Lux Lucet

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

    – The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 24

This isn’t hard, folks. As theological questions go, the definition of marriage is pretty simple. It is a God-ordained, exclusive covenant between one man and one woman, and this the Christians has acknowledged for 2,000 years. In truth, the institution and its definition are much older than that, going all the way back to the creation of the world.

To borrow a turn of phrase from the Author of Hebrews, the biblical definition of marriage is milk, not meat. It’s something every Christian, even children, easily can, and ought to, understand.

And just as the Bible’s definition of marriage is simple and clear, so too is its stance on homosexuality: it’s a sin, and a particularly egregious one at that.

But as is the case with many things in this fallen world, what ought to be often times is not. Ours is a confused age, and truths that were almost taken for granted in earlier times now once again must be restated. One could point to any number of examples of the collapse of Western Civilization, but perhaps none exemplifies it better than the sweeping success of the homosexual agenda over the past 50 years.

Behavior that once was subject to sodomy laws is now celebrated at the highest levels of society. Governments, corporations, academics and the corporate media work diligently not only to promote the acceptance of homosexuality as normal and a thing to be celebrated, but also to cover in shame anyone who stands in their way.

The modern homosexual movement is usually traced back to the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village that occurred in June 1969. From there, the homosexual agenda has gone from strength to strength, culminating in the Supreme Court’s 2015 discovery that the U.S. Constitution supports the right of homosexuals to marry. The pace of change has been remarkable, and what was, just a few short years ago, considered filthy and shameful is now held up by all respectable people and institutions as the epitome righteousness.

Things have gotten to the point that, not only has it become socially unacceptable to speak out against homosexuality, but to so positively invites vilification from society’s mainstream institutions. Just last week, I wrote in this space about the SPLC’s declaring D. James Kennedy Ministries a hate group due to its opposition to the homosexual agenda. Many other examples of the same can be found

When I wrote that piece, I was unaware that a few days later that The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would release the Nashville Statement, a work intended to affirm what the Bible has to say about men and women, marriage and homosexuality.

I first became aware of the Statement this morning while listening to Jason Hutchinson’s sermon during this morning’s church service. His comments were quite good and I will include a link to his sermon once it has become available.

After reading the document for myself, as far as I have been able to determine, the Statement is biblically sound and does a good job of setting forth Scripture’s clear teaching on sexuality. Further, the Statement also effectively refutes from Scripture some of the current arguments advanced in favor of homosexual marriage and transgenderism.

The World’s Reaction

So, we have a logically sound, biblical statement on marriage. Doubtless the world is all ears, right? Well, unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past few decades, it should come as no surprise that the world not only rejected the Statement, but did so in a resounding manner, accusing the Statements signatories of, wait for it, HATE.

It seems as if the MSM, along with various and sundry mainstreamers, is shocked, SHOCKED!, to find that, yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality and, what is just as bod, there are Christians who are willing to say so. A sample of reactions from around the web include,

• “The Nashville Statement’s harm is more than symbolic. The hateful beliefs it endorsees have real-life, devastating consequences.” – Eliel Cruz, The New York Times
  
• “The demagoguery on display is nauseating, destructive, and completely counter to the mission and methods of Jesus Christ.” – Suzanne DeWitt Hall, The Huffington Post
  
• The Nashville Statement is “deadly theology” and an “ugly manifesto.” – Eva Kendrick, AL.com.
  
• The Nashville Statement is a “distortion” of the love Jesus encouraged. Rex Huppke, Chicago Tribune
  
• “The @CBMWorg’s so-called ‘Nashville Statement’ is poorly named and does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of Nashville. Megan Barry, Nashville Mayor.
  
• “The God I know does not support the #NashvilleStatement.” – Deray McKesson, Black Lives Matter
  
• “Evangelical’s bigotry-filled Nashville Statement is denounced for its anti-LGBT message.” Salon
  
• “#NashvilleStatement is un-American toilet paper.” – Scott Dworkin, Democratic political operative
  

I could go on, buy you probably get the picture by now, the Bible’s teaching on sexuality, in particular its condemnation of homosexuality, is not popular with many folks in high places. Not that that’s any big surprise, mind you.

A Common Theme

As opposed to Christian teaching as all the above statements are, none of the authors claimed to be an atheist. In fact, a common theme running through most of the quotes above is an affirmation by the various authors that they believe in God.

But – and credit is due to Jason Hutchinson for pointing this out in this morning’s sermon – despite their many affirmations of faith, these people do not know God, because they prefer to fashion a God in their own image than to listen to the God of the Bible as he reveals himself in Scripture. They wish to instruct God rather than be instructed by him.

In short, they are idolaters, not Christians.

That’s the proper conclusion to reach when a man says, “The God I know does not support the #NashvilleStatement.”

For the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the LORD of hosts, the I AM, the Holy One of Israel, the only true God, the Creator of the universe, the One who will judge the quick and the dead, approves the Nashville Statement.

And his opinion, if I may put it that way, is the only one that counts.

Love, What Is It?

Rex Huppke in his Chicago Tribune
article denouncing the Nashville Statement whined that the Nashvillers couldn’t be right, because Jesus preached love. “Love,” Huppke tells us, “is something most people can get behind,” but he never quite gets around to telling us just what that something is.

From a reading of his article, apparently his definition of “love” is a sort of sentimental mush that affirms whatever he feels, intuits, or imagines is right.

Citing no Scripture, or anything else for that matter, Huppke asserts, “The love Jesus encouraged is often distorted in ways that, in my mind [note well, the subjective “my mind”], run afoul of what the man was talking about talking about. The Nashville Statement is one of those distortions, a declaration that some love is acceptable and some love isn’t, that some people are acceptable in the eyes of God and some aren’t.”

Apparently Huppke never read the verse, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Very clearly this verse teaches that God does what Huppke denies: He accepts some people and rejects others.

So just what is love, anyway? To answer that question is my first be worth noting what love is not: an emotion. In our anti-rational, emotional age, this may come as a surprise to many. Nevertheless a little analysis shows that this is the case.

Gordon Clark provides a helpful definition of “emotion” in his book What is the Christian Life? There, Clark writes,

An emotion is something unusual, sudden, exceptional. If a certain state of consciousness continues over a fairly long period of time, we do not call it an emotion…In addition to the characteristic of suddenly disturbing one’s normal mental state, an emotion must be recognized as involuntary. A person does not calmly decide to get angry, or to lapse into depression. Indeed emotions are not only involuntary, in the sense that we do not deliberately choose them, they also occur when we deliberately try to suppress them. At other times we may want to have a certain emotion and yet find that we cannot produce it. Emotion, therefore, is doubly involuntary.

A third characteristic of emotion is the absence of intellectual content..Nor should emotion be confused with volition (Clark, 161).

By way of contrast, Clark writes this of love as defined in the Scriptures,

Now, someone may say that God loves and that love is an emotion. But with respect to love, two points must be made. First, God’s love is eternal, therefore not a sudden change, therefore not an emotion. Second, God commands us to love him. A command requires voluntary obedience. Therefore the love God commands is volitional, not emotional…

If God commanded us to “emote,” it would be the same as commanding a voluntary involuntary act…the command, “Emote,” is irrational because it would require us to perform voluntarily what is involuntary. Therefore neither God’s love nor the human love God commands is emotional: They are volitional (Clark, 163).

Apropos Huppke’s criticism of the Nashville Statement for declaring “that some love is acceptable and some love isn’t,” Clark writes, “Some other human states of mind, also called love, may of course be emotions, very bad ones” (Clark, 163).

What Would Gordon Clark Say?

There are a lot of good reasons to study the works of Gordon Clark, one of which, as seen from his comments quoted above, is that he was an exceptionally clear-minded Christian teacher. Another reason is that he lived during our own era, and as such was familiar with contemporary theological and social issues.

Here’s Clark on homosexuality,

In all ages, and never so much as now, love is misunderstood, not only by the filthy homosexuals whose activities make ordinary whoremongers seem almost righteous; but particularly by the religious leaders who want to accept homosexuals as members in good standing – and not only so, but even want to ordain them as ministers, no less (First John a Commentary, 133).

Well said. And not only that, it makes the Nashville Statement seem tame by comparison.

A Spiritual Showdown In The Offing

Given the conflict between, on the one hand, the establishment’s obvious determination to force the normalization of homosexuality on the whole nation, and, on the other hand, God’s Word that early condemns it, things appear to be headed for a spiritual showdown.

As Christians, we must remember that the first rule in spiritual warfare is that the battle belongs to the Lord. Neither our intelligence, nor our rhetorical skill, nor our boldness, nor our wealth, will win this fight. The battle belongs to the Lord. This is one of the major themes of the Bible running straight through it from Genesis to Revelation.

A second, and closely related rule, is that Christians have only one offense weapon in this fight: The Word of God. This is one of the takeaways from Paul metaphor in Ephesians about putting on the whole armor or God. There, the Christian soldier’s only weapon is, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word or God.”

Third, we must remember that but for the grace of God we ourselves would be his enemies, perhaps even finding ourselves numbered among those pushing to normalize homosexuality, or even engaging in the practice.

Fourth, we are called to pray for our enemies, and this means homosexuals and homosexual advocates who speak evil of us falsely. As Jesus noted, even sinners treat their friends well. But Christ commanded us to love our enemies, including homosexual advocates. Just to be clear, this does not mean agreeing with them. To do so would be to declare to them peace, peace, when there is no peace. Homosexuality is a sin, one that is destructive of the body and soul in this life, and produces eternal damnation in the next. To love homosexuals – that is, to be favorably disposed to them – means to speak the truth to them, not whisper nonsense assuring them everything’s just fine while they slip into a Christless eternity.

In Closing

The Westminster Shorter Catechism has a wonderful definition of the decrees of God. It reads, “The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

When faced with what seems like the unrelenting onslaught of evil counsel so characteristic of our time, it is tempting even for seasoned Christians to lose heart.

But there is nothing, not one single thing, including the rise to prominence of the homosexual movement, including the gnashing of teeth over the Nashville Statement, that falls outside of God’s foreordination or which does not redound to his glory and our good as his people.

As Christians, let us join the fight with joy and confidence, knowing this: Come what may, whether widespread repentance and reformation, or a continued slide into darkness, the ultimate victory is ours. And this is no vain hope. For the right man is on our side, the man of God’s own choosing.