You know what I'm craving? A little perspective. That's it. I'd like some fresh, clear, well seasoned perspective. Can you suggest a good wine to go with that? - Anton Ego, Ratatouille
As we have gotten closer and closer to the May 8th vote on North Carolina's Amendment 1 there has been increasing chatter from both the camps for and against it. As I have considered how I will vote regarding the amendment I have been shocked by the level of confusion surrounding it. It is as if there is a great cloud of bewilderment that gets thicker and harder to penetrate the closer you get to the issue. I must admit that I have been greatly perplexed by it as I have tried to wrestle with the arguments for and against the choice that is being put before the people. Those who know me well will not be surprised at the conclusions that I have drawn, but they may be surprised to know that for a time I was even considering voting against the amendment.
What I have to say is written to Christians only. Perhaps Jews would also find my words helpful because my argument is based solely upon my understanding of the teachings of the Christian and Jewish Bibles. I am interested in discerning and revealing God's heart about this issue only. If you're not a Christian, but are curious about a Christian perspective, by all means read on. If you have honest questions about what the Bible says I'll be glad to help point the way for you. That being said, realize that the Bible and what it says is The parameter of this argument and discussion. Now, back to the topic at hand.
As I described it earlier, there seems to be a cloud of confusion surrounding Amendment 1. I am not surprised. I believe that this confusion is demonic at its core, for it seeks to obfuscate the will of God and to obliterate God's definition of marriage. This is the strongest spiritual resistance I have ever encountered. I knew at my core that I should vote for the amendment, but there was such a strong tug to vote against it. I found myself disoriented and perplexed every time I tried to formulate a logical defense for it. Maybe I have a little Marine in me (regrettably I never actually served as a Marine) because my instinct told me to charge and vote for it even though I was struggling.
Once I had resolved to do this I realized how widespread and how strong the deception was. I saw post after post from people that call themselves Christians in opposition to the Amendment. What can I say? I was very nearly persuaded to join them. So I began to ponder how to cut through the confusion and simplify this issue for Christians who are struggling with it. Sunday morning I received a breakthrough from God that was so simple and elegant that I feel compelled to share it with my brothers and sisters.
Here is the text of the proposed Amendment:
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.
Here's your perspective: focus on what the amendment says. This amendment is about one thing only – defining marriage. Anything beyond that is misdirection and subterfuge.
Among believers, I should not have to do this, but I feel it is necessary to remind everyone what the Bible says about itself: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” And “...know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” And “This is the word which the LORD has commanded.” I could go on, and on, but you get the point. Thus, as a Christian, we are called to study and know the Word of God and, very importantly as James said, “prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.”
That means we are to come into conformity to what the Word says. If society tells us that something is right, but the Bible tells us that it is wrong then we have to go with what the Bible says. If we have an opinion that is in conflict with what the Word says, then we are to conform that opinion to match the position of the Word. Let me give an example.
When I was a young Christian, the idea of interracial marriage was distasteful to me. (I find it interesting that many who oppose the current marriage amendment have demonstrated that once upon a time it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in North Carolina.) My opinion – my instinct – was that it was wrong and that God didn't like it. However, as I searched the scriptures for myself, and as I pondered what they said, I found nothing prohibiting interracial marriage whatsoever. I was faced with a dilemma: either I could continue on with my opinion in rebellion to the truth that I saw in the Bible or I could acquiesce and admit that I had been wrong. I repented and no longer hold that highly flawed opinion.
So, back to the amendment in question; how are we to evaluate it? As Christians we are obliged to assess the language and the intent of this law in light of what the Bible teaches about marriage. Here are the questions that I have asked of it: Does this law reflect the pattern for marriage that God established in the Bible? Is the original pattern for marriage that God established reinforced in the New Testament or is it abnegated by the new covenant? Does this law reflect God's revealed intention about marriage? Does this law prohibit any definition of marriage endorsed by the Bible? Does this law allow any definition of marriage prohibited by the Bible? I will address these questions one by one.
Does this law reflect the pattern for marriage that God established in the Bible?
The creation account tells us:
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
What do we learn from this passage? Number one: God's mission was to make “a helper suitable for” the man. Number two: none of the animals were suitable. Number three: God made a woman. Number four: it was important that they be sexually complementary.
So, in the very first marriage, when God could have done anything He wanted, He established marriage between one man and one woman and ordained that those two individuals would become one flesh. (One possible way of considering them to be one flesh is through children – the mingling of their two to become one. This is only possible by God's design.) How does that stack up against Amendment 1? “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” The amendment conforms to God's original pattern for marriage.
Is the original pattern for marriage that God established reinforced in the New Testament or is it abnegated by the new covenant?
The New Testament reaffirms God's original plan for marriage. Jesus had an encounter with the Pharisees regarding Moses' provision for divorce, but Jesus responded to them, saying, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate....Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” Jesus' use of the scriptures in Genesis indicates that God's intention for marriage was revealed in its inauguration.
The New Testament does not introduce a new model for marriage. The old still stands.
Does this law reflect God's revealed intention about marriage?
It absolutely does. As I have already demonstrated, God's original intent for marriage was that it would be between one man and one woman. This same pattern is re-affirmed through Jesus' words and also through Paul's teaching about the qualifications for elders and deacons.
Does this law prohibit any definition of marriage endorsed by the Bible?
Some may try to argue that the Bible endorses polygamy. I disagree. In no place does the Bible overtly endorse polygamy, even though several people in the Bible had multiple wives. Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon are notable examples. May I suggest that the scriptures teach that in each of these cases great trouble was caused by such an arrangement? The kings of Israel were instructed to not multiply wives to themselves, and, as I mentioned earlier, Paul teaches that elders and deacons should be the husband of one wife. At best, polygamy was tolerated by God “because of the hardness of our hearts” much like divorce was.
So, the answer to this question is no.
Does this law allow any definition of marriage prohibited by the Bible?
The answer to this question is also no. The amendment seeks to limit marriage to the biblical definition.
Remember, the question being put before the people on May 8 is about the definition of marriage. Will the people affirm that they want the state's definition of marriage to conform to God's definition of marriage or not? I have demonstrated that the proposed amendment does in fact conform to that definition. Now the choice is yours: Will you align your vote with God's Word or not? I can't make it any simpler than that.
I hope that you have found this analysis helpful. If you have, please feel free to share it with anyone who is struggling with their choice. God bless you.
