LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Gay Marriage: Should Christians Oppose it?
Submitted to Dr. Malcolm Hester in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the completion of
THEO 650-B03 LUO
Public Theology
by
Shaun Higgins
February 28, 2020
ii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Defining Marriage ..................................................................................................................... 1
Old Testament Portrayals ................................................................................................ 1
New Testament Portrayals .............................................................................................. 2
Historical Understanding… ........................................................................................... 5
Modern-Day Developments ............................................................................................7
Theological and Ethical Conclusions ...................................................................................... 8
Moral Relativism ............................................................................................................ 8
Deontology… ................................................................................................................. 9
Utilitarianism................................................................................................................ 10
Christian Ethical View .................................................................................................. 10
Theological Arguments ................................................................................................. 12
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………
13
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 14
1
Abstract
The topic of gay marriage has been a hotly debated issue in past and recent years. The
question of whether Christians should continue to oppose gay marriage even after the Supreme
Court ruled in its favor has placed sustained pressure on evangelicals to abandon their position.
However, what the justice’s decision addressed was the sanctioned practice of restricting the
rights of its citizens within the confines of a system of governance that is meant to remain
separate from church and state. Furthermore, the legalization of civil marriage as a state
mandated ordinance has no influence or authority in amending what Scripture establishes as a
God ordained union. Another question that arises out of this issue is if Evangelicals where to
abandon the Bible’s position on what it clearly defines as sin, what implications would this infer
upon Christian theology and the biblically outlined purpose of marriage? What this study will
seek to demonstrate is that though secularistic reasoning may establish grounds for the
legalization of homosexual marriage, this does not compel God to ordain these unions and
therefore are incompatible with Christian ethics.
Defining Marriage
Old Testament Portrayals
Interestingly enough, the earliest accounts of marriage are found in the Bible. The union
between Adam and Eve provides a foundation for understanding the premise for the marital
institution. In Genesis chapter two, God created Adam to tend to the garden that He had planted.
Yet, God saw that it was not good that man should be alone. Accordingly, He created women
from man to provide a suitable helper for him. Thus, God saw that in all of creation, there was no
suitable partner for man. Therefore, woman was created as a companion to man for the purposes
God created him. This constituted the first known marriage since the creation of the human
2
civilization. Commenting on this event, Platt explains that these two dignified and diverse
people, molded in the image of God were designed to complement one another. This marriage
was marked by equality, solidarity in diversity, and mutual fulfilment through consummation.1
From this understanding it is clear that the two beings, having been created in the image of God,
served to complete one another as Scripture dictates, the two shall become one flesh (Gen. 2:24).
It can then be asserted that woman, being created from the flesh of man in the image of God,
served as a suitable partner through marriage for worship to God. Elaborating on this concept,
Edersheim contends that just as God initially established the Sabbath as the proper day for man
to worship, by placing Adam and Eve in paradise, He laid the foundation for civil society to
propagate through the sanctity of marriage.2 This foundation would then serve as the apparatus in
which the continuation of humanity would be ordained.
In addition to establishing the composition of the marital union, Scripture also defines
one of the main purposes that marriage would fulfill. After man’s initial creation, it is written that
God created both man and women in His image and subsequently blessed them to be fruitful and
multiply (Gen 1:28). The influence this passage has on understanding the premise of marriage by
God is that it was a blessing created for the purpose of procreation. Though no mandate or
mention of marriage is mentioned in this passage, it cannot be assumed that fornication was
intended to facilitate the perpetuation of the human race. Therefore, it is for this reason that
marriage has always been the prescribed means for satisfying the command of filling the Earth.
In his analysis of the Bible’s influence on marriage throughout history, Finn notes that early Jews
and Christians adopted Genesis and the rest of the Bible as the template for the institution of
1 David Platt, “A Profound Mystery: The Gospel and marriage,” A Compassionate Call to Counterculture
in a World of Poverty, Same-Sex Marriage, Racism, Sex Slavery, Immigration, Abortion, Persecution, Orphans, and
Pornography (Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Il: 2019), 139.
2 Alfred Edersheim, “Genesis,” Bible History Old Testament, (London: Religious Tract Society, 1890).
3
marriage.3 It also from this template that marriage continued to be defined long after the
establishment of the early Church.
New Testament Portrayals
In the New Testament, marriage is clearly referred to in the context of an institution
consisting of a male and female. When questioned by the Pharisees, Jesus provides a complete
illustration of the marital concept. He first explains the intended composition of the institution by
claiming that from the beginning God created them male and female. He then establishes to what
effect the marriage serves by stating that a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife to
become one flesh (Matt 19:4-6). This highlights the fact that since woman was initially taken
from man by God, the reconciliation of the two in marriage by God conveys their reunification.
The two have become one in flesh as man was in His initial creation. Though the context of this
passage speaks specifically to matters of divorce, it is clear that what God mandated as a
permanent and divine union consisted only between male and female. Adding further
examination on this text, Akin states that the rationale Jesus offered in response to the Pharisees
was entrenched in the doctrine of creation. In light of that, Jesus centered his response to the
question of divorce and the sanctity of marriage on God's idea in creation. He also confirmed that
marriage is defined as the union of male and female.4 This conclusion also asserts that never was
the composition of the marital institution meant to be redefined as it did since its initial
inception.
Also in the New Testament, the Apostles speak extensively on the distinctive roles in this
relationship. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul insists that the wife should submit to their
3 Thomas M. Finn, “Marriage Equality: A Historical View,” National Catholic Reporter 49, no. 21 (2013):
16.
4 John S. Hammett, “Human Nature,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin, (Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman, 2007), 356.
4
husbands as heads of the family, similarly to Christ being head of the Church. What is evident, is
that this is a clearly defined role for the wife or female member to obey as one being submissive,
not inferior, to the male. Likewise, a clear command for the husband or male member to love the
wife such as Christ loved the Church is given. It is also in this passage that the command for the
husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church is asserted. Adding further examination on
this passage, Platt explains that when Christ gave Himself for the Church, He cleansed it,
presented it in glory, and without wrinkle or anything impure to Himself. Likewise, this is the
mandate for the Husband to the wife, to give their all for the good of the wife and take
responsibility for her beauty. For this reason, God designed the husband, the male counterpart, to
be the head of the wife, the female counterpart, as Christ is the head of the Church. The marriage
therefore serves to illustrate to the world Christ’s love for His people.5 What is important to
highlight here, is that Paul plainly defines two distinct roles for both male and female
counterparts, and in no way does he implicate that they are interchangeable (Eph. 5:22-33, Col.
3:18-19).
Providing further insights on the distinctive roles of male and females in marital relations
can be found in the book of Titus. Here, Paul urges the elder women in the church community to
instruct the younger women in matters pertaining to marriage. He tells them to train the women
to love their husbands and children, to maintain self-control, and be submissive to their husbands
for the purpose of maintaining respect for God’s Word (Titus 2:4-5). At this point, the apostle
also ascribes specific teachings to the women of the church to be observed in the marriage.
Likewise, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul lays out his argument for the men to be the head of
the house as Christ is the head of the church (1 Cor 11:3). This example also points to the roles in
5 Platt, Counter Culture, 141.
5
marriage that are specific to one’s gender and cannot be reassigned unilaterally. What is
interesting to note about the magnitude of these teachings, is that these early writings would
continue serve as a guide for marital relationships for centuries.
Historical Understanding
Historically, marriage has always been defined as a lifelong commitment between a man
and a woman. Apart from the biblical account, the concept of marriage dates back to antiquity
where the biblical concept of marriage was the standard practice. In the Roman world, marriage
was understood as a joint accord between a man and a woman. Adding further insight to this
idea, Finn asserts that true matrimony was a partnership where both the man and the woman
consented to live and raise a family together. This concept of mutual consent was also the
standard understanding amongst Christians, Jews, and pagans alike.6 Though this practice is very
similar to present day practices, interestingly enough, the motivations for marriage as understood
by today’s standards where not the same.
In the early centuries, the idea of marrying based on the premise of love would have
seemed irrational and irresponsible. The major motivation behind marriage for many centuries
had been for financial gain and stability. As a matter of fact, similar to present day customs, some
viewed cohabitation as a temporary means to financial stability without the intention of
marrying. In her examination of how marriage has transformed throughout the centuries, Coontz
claims that in ancient Rome, cohabitation versus marriage depended exclusively upon the
motivations of the parties involved.7 Yet, these types of arrangements where typically frowned
6 Thomas M. Finn, “Marriage Equality: A Historical View,” National Catholic Reporter 49, no. 21 (2013):
16.
7 Stephanie Coontz, “The World Historical Transformation of Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and Family
66, no. 4 (2004): 974.
6
upon. Marriage as a permanent union was seen as a way of solidifying and perpetuating a
family’s place in society through its offspring for years to come.
What recorded history has demonstrated, is that in the majority of cultures marriage has
existed mainly for the purpose of establishing and maintaining societal hierarchies. Coontz
explains that this has been the understanding dating back for thousands of years. Marriage was
not mainly considered a means of mutual benefit between the husband and wife, but largely
served to establish political alliances, raising capital, and organizing divisions of labor.8 It was
not until the nineteenth century that romantic ideations began to surface as the primary focus of
marriage. Advocating this argument, contemporary scholar Margret Hunt states that up until the
eighteen-hundreds, marriage was the main means amongst all class levels of acquiring wealth,
livestock, land, and stature.9 Thus, the idea of marriage for thousands of years has been for the
purpose of consolidating wealth and perpetuating a family’s place in society through procreation.
Though the societal practice of marriage had long been viewed as an apparatus to secure
wealth, this concept began shifting during the reformation era. In her study on the reformation
period, Mikkola explains that sixteenth century reformers viewed marriage as an institution
created for the sole purpose of giving birth and raising children. 10 The reformers began
attempting to reemphasize marriage in light of God’s intended purpose. They believed that
marriage was not only a gift from God and an expression of His grace, they saw it as a cross to
bear in that both parties were obligated to meet the sexual needs of one another.11 It is by this
8 Ibid., 976.
9 Margaret Hunt, “The Bonds of Matrimony,” The Middling Sort: Commerce, Gender, and the Family in
England, 1680-1780 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996), 151.
10 Mikkola, Sini. “Luther, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland: A
Gender-Sensitive Historical Analysis.” Religions 11, no. 1 (2020): 48.
11 Sini, Religions, 49.
7
insistence that perhaps romance began to assume its influence on the motivations for marrying
and the perpetuation of the species ceased being the sole determinant for marriage.
Modern-Day Developments
From a contemporary view of marriage, there has been a dramatic shift from the
traditional understanding of the matrimonial composition. In the previous century, the fight for
homosexual unions to be recognized as a fundamental right ventured its way into the courts.
Though homosexual relationships had long been viewed as taboo, with the push for equality and
basic civil rights amongst minorities, advocates for homosexual marriages began litigating under
the same umbrella. Offering further information on this issue, Caufield and Delaet claim,
“Proponents of gay marriage in the United States have framed gay marriage as an ‘equal rights’
issue emphasizing same-sex couples’ lack of access to the fundamental rights and legal securities
associated with marriage.”12 What gay rights proponents where essentially arguing was that gays
were not afforded the same financial benefits in marriage as their heterosexual counterparts
enjoyed.
In its infancy stage, the legalization of same-sex marriages faced significant resistance, at
the turn of the twenty-first century, states began recognizing homosexual relationships as civil
unions, which were basically allocated the same legal rights as married couples. Providing a
more detailed accounting of these events, Cawman and Saucier explain that Vermont was the
first state in the US to recognize same sex unions as civil unions. This initial legislation solidified
the momentum of this movement towards redefining what constituted marriage.13 As a result,
12 Rachel P. Caufield and Delaet, L. Debra, "Gay Marriage as a Religious Right: Reframing the
Legal Debate Over Gay Marriage in the United States," Polity 40, no. 3 (07, 2008): 297.
13 Saucier, Donald A. and Audrey J. Cawman. "Civil Unions in Vermont: Political Attitudes, Religious
Fundamentalism, and Sexual Prejudice." Journal of Homosexuality 48, no. 1 (2004): 3.
8
conservative lawmakers and Evangelicals scrambled to muster a response to this movement that
threatened the sanctity of the traditional conjugal composition.
One of the most significant victories for proponents of same-sex marriage came in 2013.
The supreme court’s ruling dealt what was considered a death blow to conservative efforts to
thwart the legalization of gay marriage. Detailing this occasion, Platt explains,
In June 2013 the Supreme Court of the United States struck down key provisions
of that Act, paving the way for the complete redefinition of marriage across our
culture. In the days that followed, states began officially defining marriage
according to different terms, now notably allowing same-sex relationships to be
classified as so-called marriages.14
However, two years later, the Supreme court would legalize same-sex marriages across the
country. With the argument of same sex marriage seemingly decided, the question now arises as
to whether or not Christians should continue to oppose this stance.
Theological and Ethical Conclusions
Moral Relativism
In an attempt to adequality answer the question of whether Christians should continue to
oppose gay marriage, this section will survey some of the main philosophical models of
reasoning to view this question from the various perspectives. Among the models surveyed,
Moral Relativism presents a neutral point of view towards morality. According to Craig, “Moral
relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are
culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice.”15 In other words, this view
claims that there are no absolutes in determining right from wrong. The ethical response is
viewed as subjective which can vary based on a person’s age, gender, and cultural context. What
this ideology would imply in the question at hand, would result in a stalemate. No one party
14 Platt, Counter Culture, 133.
15 Edward Craig, “Moral Relativism,” The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed.
(London: Routledge, 2005), 709.
9
would emerge as having a superior ethical argument since what is moral varies from person to
person. However, what is interesting to note per Benedict XVI et al., is that the abandonment of
Christian values in Europe post WWII led to the widespread application of moral relativism.
Traditional values relating to marriage and procreation declined tremendously which attributed to
massive influxes in immigration.16 This observation highlights some of the objective
consequences and reactions to this ideology.
Deontology
A deontological approach to answering this question would first seek to define duty and
obligation to the question at hand. According to Reuschling, deontology seeks to answer the
question of what a person should do. The answer to said question is to obey the rules that define
the correct answer.17 Also, deontology is not dependent on whether the consequences of said
action are good or bad. The idea in deontology is to discover whether the action fulfills one’s
duty and obligation. Also, in this philosophical view, the influence of God is of no consequence.
Therefore, the question of whether one is fulfilling their obligation and duty by engaging in
same-sex marriage depends upon the duty and obligation of marriage. If one asserts that the duty
and obligations of marriage were based upon the divine mandate as outlined above, then the
answer would be no, a same-sex relationship cannot meet the duties and obligations as defined
by God’s standards. On the other hand, if one concludes that the duties and obligations are
founded in secular ideologies, then one would affirm same-sex marriages.
Utilitarianism
16 Benedict XVI, Pope, Marcello Pera, and Michael Moore. Without Roots: The West, Relativism,
Christianity, Islam (New York, NY: Perseus Books Group, 2006).
17 Wyndy Corbin Reuschling, “Classic Models of Morality,” Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises
and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2008),30.
10
Viewing this issue from a utilitarian point of view would seek to determine which
outcome produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of individuals. In
this model, according to Reuschling, “The moral emphasis is placed on the consequences of
decisions and actions as they are needed for achieving a desired end.”18 From this perspective,
being that in same-sex relations, and any sin for that matter, the offense is mainly against God, it
would be difficult to definitively determine what negative consequences homo-sexual marriages
may produce. However, there are the arguments that claim that children of same-sex couples do
not benefit from the balance of emotions that exist in hetero-sexual marriages.19 Nonetheless, this
argument would only apply to marriages that seek to adopt children. Thus, the utilitarian view
would overwhelmingly support gay marriage as it affirms one’s pursuit of happiness which does
not infringe upon that of others.
Christian Ethical View
Where all three of these views fail in determining a Christian response to this issue is that
none of these ideologies consider God as the exclusive source of moral absolutes. From a
relativistic view, it fails to recognize that God is absolute and unchanging. His precepts and
statutes transcend all time and cultural divides. What God has deemed as right is not something
He has arrived at through contemplation, but it is an expression of His being that has existed
since before time. Whether one subjectively believes something is right or wrong is irrelevant in
respect to the objective consequence they will incur.
The deontological position presents an issue in that though it emphasizes duty and
obligation in regard to society, it fails Christian reasoning since it does not consider God as the
18 Ibid., 49.
19 Adam Jowett ‘But if You Legalize Same-Sex Marriage. . .’: Arguments against marriage equality in the
British Press,” Feminism & Psychology no. 24 (2013): 43
11
one whom society is obligated to and responsible to. One of the main focuses of this ideology is
that God is not necessary to determine what is right and wrong. Furthering this assessment,
Reuschling states, “Rational, autonomous agents, through the use of pure, practical reason can
arrive at a moral code, a categorical imperative, independent of God, which is universally
applicable to all persons.”20 Therefore, for the Christian, this perspective fails in that it does not
acknowledge God as being central to the moral imperative. Accordingly, marriage is a God
created and ordained institution. The obligations and duties inherent therein can only be fulfilled
according to His precepts. In view of that, same-sex marriages are inherently immoral since this
kind of relationship runs counterintuitive to the purposes of marriage as defined by God.
From a utilitarian application, one must essentially consider what is most appeasing to the
greatest segment of society to determine ethical principles. Reuschling claims that Utilitarianism
defines morality by actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number
of people.21 Thus, the Utilitarian point of view from the biblical perspective fails in that it does
not acknowledge that the greatest happiness one can achieve is through worship of God (Jn 7:37-
38, 10:10, Rom 15:13). Likewise, communal worship of God is the only means to achieving the
greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Applying this perspective in
light of Scripture would conclude that endorsing what God defines as sin clearly distorts
communal worship of God and therefore must be viewed as immoral.
Theological Arguments
In light of the discussion above, the refutations of same-sex marriage as being acceptable
from a secularist argument have been considered from the Christian perspective. However, one
20 Reuschling, Reviving Evangelical Ethics, 67.
21 Ibid., 91.
12
of the greatest threats to the Church today is not the secularist argument but rather the liberal
theologian’s argument that seeks to reinterpret Scripture in light of secularist views on
homosexuality. What these arguments seek to assert is the Bible’s affirmation of same-sex
marriages. One prominent argument that gay Christians assert is that the precepts forbidding
homosexuality in the Levitical law were culturally specific for purposes of ceremonial purity.
From this perspective, prohibitions against homosexual relations are similar to the dietary laws
which are no longer applicable in the new covenant. Furthermore, the word used to describe
homosexuality, abomination, typically referred to ritual impurity not a transgression. However,
this argument falls short in that it does not recognize that certain laws were meant to set Israel
apart from other nations while others definitively outlined what was elucidated as universal and
absolute moral conduct. Adding to this argument, Brown claims, “These universal moral
prohibitions obviously apply to all believers today, while the dietary laws do not. As for the word
abomination, it often speaks of that which is morally detestable before God.”22
Another controversial argument claims that homosexuality is completely acceptable when
pursued in the context of a committed relationship. What gay Christians argue here is founded in
and builds upon the assertion of the previous argument. It is maintained that within the confines
of marriage, homosexuality is biblically ordained.23 Nonetheless, this argument fails to observe
God’s intentions and purposes for the institution of marriage. As stated earlier, when questioned
by the Pharisees concerning divorce, Jesus alluded to the fact that in the beginning God created
humanity as both male and female. This points to the intended design and composition of
marriage. It was in this design that God purposed marriage to perpetuate the human species as
He stated, be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). Furthermore, the responsibilities and obligation of
22 Michael L. Brown, “Levitical Laws and the Meaning of To‘Evah,” Can You Be Gay and Christian?
(Lake Mary, FL: Frontline Publishing, 2017), 107.
23 Ibid., 201.
13
marriage are intended to demonstrate the love of God for His people. For that reason, the biblical
mandate of these responsibilities can only be defined in terms of a heterosexual union.
Conclusion
In light of the views of marriage from the historical, biblical, and ethical analysis, there is
a clear distinction from what society has considered the purpose of the marital institution. On one
hand, God clearly intended marriage to serve as an institution where male and female have
clearly defined roles in which they together elucidate the love of God for His people. On the
other hand, marriage has been used as an apparatus for self-serving pursuits. In no way does this
approach convey God’s intention for this holy union. Therefore, it must remain the obligation
and duty of the believer to continue to defy what Scripture clearly does not support and affirm
what God has instituted for His purposes.
Bibliography
Benedict XVI, Pope, Marcello Pera, and Michael Moore. Without Roots: The West, Relativism,
Christianity, Islam. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group, 2006.
Brown, L. Michael. Can You Be Gay and Christian?. Lake Mary, FL: Frontline Publishing, 2017.
Cawman, J. Audrey and Donald A. Saucier. "Civil Unions in Vermont: Political Attitudes,
Religious Fundamentalism, and Sexual Prejudice." Journal of Homosexuality 48, no. 1
(2004): 1-18.
Coontz, Stephanie. “The World Historical Transformation of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage
and Family 66, no. 4 (2004): 974-79.
14
Craig, Edward. “Moral Relativism.” In The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd
ed. London: Routledge, 2005.
Delaet, Debra L. and Rachel Paine Caufield. "Gay Marriage as a Religious Right: Reframing the
Legal Debate Over Gay Marriage in the United States." Polity 40, no. 3 (07, 2008): 297-
320.
Edersheim, Alfred. “Genesis.” Bible History Old Testament London: Religious Tract Society,
1890.
Finn, M. Thomas. “Marriage Equality: A Historical View.” National Catholic Reporter 49, no. 21
(2013): 15-20.
Hammett, S. John. A Theology for the Church. Edited by. Daniel L. Akin. Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman, 2007.
Hunt, Margaret. The Middling Sort: Commerce, Gender, and the Family in England, 1680-1780.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996.
Jowett, Adam. “‘But if You Legalize Same-Sex Marriage. . .’: Arguments against marriage
equality in the British Press.” Feminism & Psychology no. 24 (2013): 37-55.
Mikkola, Sini. “Luther, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland: A
Gender-Sensitive Historical Analysis.” Religions 11, no. 1 (2020): 48-64.
Platt, David. A Compassionate Call to Counterculture in a World of Poverty, Same-Sex
Marriage, Racism, Sex Slavery, Immigration, Abortion, Persecution, Orphans, and
Pornography. Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Il: 2019.
Reuschling, C. Wyndy. Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic
Models of Morality. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2019.
