conditions, all have the opportunity to marry in the United States of America. That is, if one meets the proper legal conditions to marry, then one may marry a person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have that opportunity just like everyone else. But homosexuals have twinkered with the system. They argue that this age-old system is in some sense unfair to them. Homosexuals want to loosen the conditions people must meet in order to be married. The difficulty is that the slippery-slope argument does not a fallacy make in this situation. Why should homosexuals have the “right” to “marry” and not polygamists? Of course the homosexual lobby will fire back with arbitrary social norms and supposed psychological and sociological facts. But if the Word of God did not stop the homosexuals, if thousands of years of anthropological data did not deter them in the slightest, what makes anyone think a little sexual taboo here or there is going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes time to redefine our policies again?


The Caner Controversy and the SBC

I remember taking a class at a Southern Baptist school. Not all of us taking the class were Southern Baptists. The professor had assigned a book written about the current state of the Southern Baptist Convention. One of the students pointed out the self-serving nature of the book. The book focused more on the future of the SBC than anything else. The authors were concerned that the future of the SBC does not look very bright. A non-SBC student asked, “Why doesn’t anyone in the book just say, ‘If the preservation and proclamation of the gospel means the SBC must die, then so be it!’?” It wasn’t a bad question.

The SBC is full of problems. I need not recite them here. The glory of Christ Jesus is infinitely more important than the ‘glory’ of the SBC. In that sense, I could care less about the SBC, just as I could care less about the OPC, PCA, and our other denominations. In another sense, the SBC seems to be doing some important work, despite its glaring flaws.

According to some, one of these glaring flaws is the manner in which the SBC has dealt (or to be more accurate, has not dealt) with one Ergun Caner. If you are not familiar with the Caner controversy, see this article or this video. At some point while Caner served as president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, the type of evidence linked to above started to turn up. When it did, Liberty looked into the matter, and to make a long story short, Caner is no longer at Liberty. He went to Arlington Baptist College. Most recently, Caner was hired as president of Brewton-Parker College.

Despite the overwhelming amount of information above, Caner has never, to my knowledge, responded to it. Whether innocent or guilty, one would think Caner would publish some sort of response to clarify the reasons for apparent discrepancies in his testimony and his no longer being at Liberty. If the accusations against Caner are true, they are cause for great concern. A small portion of the blogosphere has persistently brought this fact to light. Many are calling upon the SBC to act, but there may be some problems with this approach. I list them below.

1. The SBC is not an individual.

It seems obvious, but the SBC is not an individual. Moreover, the SBC is far from monolithic. (Perhaps that’s why the SBC does have so many problems?) The organizations and churches and people within the SBC vary concerning doctrine and practice. They vary in their opinions about Caner as well. When people call upon the “SBC” to act, it’s not clear what entities or individuals within the SBC they mean, which leads to my next point.

2. Many in the SBC have acted.

Many in the SBC have acted. Two notable examples are Gene Clyatt, Jr. and Jason Smathers. Clyatt is a teaching elder at Parkside Baptist Church and, from the looks of it, has busied himself concerning Caner for quite some time. Smathers is pastor of Golden Shores Community Baptist Church and was apparently sued by Caner for his involvement in the Caner controversy. Parkside and Golden Shores are both in the SBC, which means that Clyatt and Smathers are as well. Most likely, the bulk of their church memberships agree with them concerning the Caner controversy, though I do not know that for sure. Countless others within the SBC have also addressed the controversy, and some have paid a cost for doing so.

3. Some in the SBC may have good reason for not acting.

Some in the SBC may have good reason for not acting. The stronger critics of Caner seem to think, at times, that everyone should be every bit as zealous as they are about calling Caner to repentance. For them, this apparently means creating social media accounts in order to mock and obsess over the man. Some of them act as though the fate of the kingdom itself is contingent on the Caner controversy. Setting aside the workable excuses of time constraints and ignorance, some in the SBC may not want to address the Caner controversy out of political concern. I know what you are thinking. Truth is more important. I agree. So let’s strive to be known for preaching the truth, not our criticism of Caner. They are not necessarily at odds with one another. I know. But you must admit that some people are known due to their criticism of Caner, rather than their preaching and staunch defense of the gospel. Interestingly enough, it is politically advantageous  for some of Caner’s critics to point out that it is politically disadvantageous for others to address the controversy. Are political moves always wrong? I don’t think so. Shocking as it may be, not every hill is a hill worth dying on.

Take Albert Mohler, Jr., for example. Apparently some in the “Reformed community” have a problem with Mohler, whom they would consider one of their own, not addressing the Caner controversy. From what I have heard from students at his seminary, there are some professors, and perhaps Mohler himself, who have addressed the controversy on a more private level, but not publicly. Even if that is not true, Mohler likely has much bigger and more pressing concerns in his limited amount of time than pursuing the Caner controversy, but it’s fair to say that he addresses many other issues that don’t seem so pertinent as the Caner situation. One could try to argue that the Caner issue is not a gospel issue, although it certainly seems to have some bearing on the integrity of the gospel. But let’s set all of these possible excuses aside. Recognizing that this is all rather speculative, could Mohler be justified in acting out of sheer political concern? I think so. Several people with whom I have spoken have shared with me that Mohler has signed some sort of documents at his seminary that prevent him from speaking out against Caner, a former trustee (this is ‘news to me,’ as they say). Then there’s the negative social backlash of going after someone within the SBC. Here’s my proposal. It may be that Mohler believes it is more politically advantageous to let other people comment on the Caner controversy than for him to do so and risk his job, his seminary, and the future of the Reformed community in the SBC. I realize this still sickens some of the bloggers and pastors of much smaller churches out there, but that may be why they remain bloggers and pastors of small churches instead of one of the greatest reformers of our time at the helm of a major (now) conservative Christian seminary. Sometimes it’s not your sound doctrine that makes you an outcast, it’s your personality. Just sayin’.

4. Individuals within the SBC are relatively powerless.

Individuals within the SBC are not in the types of positions to make immediate changes in the SBC. Right, I just finished saying that Mohler is quite powerful. But look at the power he has over the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Look at the power he has to immediately effect wide-ranging change within the SBC. Oh wait. He has virtually no power in those areas. And if he doesn’t, so much the more for the pastors of small, independent churches within the SBC. Liberty went so far as to remove Caner from his position at their seminary. That did not prevent Caner from going on to teach at Arlington, and now reside and preside at BPC. Sometimes those who are not well-acquainted with the workings of the SBC do not realize how very independent its various churches and institutions actually are. Which brings me to my final point.

5. Caner is not so closely associated with the SBC at large.

Caner is not as Southern Baptist as many of his critics make him out to be. For example, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, where Caner once served, has no direct connection with the SBC. The SBC does not fund LBTS nor does it elect any trustees. Liberty University, the undergraduate school, is in partnership with the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia, but that is the extent of their relationship. Arlington Baptist College is not related in any way to the SBC. Finally, Brewton-Parker College is affiliated with the Baptist Convention of the State of Georgia, which, again, is not directly connected to the SBC and receives no funding or elected trustees from it. From this vantage point, BPC and those associated with it in Georgia are the ones most responsible, at this time, for dealing with the controversy, not some nebulous concept of “the SBC.”

The Caner controversy is as much a problem for Christians as it is for the SBC. I do not intend to discourage the work of those involved in this controversy, and there are many in the SBC who should be addressing the Caner issue as they can. I am certainly no apologist for the SBC. However, if the emphasis of this controversy is shifted onto the SBC, those calling for repentance will only hurt their case. We must remember to distinguish between obligatory and supererogatory duties, to be every bit as critical of ourselves as we are of Caner (or anyone else), to resist the temptation to make one’s stand on this issue a mark of orthodoxy, and to hold the proper parties responsible.