FIRST-PERSON: 'Gay marriage': What would Jesus say?

BP NEWS ^ | Jan 16, 2004 | Robert Jeffress

[Dubya]

WICHITA FALLS, Texas (BP)--I received an e-mail from a member of our community about a sermon I had preached concerning homosexuality. "Why do you feel you can speak with such authority on this subject when Jesus is quoted not one single time on the topic of homosexuality?" he asked.

If you are a connoisseur of the cable news channels, you probably heard the same question posed to those who opposed the election of a homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church last year or Massachusetts' supreme court declaring that "marriage" rights must be extended to homosexuals.

"If Jesus had nothing to say against homosexuality," they say, "why should we?" That argument is seriously flawed in several ways.

First, it assumes that Jesus' words are more authoritative than the rest of Scripture -- something the Bible itself never claims. When New Testament passages that condemn homosexual conduct such as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 are cited, the typical response is, "Well, those are just the writings of the Apostle Paul." But even the Apostle Peter (who had his own share of disagreements with Paul) recognized Paul's words as authoritative and called them "scripture" (2 Peter 3:16). Since that time, Christians have historically recognized all of the Bible as equally authoritative.

But even more significant is the fact that Jesus clearly did address the issue of homosexual "marriage." In a "Q&A" with the Pharisees about marriage and divorce, Jesus reaffirmed God's design for marriage as first expressed in the opening chapters of Genesis. "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made the male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Matthew 19:4-5).

In these two brief verses Jesus affirmed that God intended for sex to be practiced within the bounds of a heterosexual ("male and female") marriage ("shall cleave to his wife" not "his significant other").

Jesus never directly addressed the issue of bestiality, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia or any other sexual aberration. He didn't need to. By upholding God's original plan for human sexuality, He automatically condemned any deviation from that standard. We should not need a constitutional amendment to tell us what God has said from the beginning: Marriage is for a man and a woman. Period. I realize it is trite, but it is nevertheless true: The first couple God placed in the Garden was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

The reason God's guidelines for marriage are preserved in Scripture are not for His benefit, but for ours. For example, suppose you purchase a new television set and read in the owner's manual that you should use only a 120-volt outlet. "The manufacturer is being too narrow-minded," you complain. "The set belongs to me, and if I want to use a 220-volt outlet, that's my business." Obviously, the manufacturer gave those instructions for your benefit. He wired the set and knows under what conditions it operates best.

Instead of pounding our pulpits in fury and spewing venomous denunciations about homosexuals, we who believe in the authority of Scripture should remind people that the Bible is God's "owner's manual" for all areas of life, including sexuality. God's commands were given for our well-being. Since He wired us, He knows that the optimum place for sex to be enjoyed is within the boundaries of a heterosexual, married relationship.

What would Jesus say about homosexual marriages? The same thing He would say about adultery and premarital sex. "Go back and read the Owner's manual ... then have a good time." --30-- Robert Jeffress is pastor of First Baptist Church in Wichita Falls, Texas. He is the author of thirteen books including the upcoming "Hell? Yes!"

[Dubya]

[MegaSilver]

First, it assumes that Jesus' words are more authoritative than the rest of Scripture -- something the Bible itself never claims.

Something Christ Himself directly contradicts, actually. "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them" (St. Matthew 5:19).

[shiva]

Most homosexuals and lesbians very conveniently don't believe in God or the bible.

[MegaSilver]

Most homosexuals and lesbians very conveniently don't believe in God or the bible.

*coughEpiscopalianscough*

[netmilsmom]

>>Most homosexuals and lesbians very conveniently don't believe in God or the bible.<<

Check this out...http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/

My lesbian sister is happy as a clam about it.

[BenLurkin]

Christ clearly identifies himself as "the Alpha and the Omega" Rev.1:8, and Rev. 1:18-19.

He is the final authority on the law. It is the law which he authored and on the basis of which will judge everyone.

[Moby Grape]

Using the LIBERAL interpretations of scripture (Jesus never spoke against gay marriage) nonesense, one could argue that slavery is an acceptable choice (after all there is no record of Jesus speaking against slavery).

And to continue this "logic", the method continues to bite the liberals...Jesus said nothing about:

Global Warming
SUV Ownership
Hunting
The "rich" not paying enough taxes

[Dubya]

Very good. Thanks.

[azhenfud]

"First, it assumes that Jesus' words are more authoritative than the rest of Scripture -- something the Bible itself never claims."

Although I agree with the author on the issue as a whole, I beg to differ with the quoted point...

John Ch.5 Vv.39-40 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

[annyokie]

I have numerous gay friends who are quite religious.

[Moby Grape]

Satan is religious....Jesus said that even the demons KNOW of Him and tremble.....He went on to say (speaking of the final judgement):

"In THAT day many will say LORD, did we not prophesise in your name, and I will say depart from me for I never knew you."

He is talking about RELIGIOUS people here...if BEING religious was all that was required, then Jesus would not have said that BROAD is the way and many there are on it that leads to destruction, but NARROW is the gate that leads to life, and FEW there be that pass through it.

[kaboom]

Did ya hear the one about the gay leper who prefered to give than recieve?

[shiva]

quite religious.

not quite the same as a 'relationship'. What do your numerous gay friends say about having their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone?

[annyokie]

Oh, ye that propose to know the mind of God.

[joesbucks]

Here are my thoughts on the topic. I frankly don't care if a state or the US government say homosexual/lesbian marriage is ok. I do believe the church however should not be in the business in glorifying, performing the act of or in any way approving of homosexual/lesiban marriage.

The church's reason for wanting various laws enacted to stop such relationships is simply because the church has failed miserably in leading and enticing people to join, follow and learn the true meaning of the scriptures. Their failure has them scrambling to impose thier theology on those who have no desire to be a part of it.

My thoughts are not some libertarian utopia. It has become sadly clear that the church, it's leaders and members simply have no desire to clearly understand, embrace and live a life close to Christ. It's really not about how to serve HIM, but rather how WE want to serve Him.

Why do we worry about gay marriage when we as Christians overlook divorce (cleary also discussed in scripture with only two reasons for believers to engage in it), coveting, being untruthful, and other sins discussed with equal passion in Scripture and dismiss it as "well I believe so I have Grace." If God does allow Grace to be used in that manner, I can only imagine that He must be really disappointed in giving us that "out".

Once the church and it's followers can lead lives dedicated to service to HIM and not some self centered version of service, then we will enjoy the blessings of his largesse. Until then, we will try to manipulate the masses through impoising our will, not his, through the government. Sad.

[AnalogReigns]

How does the verse you quoted--of Jesus saying that the scriptures testify of him--indicate that the whole of the Bible is not God's word (and therefore equally authoritative).

All orthodox Christians, while seeing Jesus' quoted words as precious, acknowlege the whole Bible is authoritative--as clearly did Christ. The verse you quote is a good one, as well as numerous others--showing the Son of God pointed to holy scripture to prove His claims.

I think unfortunately the "red letter" bibles, so common today, have blurred that orthodox principle--that ALL of the Bible is God's word.

[chachacha]

Well! I guess that does it!

Take that LORD! You see, even you can learn new things every day.

[AnalogReigns]

Homosexual "marriage," is the attempt of radical liberals (through the courts--since they know they'll lose in the democratic legislatures) to FORCE their religion (or irreligion) upon the rest of us. A lot more people than just religious Christians oppose it--because there are numerous practical reasons to oppose it. It's the homosexuals that are beating a drum for change, NOT the religious conservatives.

While I agree with much of your sentiments--that the churches need to emphasize faithfulness in (real) marriage--the issue of homosexual marriage goes far beyond that.

For a very few elitist liberal judges to tell me that my government must recognize and reward an "institution" never before recognized in 4000 years of human history is just utterly ridiculous, and turns a democratic republic on its ear. Next step (as is already the case in Canada) is to ban "hate speech" i.e. Christians from saying homosexual behavior is immoral. How long until people are imprisoned for saying a sodomite is a sodomite?

There is nothing keeping homosexuals now from making mutual contracts, and having liberal churches (like the Episcopalians) from "blessing" their unions. For the government to bless it though, is another matter. Already fundamentalist (break away) M*rmons in Utah are suing to make polygammy legal. Once the tie is broken (as it almost fully is) of law to morality--and is just "practical" who knows what weirdness will occur. I for one don't want my tax dollars helping out perversion, thank you.

[annyokie]

Get a grip. We don't know what God thinks or doesn't think.

God is the Unmoved Mover. Always was. Always will be. I am certain that He is smarter than us.

To presume to know the mind of God is blasphemy.