Testimony on the Definition of Marriage

The following testimony concerning a proposed resolution on the definition of marriage (Item 04-08) was presented to the General Assembly Committee on Church Polity on June 24, 2008, at the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

 

I am Jim Berkley, a minister member of the Presbytery of Seattle. I ask you to vote no on Item 04-08 on redefining marriage.

Let me make a plea for simple, basic consistency.

Make that logical consistency. The reason I hear for the marriage of any two people is because they love each other. If the “they love each other” reason is good for same-sex couples, however, it would be just as valid for incestuous couples who “love each other,” for pedophilic couples, because they “love each other,” and for three, five, maybe ten parties, because they all “love each other.”

Let’s be logically consistent about marriage. It is for a man and a woman.

Let’s be biblically consistent. Starting with the Creator’s words and rising in crescendo to Jesus’ teaching, marriage has always been a man-woman thing. You don’t find biblical support for same-sex marriage. You can’t find what isn’t there.

Let’s be biblically consistent about marriage, instituted for a man and a woman.

Let’s be consistent in our policy. The Authoritative Interpretation of 1978 follows all Christian precedent as our policy. It calls homosexual practice sin. Given that fact, it would be extremely inconsistent to bless sin as a Christian marriage.

Let’s be consistent with our own belief.

Let’s be consistent with our love and care. God does not forbid anything capriciously. God forbids what will be harmful. The fact that same-sex sexual union is forbidden by God tells us that God knows it is ultimately something not good, not to be sought, not to be encouraged, not to be blessed. It is harmful.

It would be oh so very contemporary to capitulate to cultural pressure to change the Christian definition of marriage, but it would also be oh so inconsistent—and sinfully wrong—to do so. Please vote no on Item 04-08. Thank you.