A couple of weeks ago the SCOTUS handed down the Obergefell ruling that made gay marriage the law of the land and the universe was engulfed in a sea of rainbow-colored joy. Or anger. Or grief. Or ecstasy. Honestly, there were about as many reactions as there were colors in the rainbow. In any case, a swarm of articles on the subject have gone up, both by non-Christians and Christians of all persuasions; articles full of arguments, historical narratives, questions, answers to questions, cartoons, and God knows what else.
And, honestly, I have tried to avoid them. Pretty much unsuccessfully, but there you have my vulnerable confession of how little I’ve wanted to have anything to do with discussing the subject online. It’s a difficult enough issue to discuss in person, especially when you want to be pastoral. What’s more, this is not a hobby-horse for me. In the last four years of ministry, I’ve explicitly taught on the subject twice, and only because the biblical text in question raised the question.
One of the most recent of these articles was by Tyler Huckabee–an Evangelical writer, blogger, and former editor of Relevant magazine–in which he wrote about his change of heart on same-sex marriage. It’s a personal narrative of sorts, with an articulation of his reasons thrown in, and a closing appeal at the end.
What I’d like to do in this piece is offer some analysis and commentary on his post.
Now, some of you might be asking, given that up until now I’ve kept my trap shut, why this piece? In a lot of ways, I think many millennials are resonating with this one in a particular way. It is representative of the reasoning and feelings of a many of the youngish, Evangelicals on the fence who might read the piece and say, “Ya, man, that’s kind of the deal for me too. Thanks for articulating it for me.” This is a niche that seems worth addressing.
Also, we are in similar positions. Unlike guys like Gagnon and Brownson, or DeYoung and Vines, I haven’t written academic or a popular book on the subject. Neither has Huckabee. We’re both bloggers and ex-somethings. He’s the ex-editor of a major, Christian magazine and I’m a soon to be ex-college pastor of a not-so-major college group. Also, everybody says Huckabee is a sweet, reasonable guy, so I figure he’ll be a good conversation partner.
To start, you probably ought to read his article before this one, or what follows might not make sense.
Appreciation. First, there are a couple of things I appreciate about Huckabee’s article.
Obviously, he clearly thought about it slowly and maturely, and I can appreciate that writing it can’t have been easy given the church friends he’s had/has, or the way this might affect future publishing opportunities in the Evangelical world. It will certainly make other spheres of influence easier to navigate, particularly the much broader culture outside Evangelicalism, but there will certainly be some cost. Some might cynically say that the timing is suspicious, but I think that would be unfair. It’s clear he’s been chewing on it for a while.
The other thing I really appreciate is that he doesn’t just do the full “conversion to the light” narrative, and run to seeing traditional Christians holding a classic view of marriage as obviously bigoted, or motivated by some deep-seated animus. That’s something many who have adopted an affirming stance only recently can’t seem to stop themselves from doing. And I hope, if Huckabee doesn’t change his mind back, that’s something that he’ll influence others to understand as well.
That said, I’ll try to give you what I take to be the heart of Huckabee’s argument, and offer up some assorted criticisms and questions in no particular order. To be clear, for me, the issue in this article is the affirmation of same-sex marriages or relationships as the church, not the State question, which is an interesting and important, but fundamentally distinct issue for another time.
The Main Argument. The heart of Huckabee’s argument, rooted in his reading of Genesis 2, is that the main aim of marriage is not procreation or the propagation of the human race–the relational God is more romantic than that—but rather to deal with the fact that it is not good for man to be alone. Of course, the procreative function is there, but for Huckabee, it is not primary, nor central, nor even necessary to the definition and reality of marriage as an institution or practice. No, Huckabee sees the issue of loneliness as the pressing one in Scripture, and our focus on procreation has misled us on this point. For this reason, we have unfortunately restricted those with same-sex attraction to the position of irredeemable loneliness solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. And Huckabee admits that he can’t do that anymore.
The rest of Huckabee’s arguments, or stories about the way his textbook Bible college theology crumbled in the face of real people’s struggles, are aimed at shoring up that contention.
The first real comment worth making is that his entire argument is premised on the assumption that marriage and sex are the main or only viable relationships to deal with being “alone.” For Huckabee, close friendships, parental relationships, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, extended families, or even the community of God given to us in the church, are just not in view as part of God’s remedy for humans being alone. And this is where I think Huckabee’s main argument shows some real inconsistency.
Huckabee rejects the claim that the narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 gives us the normative standard for marriage as the man/woman pair. He finds irrelevant Adam and Eve’s obvious, bodily complementarity, highlighted linguistically in the Hebrew pairing “ish/ishah” in the outburst of Adam’s poetry “This at last is bone of my bones/ and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman / because she was taken out of Man” after having Eve plucked from his side (2:23). The earlier command in Genesis 1 to be “fruitful and multiply”(1:26-28), and even the later indications of Torah and Tanakh that marriage and procreative possibility are linked (levirate marriage, Mal.2:15, etc) are likewise of decisive importance. None of these things point Huckabee absolutely to the idea that marriage and the uniting of two to become one flesh is only about a man and a woman. It’s only and primarily about “being alone” and finding someone to fix that problem.
If that’s the case, my question is, why restrict the solution to the problem of “being alone” to the specific relationship of marriage with its spiritual and physical union, just because that’s specifically what happens to occur in the text? In other words, if all these other features of the narrative don’t figure in determinatively as a normative part of the solution to Adam’s “being alone,” why should the sexual union part of it figure in either? Why not just see it as a story of God giving one sexually-non-determinate person another sexually-non-determinate person to be friends with?
I actually think that’s a valid question, in general. Even a traditional reader might affirm the importance of sexual differentiation (all those other feature I just listed) and still note that Adam and Eve together form the basis and beginning of human community in general. That in turn provides a basis for all those other relationships that give humans whole, meaningful lives that don’t have to be spent “alone”, even outside heterosexual marriage.
It is here that Huckabee, like so many of us, has bought into the cultural (and dare I say, “Evangelical youth group”) myth that marriage and sex is the only possible completion of our human experiences of love and wholeness. Ernst Becker pointed out that in the modern period, with the loss of belief in God, we’ve idolized the sexual and romantic Other so that it has become nearly impossible to imagine a full, whole, or even joyful-though-costly life without one. And this conceit I find to be entirely untrue on the basis of Scripture, reason, and not to mention, experience.
While Huckabee worries that the procreative view insults or diminishes those couples experiencing barrenness—which I’d argue it doesn’t—I am quite sure his view ends up diminishing and deeming as lesser the experiences of millions of single, celibate men and women in the Church, both gay (and the vast majority who are straight), throughout history down into the present. I refuse to believe the contemporary narrative which sees them as “cursed” by God simply because they don’t have a romantic or sexual partner in this life, something they may even deeply desire. There’s more to be said here, but let’s pass to the next subject.
Scripture and the Meaning of the Body. One of the main themes that emerges upon examination is Huckabee’s handling of Scripture and the body. One particular element that stood out to me was his handling of the apostle Paul’s thought on the matter. Of course, that’s not a surprise. If you’re going to change your mind on sexuality and marriage, you’re going to have to reckon with Paul’s many statements on the issue.
Some of his responses are fairly common these days. He raised the often-mentioned and often-answered question of whether Paul “knew” about the kinds of gay relationships we’re talking about now, only to assert that we can’t know either way. I think Paul did, but even if he didn’t, it actually wouldn’t matter given the way Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is thoroughly rooted in his reading of Genesis 1-3. But, we can’t settle that out here.
This section was far more interesting to me:
Paul was a bit reserved about marriage to begin with: “To the unmarried and the widows,” he says in 1 Corinthians. “I say it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self control, they should marry.”
This is a rather dim view of sex, which isn’t all that surprising, considering Paul. He seemed hugely unbothered by anything that wasn’t strictly spiritual. I love him for this, but I can’t help but think he would scratch his head at a good deal of the fuss made about marriage in modern Christianity.
Having spent the last 9 months preaching through 1 Corinthians with my students, knee-deep in commentaries on the subject, I must admit I found the comment rather bizarre. What can Huckabee mean by Paul’s preoccupation with “strictly spiritual” matters? Surely not the idea that Paul didn’t care about both body and soul? That’s the point of the argument in 1 Corinthians 5-7. Read any of the major commentaries (Thiselton, Hays, or Wright) to verify this.
I mean, goodness, in the chapter right before, Paul says to the Corinthians to honor God in your body (6:20). Why? Because resurrection means the body is for the Lord (6:13), to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19), which is why God bought it at a price (6:20). For Paul, you shouldn’t eat idol food because food can be a form of worship, and, indeed, even eating and drinking can be done to the glory of God (10:31). Everything is “strictly spiritual” for Paul.
This brings me to Huckabee’s criticism of Matthew Lee Anderson’s massive article on marriage, procreation, and same-sex marriage. As you might guess, central to Anderson’s point is that eros, the romantic love central to marriage, finds its fulfillment in procreation, as the child becomes an icon of the parents’ love. What I find interesting was that Huckabee criticized it as a “crude materialism” that reduces love to “flesh and function.”
That’s a rather odd criticism of Matt’s piece and there are a number of ways’ of responding to it. The one that’s relevant to us comes in view when we connect this criticism to his comments on Paul, as well as his earlier reading of Genesis 1 and 2. When we do this, Huckabee’s critique reveals a semi-Gnostic, anti-materialistic view of humanity as body and soul, flesh and spirit, and his failure to appreciate the way the Creator has written a moral and spiritual grammar into the body itself.
For those who chafe at that idea, remember, Christianity is something of a crassly materialistic faith to begin with. God makes dirt. Then he shapes and breathes life into a man out of the dirt. Then he makes a woman from the man. Then, God becomes a man born to a woman as a gendered Jew in the 1st Century. That’s all very crudely materialistic.
Or again, our two sacraments involve or are analogues of the processes of flesh and function–dunking the body into the waters of death and resurrection, and consuming the broken body and shed blood of the covenant. It should come as no surprise, then, that marriage is an irreducibly physical reality where two become “one flesh” as a biologically and spiritually complementary pair. Here the physicality and the spirituality are two sides of the same coin. The spiritual meaning depends on the physical and vice versa.
In fact, it is precisely this meaning that is at the heart of one of other Pauline texts that Huckabee doesn’t deal with:
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” (Ephesians 5:31-32)
As Paul reads Genesis 2, God takes uses the sign of marriage, specifically in its binary, male and female, complementary-flesh-uniting character to point to Jesus’ own love and union with his Bride. And here’s where we come to one of my points: even leaving procreation aside—which I don’t think you should for very long—you can’t alter the pair of man and woman in marriage without altering the grammar, the syntax, the meaning of marriage and it’s God-ordained purpose of pointing to Christ’s saving love for his Church through the “crudely materialistic” processes of “flesh and function.” Childbearing or not, marriage as a sign-post of the gospel is entirely dependent on the sexual grammar of male and female.
Incidentally, can we all agree that anybody with this depth-dimension to their view of physical union can’t have a “dim view” of sex?
Instead, Paul gives us a complex view of sex with a double-movement. First, he de-idolizes our sexual desires and reminds us that they are not ultimate, nor devastating if unfulfilled. He is a contented celibate man, just as his single and celibate Lord Jesus was. He too has the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 7:40). Second, he points us to the unique, Christologically-charged meaning of the sexual act and the body that finds its expression in appreciating the glory of sexual difference in marriage. It is precisely such glorious tensions that I love him for.
Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin, and Loving the Loves of Others. We’ve all heard that phrase, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Nobody actually has a problem with this saying when it comes to something like, say, racism. I mean, think about it. Love the racist, hate the racism, right? Otherwise, what are your options? Love the racist and his racism? Hate the racist and the racism? No. Love the racist and hate his racism seems about the only option, unless you want to go into some other sort of pattern like “love the racist, feel mutely about his racism”, or “love the racist, understand his racism non-judgmentally and be open to a conversation about these things”? Obviously not.
Huckabee says that in this particular case it’s very difficult because the “sin” in question is part of their identity in such a way that it is categorically different, raising all sorts of problems. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But, I would quickly point out that the gospel is fundamentally about gifting us new identities in Christ. I would say, rather, that in the case of same-sex desires, too often we have accepted the modern mode of identity-construction via sexual desire, which, to my reckoning, is an entirely unbiblical assumption.
Pressing on, Huckabee writes:
But I know that faith, hope and love remain. And the greatest of these is love. And a love that must hold people’s identity at bay is an imperfect love—a love that refuses their own loves. If someone were to say they loved me but saw my own marriage as an affront to God, I would say that that person does not then really love me. I could not abide that sort of love in my life. I just could not.
Huckabee says here that he could not abide the sort of love that refuses to love his loves, to affirm his marriage. But does that really make sense? I know he’s been married for a year, and so he’s thinking in relation to his own marriage, but what if we thought about children?
I’m not a parent, but I work with students, and if there’s one reality that I’m acquainted with well about them, it’s that they quite frequently love the wrong thing, person, or persons. Or, they love them in the wrong way.
In fact, that’s at the heart of one of our most classic definitions of sin and idolatry: disordered love. In other words, at the heart of sin lies the fact that we often love the wrong things, or we love good things wrongly, with the wrong intensity, aim, or way. My students are a mirror of my own heart in that regard.
Thirty years ago, German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg wrote:
Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted love. Human beings are created for love, as creatures of the God who is Love. And yet that divine appointment is corrupted whenever people turn away from God or love other things more than God.
So, take the mother who loves her children above God. That’s an idolatrous love. That’s a wrong love. Or let’s switch back to romantic loves. Maybe the young man who loves his girlfriend possessively and obsessively. Or the woman who loves the husband of another woman as she ought to love her own. Or, take the case of the disordered love of incest. I do not mean to say incest and same-sex attraction are the same–do not misread me here–but simply to bring up a case we still mostly recognize as wrong in our culture. Brother and sister are supposed to love each other, even passionately. But the problem is that we all sense that it’s not supposed to be in that particular way. Even love that has an appropriate object can be wrong if it’s the wrong sort of love for that object.
Each of these cases is of a love—a real, honest love—which we are actually called to, out of love, not love and affirm in its entirety. No, at the proper time and context, if we love the person, we cannot love their loves because they are, in some way, destructive. They are another manifestation of the way that all of our loves have gone wrong this side of Eden. (Note, I say “in its entirety”, because a man can show tender, thoughtfulness to another man, just as the couple involved in adultery can, excepting the act of involving the other in sin, be quite loving to the other.) But here’s the thing: love can, love does, in fact, at times, love must question our loves.
The fundamental question is, “What has God said about our loves in Scripture?” Remember, this is the God of love who created us, who we rejected for the sake of other, lesser loves, and who yet pursued us in love to redeem and bring us back to himself while we were yet sinners at the cost of his Son’s life (Romans 5:8). We must trust that his love moves him to reveal to us the proper patterns and parameters of marital love.
And this is true even when it doesn’t feel like it, as any parent who has ever said no to one of the many destructive loves of their children knows. How much more, then, ought we acknowledge that the Infinitely Wise Creator God knows and loves perfectly, even in a way that our finite and fallen minds may find difficult at times? It is here that our generation has yet to truly struggle with the counter-intuitive love of God.
Have I Considered That I Could Be Wrong? Huckabee closes his confession with a final appeal. He tells us that he knows he could be wrong on this issue. Christians disagree here as they have in other places, and he thinks that God won’t condemn either those who affirm a traditional position or a progressive one in the end. But the question he asks is this:
However, I do urge you to consider: If you are wrong, what is the cost in the here and now? A life condemning others for something they can’t change about themselves? A life judging love?
That’s the wager. It’s not one I’m willing to make.
I have to admit, I’d hate to be wrong here for that reason, if that’s really the gamble. But is it? First, I’ve already dealt with the “judging love” objection above, and to be clear, the relevant question is not my judgment about love, but God’s. But is it really only the traditionalist like me who has a scary wager to make?
Huckabee quotes 1 Corinthians 6:9, earlier, but he doesn’t manage to connect the dots here:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality…
Huckabee asks us to consider the consequences here and now. And those are real, though I think even there Huckabee fails to consider the consequences even here and now if he’s wrong. But still, what about then and there? Do we really want to play the “consider the stakes” game, then? Because the thing Huckabee’s argument doesn’t consider is that you might be telling someone to continue walking unrepentantly in one of the many sins that Scripture says constitutes a rejection of the grace of eternal life.
What if God agrees with Paul, the apostle Jesus personally appeared to and appointed by knocking him off his horse and calling him to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles? Or what if he agrees with the way the Church has been reading him for the last 2,000 years and not a minority of white, wealthy, post-Enlightenment Christians in North America and Europe at the beginning of the 21st Century? What if, right?
See, that is just not a wager I can make.
Wrapping It Up. To sum up, I haven’t actually made full-blown argument for natural or traditional marriage. Nor have I dealt with even half of Huckabee’s concerns, nor even my own. All the same, I think his piece reveals much about the problems we Millennials seem to have with issues concerning the meaning of the body, Scripture, and even the nature of God’s love. I pray that if you’re on the fence on these things—a position I can certainly understand—that this article and analysis help in some way.
Soli Deo Gloria
For those look for more resources, I’d recommend Kevin DeYoung’s book on the matter. Or, for a heavy academic work, Robert Gagnon’s. Or, if you want a more personal meditation, I’d highly recommend Wesley Hill’s thoughtful work. Finally, for a depth theological exploration of the subject of sexual differentiation in marriage, Christopher Roberts’ book is fantastic.
I was wondering if you’d be willing to expand a comment you make to help me see the more detailed implication you’re making. You say you can’t alter the pair of man and woman in marriage without altering the grammar, the syntax, the meaning of marriage and it’s God-ordained purpose of pointing to Christ’s saving love for his Church through the “crudely materialistic” processes of “flesh and function.” Childbearing or not, marriage as a sign-post of the gospel is entirely dependent on the biological grammar of male and female.
I was wondering if you’d be able to share further detail here, to answer the question, “how so?” Could not a person argue that a same-sex pair could also represent a Christ and the Church partnership? I wondered if a bit of expansion of how the marriage is dependent on the biological grammar would help me follow the claim a bit better.
Okay, I think I found what you were getting at in DeYoung’s book (near the end of his chapter on Genesis), where he lays out the complementarian nature of creation (similar but not the same): Heaven & Earth, man & woman, etc. and places Christ and the Church as one more aspect of the similar but not the same structure.
Dear brother Derek,
I understand and sympathize with your reluctance to tackle this subject in public. You have my sympathy because I, probably like you (making an assumption here, feel free to correct me), have a need to be respected by outsiders, to be seen as reasonable and a nice guy.
Sexuality is the defining issue of orthodoxy in our time. What justification by faith and imputation were for the Reformers, sexuality is for us. To get sexuality wrong, as Tyler Huckabee has, in his very careful way, is to share in the decadence of our age. It is to participate in the cultural liturgy of unlimited lust and sexual gratification. It is to bow down to Baal. It is to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. As Chesterton said, to be wrong and carefully wrong is the definition of decadence.
Mr. Huckabee does not need to be gently argued with but rebuked. His writing is not merely wrong, but dishonest, and knowingly so, leading to the destruction of souls. As a youth pastor, you know and care for souls. Defend them as a good shepherd, and fight off wolves like Mr. Huckabee.
The apostle Peter did not contexualize his message to the Jewish crowds to avoid giving them undue offense. He contextualized by directly naming their sin–killing Jesus–and calling them to repentance. And thousands did. The Holy Spirit honors humble preaching that calls sin what it is, and offers a remedy for tender souls with open hearts.
I can’t speak directly for Derek, but I imagine part of the reason why he responded in this way to Tyler was precisely because he cares for the sheep. What’s better: Alienating Tyler and those who agree with him (maybe some in his youth group) by calling him a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or actually engaging with his arguments in humble discourse to hopefully change his mind/heart and the hearts of others? Not sure how much experience you have with youth group students (I make no assumptions), but often it is the soft word used by the Spirit that will change hearts over the loud, stinging rhetoric of rebuke.
I think we have examples of both approaches in scripture. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, but spoke kindly to the Samaritan woman to win her and her community.
In this case, if the goal is to actually persuade Tyler or anyone else who agrees with him of the biblical view of marriage, I think the best course of action is humble dialogue. It’s the gay marriage advocates (most, but not all) who are throwing harsh rhetoric at the church by calling us bigots. Let’s not imitate them but instead have the mind of Christ and lovingly disagree with them.
Erring sheep are to be won over with gentleness, it is true. Mr. Huckabee is no sheep. He is a blog author, and has set himself as a teacher and a theologian. He waves his credentials eagerly for us in his piece, mentioning his Bible college education and ministry experience. He is no newcomer nor can he claim ignorance of the truth. He dismisses likely challenges by reminding us that he’s read the Bible before and knows our arguments better than we do.
Of course Mr. Huckabee mentions his ministry bona fides not to earn Godly submission from us, but as an act of vanity as he proceeds to devour the simple faith of the sheep who read his writings. Mr. Huckabee and others like him (Tony Campolo, Rachel Held Evans, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and others) are the Pharisees in the room. He loves to be seen in his flowing robes, saying long prayers and lengthening his phylacteries–you see, he isn’t an ignorant Bible thumper like the rest of us. He’s enlightened and tolerant. Our Lord would call him a viper, a whitewashed tomb, a vain man who worships according to own thoughts and traditions, not the Word of God.
When you see a Pharisee, may I suggest that you rebuke them as Jesus did? A knowledgeable man, a teacher of the Word, who strays must be rebuked all the more strongly because of his knowledge and his ability to deceive others. This is in stark contrast to, say, a confused youth group member.
As a Christian gay man, I completely support and agree with fellow-Christian Tyler Huckabee. The Holy Spirit has led him, like millions of others, to the conclusion that we should not be using the Bible to harm others. I will pray that you are also moved in that direction. The Holy Spirit is clearly trying to convict your heart, will you listen? Blessings.