In the face of a leftward-lurching culture which promotes sinful behavior and generates salient degrees of deviation from traditional Biblical ethics, Christian churches have had to formulate responses seeking to uphold Biblical orthodoxy. Churches have also had to recognize the challenges posed to many of the faithful who struggle with their temptations, especially those who identify as being within the LGBT+ community.
Some churches, however, have utterly capitulated to what sociologist Christian Smith has termed “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” as the Methodist Church of Great Britain did last year when it approved a plan calling for the recognition of same-sex marriages and a ban on “conversion therapy.”
It came as no surprise, therefore, when The Methodist Podcast, the official podcast of the Methodist Church of Great Britain, released two episodes this month honoring the efforts of LGBT+ advocates within Methodism to coincide with the United Kingdom’s celebration of LGBT+ History Month. The episodes in question were hosted by the British Methodist Church’s Lead Media Officer, Michael Ivatt, as well as the Rev. Jenny Pathmarajah.
The first podcast episode celebrating the occasion relived the 2021 annual conference held within the British Methodist Church. That conference ended with the allowance of same-sex marriages within the denomination, in defiance of historic Christian teaching.
Ivatt interviewed the Rev. Ken Howcroft, who served a major role in the adoption of the “God in Love Unites Us” report, which served as the basis for the British Methodist Church’s approval of same-sex marriage.
Howcroft lauded the results of the prior year’s annual conference, saying that it made it possible for those who think “that marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” as well as those who “think that marriage can be between any two people” to be “welcome” in British Methodism.
He further claimed the conference made “it possible for” people of all opinions on the issue “to live with that position,” disregarding both the lack of Scriptural authority for the latter position, as well as the more obvious and fundamental impossibility of holding contradictory positions simultaneously, both theoretically and practically.
A second episode of the podcast featured attempts to inculcate in listeners the relevance of the burgeoning field of “queer theology.” Pathmarajah questioned Mark Rollins, introduced as a Methodist minister and a Ph.D. student at the University of Leeds studying queer theology.
According to Rollins, “queer theology actually goes far beyond…inclusion” of LGBT+ people, and also attempts “to say, ‘what does it start to look like if we look at the Christian tradition, if we look at Scripture, as if…it wasn’t always about straight people?’”
This, Rollins said, leads devotees of queer theology “to ask questions about power, about structure, about expectation, about tradition,” and in turn, “the queer theological tradition becomes a kind of disruptive, even…transgressive approach because it tends to destabilize all of that.” “All that inherited stuff,” Rollins stated, “it’s often a tool of oppression.”
Rollins further elaborated that “one of the most powerful things…about queer theology is it sets nothing off-limits. So, some queer theological writing is really quite sexual and quite shocking to many people, but it says all of this is in the eyes of God, really.” When queer theology is the guiding compass of so many Christians, is it any wonder why the church has strayed from its own historical roots?
The episode was concluded with a prayer delivered by the Rev. Danielle Wilson, a Methodist minister at the Inclusive Gathering in Birmingham, “an emerging faith community that” is roughly “80-90% LGBTQ+.” Her prayer was an excerpt of a passage written by progressive Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) TikTok pastor Brandan Robertson which appeared in the compilation Rally: Communal Prayers for Lovers of Jesus and Justice by Britney Winn Lee.
The prayer included such theological falsehoods as the idea that God’s “love has shaped and fashioned” LGBT+ people “as they are” regarding their sexual identity, along with the notion that “every aspect of their queerness is a reflection of” God’s “glory in the world.” Wilson concluded her prayer by stating that at the end of time, “we will, at last, know for certain that we are all, and have always been, very good,” apparently denying the reality of sin.
In his writings on Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, Smith makes it clear that it is a sort of relativistic force whereby God does not particularly care what we do, only showing up when we need help. For most adherents of the faux religion, temporal happiness is the only end that matters.
The danger of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, Smith writes, is that it is a “parasitic faith…It must attach itself like an incubus to established historical religious traditions, feeding on their doctrines and sensibilities, and expanding by mutating their theological substance to resemble its own distinctive image.” Observing the antics of The Methodist Podcast over the course of the month, it is hard to say that such a phenomenon has not occurred within the Methodist Church of Great Britain.
Comment by E C on February 22, 2022 at 11:59 am
When Rollins says that Christian tradition and Scripture isn’t “all about straight people” he does have a point–its about all of us, all of us being sinners. I think he is saying that the church can do a much better job including gays folks in the life of the church–no complaint here. What the church cannot do is condone acts that are clearly described as sin in the Scripture. What the church should not do, but the British church certainly has done, is surrender moral authority to an amoral society.
Comment by Scarborough Fair on February 22, 2022 at 12:16 pm
If I wasn’t afraid for my soul before for being Methodist (and I was), I definitely am now.
How much longer will God put up with this mess being done and said in his name? I can’t imagine much longer.
Comment by E C on February 22, 2022 at 1:04 pm
When Rollins says that Christian tradition and Scripture isn’t “all about straight people” he does have a point–its about all of us, all of us being sinners. I think he is saying that the church can do a much better job including gays folks in the life of the church–no complaint there. What the church cannot do is condone acts that are clearly described as sin in the Scripture. What the church should not do, but the British church certainly has done, is surrender moral authority to an amoral society.
Comment by Anthony on February 22, 2022 at 5:50 pm
Say what – this has evolved past heresy and blasphemy and, in healthcare terms, into a most serious mental illness.
Comment by Loren J Golden on February 22, 2022 at 10:40 pm
“According to Rollins, ‘queer theology actually goes far beyond…inclusion’ of LGBT+ people, and also attempts ‘to say, What does it start to look like if we look at the Christian tradition, if we look at Scripture, as if…it wasn’t always about straight people?’”
“Queer theology” is a misnomer. Christian theology begins with Scripture, quite apart from any foreign agenda brought to it, for the purpose of worldview formation. In Scripture, we learn who God is, how He views the world, what is important for Him, and what His agenda is in the world. The Scriptures find their source in Him alone, for it is His Word, His self-revelation, infallibly communicated by Him to His people by His specially chosen Prophets and Apostles. It is, from beginning to end, all about Him, not “about straight people.” Thus, “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture,“ as we Presbyterians confess, ”is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” (WCF, Ch. I ¶9) The Scriptures, then, become the lens by which Christians view the world and interpret the things they find there.
“Queer theology,” on the other hand, is not a “theology” at all. It is an alien worldview that seeks to impose itself on the Scriptures, twisting and distorting it to their own liking—or “to their own destruction,” as Peter says (II Pet. 3.16). This is at once evident in what Mr. Rollins is quoted as saying, above. He comes with his queer worldview to the Scriptures, seeking to impose it thereupon, as is evident from his question, “What…if we look at Scripture, as if…it wasn’t always about straight people?” His worldview has profoundly inculcated in him the notion that all of life is divided between “straight people,” on the one hand, and LGBTQ+ people on the other. Thus, that dichotomy what he’s looking for, and that dichotomy is precisely what he reads into the text of Scripture.
But let us go on.
“This, Rollins said, leads devotees of queer theology ‘to ask questions about power, about structure, about expectation, about tradition,’ and in turn, ‘the queer theological tradition becomes a kind of disruptive, even…transgressive approach because it tends to destabilize all of that. … All that inherited stuff…(is) often a tool of oppression.’”
Here, Rollins exposes the underpinnings of his worldview in liberation theology—which, again, is not a “theology,” but a worldview, of which his “queer theology” is but a subset (alongside things like “feminist theology” and “black liberation theology”). Liberation theology divides the world into “oppressors” (who are always bad) and “victims” (who are always good, and hence, the hero of the liberation story). The “straight people” have been in power, and all the structures of the Church and Christian tradition are used by them as “a tool of oppression” against LGBTQ+ people.
Scripture, of course, teaches that homosexuality and transgenderism (upon which the entire queer worldview is built) are sins—a species of sexual immorality (Gen. 19.4-9, Lev. 18.22, 20.13, Dt. 22.5, 23.1,17-18, I Kg. 14.24, 15.12, 22.46, II Kg. 23.7, Rom. 1.24-28, I Cor. 6.9-11, I Tim. 1.8-11, Jude 7), which God will finally condemn eternally in the last judgment (Rev. 21.8, 22.15). Of course, homosexuality and transgenderism are not the only forms of sexual immorality, nor is sexual immorality the only type of sin—after all, the Lord regards viewing pornography as tantamount to committing adultery (Job 31.1, Mt. 5.27-30). Every last man, woman, and child who has ever lived “has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3.23), save the Lord Jesus alone (Is. 53.9, II Cor. 5.21, Heb. 4.15, I Pet. 2.22, I Jn. 3.5), and “the wages of sin is death.” (Rom. 6.23) Christianity teaches that we are evil (Mt. 7.11), there is no one who is good but God alone (Mk. 10.18), and that there is nothing that we can do to change that (Jer. 13.23), but that Christ died to redeem us from sin and death (I Cor. 6.20, Gal. 3.13, 4.5, Tit. 3.14, I Pet. 1.18-19), that we should die to our sin and live to Him (Rom. 6.11).
“Rollins further elaborated that ‘one of the most powerful things…about queer theology is it sets nothing off-limits. So, some queer theological writing is really quite sexual and quite shocking to many people, but it says all of this is in the eyes of God, really.’”
What he means, of course, is that “it sets nothing off-limits” that people living in an LGBTQ+ lifestyle want to do, for it all has the blessings of “queer theology’s” made-up god. “Conversion therapy,” on the other hand, is expressly forbidden, for it suggests that homosexuality, transgenderism, and everything else in the LGBTQ+ spectrum is sin and must be repented of. And so, for that matter, is any expression of disapproval for LGBTQ+ sins. “Nothing (is) off-limits;” not even oppression of those who think homosexuality and transgenderism to be sins.
“You who are of purer eyes than to see evil, and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and are silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?” (Hab. 1.13) “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.” (II Pet. 3.9-10)
Comment by Loren J Golden on February 22, 2022 at 10:41 pm
“According to Rollins, ‘queer theology actually goes far beyond…inclusion’ of LGBT+ people, and also attempts ‘to say, What does it start to look like if we look at the Christian tradition, if we look at Scripture, as if…it wasn’t always about straight people?’”
“Queer theology” is a misnomer. Christian theology begins with Scripture, quite apart from any foreign agenda brought to it, for the purpose of worldview formation. In Scripture, we learn who God is, how He views the world, what is important for Him, and what His agenda is in the world. The Scriptures find their source in Him alone, for it is His Word, His self-revelation, infallibly communicated by Him to His people by His specially chosen Prophets and Apostles. It is, from beginning to end, all about Him, not “about straight people.” Thus, “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture,“ as we Presbyterians confess, ”is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” (WCF, Ch. I ¶9) The Scriptures, then, become the lens by which Christians view the world and interpret the things they find there.
“Queer theology,” on the other hand, is not a “theology” at all. It is an alien worldview that seeks to impose itself on the Scriptures, twisting and distorting it to their own liking—or “to their own destruction,” as Peter says (II Pet. 3.16). This is at once evident in what Mr. Rollins is quoted as saying, above. He comes with his queer worldview to the Scriptures, seeking to impose it thereupon, as is evident from his question, “What…if we look at Scripture, as if…it wasn’t always about straight people?” His worldview has profoundly inculcated in him the notion that all of life is divided between “straight people,” on the one hand, and LGBTQ+ people on the other. Thus, that dichotomy what he’s looking for, and that dichotomy is precisely what he reads into the text of Scripture.
But let us go on.
Comment by Jeff on February 23, 2022 at 3:03 pm
Excellent comment, Loren! I hope you have another place to publish though, where it will be widely read; it’s pretty long and you know how short attention spans can be in this era.
Wonder if IRD would print something like your reply as an article?
Blessings
Jeff
Comment by There are none so Blind as those who will not see on February 23, 2022 at 4:50 pm
In a way it is heartening that the church is ministering to gay/LGBPTQ+ people, as if it has never happened before. However, its something that has happened for a long time. There have been people who self-identify in this category being part of churches I have been in for years.
The discouraging thing about this article and the people it describes is that they act like these people are a protected class, a group of people who need special attention, or really, need the rules rewritten just for them.
LGBPTQ+ people are sinners in need of repentance, just like non-LGBPTQ+ people are sinners in need of repentance. There is no difference between the two groups. But increasingly the church hierarchy is deciding that there are at least two classes of people in the church, one that is worthy of the rules being rewritten for them, and one that is only worthy of being ignored or assaulted for their beliefs. You can decide for yourself what those two classes are.
Yes, this has happened before in church history, sometimes with very bad results. However, today’s modern Pharisees are not taking issue with some religious dogma, they are taking issue with the basic understanding of humanity. That fact alone is enough to make people leave the church for other pastures, and who can blame them?
Comment by Anthony on February 24, 2022 at 8:15 pm
As these folks demand the full inclusion and subsequent celebration of unrepentant sexual immorality among those of the LGBT+ category, it begs the question of where do they stand on the unrepentant sexual immorality of those of the heterosexual category.
Comment by BG on February 27, 2022 at 2:52 pm
In the Progressive mind, “Love” justifies sin. Whether same sex sexual behavior, mutilating the body, multiple partner polygamy, sexual behavior with children, bestiality, etc. all can be justified if they just “love” one another. This is what they are asking you to believe. Sorry but Jesus never said anything like this.
Comment by Anthony on February 28, 2022 at 11:14 am
BG,
You nailed it. That is what they’re asking (demanding) me to embrace while just simply abandoning my beliefs and the Word of God in the name of love and full-inclusion. When I push back and refuse — they resort to their usual name calling, accusing, and Biblical interpretation deceptions. Actually, their only tactics are name calling and interpretation games because there’s not a shred of Scripture anywhere to be found that supports their agenda.
Comment by Anthony on February 28, 2022 at 11:29 am
In addition – the leading American liberal United Methodist, Adam Hamilton, states in one of his multiple books:
“The real issue for the church is not homosexuality, but the Bible,” Adam Hamilton writes. “And the underlying issue regarding the Bible is what kind of book the Bible is and how God has spoken, and continues to speak through it.”
Hamilton proposes in his book that there are three “buckets” into which scriptures fall:
1. Scriptures that express God’s heart, character and timeless will for human beings.
2. Scriptures that expressed God’s will in a particular time, but are no longer binding.
3. Scriptures that never fully expressed the heart, character or will of God.”
So, he egregiously adds another dimension of Biblical interpretation to the mix, and it is certainly obvious as to which of his buckets liberals will toss those Scriptures dealing with SEXUAL IMMORALITY, MARRIAGE, and likely others they find objectionable.
Comment by Richard Bell on February 28, 2022 at 5:38 pm
“God in Love Unites Us” and “queer theology” are ridiculous. I believe God’s will is revealed in the Bible. I believe that understanding the Bible requires interpretation according to methods accepted in the Christian tradition.
I have written an essay – scholarly but intelligible to any mature Christian – that lays before you just such traditional interpretation and makes very obvious that God wills marriage of homosexuals as God wills marriage of heterosexuals.
The state of Christian debate shows me that there are two big issues. One – the biggest – is about sins. The other – not so big but very important – is about Christian marriage.
Each of the following propositions is supported by adequate reasoning in my essay.
1. God expressed all of his moral will for mankind – all of Moral Law – in the Ten Commandments, which determine what are sins. I not only show that this is the traditional belief of Christians but I defend it against very many objections.
2. Moral Law for sexual conduct is expressed in the Seventh Commandment.
3. The Seventh Commandment makes no invidious distinction of homosexual conduct.
4. God created the institution of marriage for various purposes, some temporary and some perpetual, and, by dint of the Ninth Commandment, Christians who avail themselves of marriage have special moral duties according to its constitution.
5. God did not limit the availability of marriage to heterosexuals; more specifically, God did not exclude homosexual couples from the institution.
James 3:1 causes me great anxiety, and, as a conservative, I am unhappy espousing same-sex marriage. I would welcome refutation of my thesis and would gladly recant. But, happy or not, I stand by what I believe true about God’s will. Drafts of my essay have been read by many Christian scholars in my congregation and by seminary professors. Their criticism has helped me improve my essay, but none of them has refuted any important argument in it. I pray that you will be able to give me help. If you show me that any reasoning in support of my essay’s thesis is unsound, you have brought me out of darkness into better light; I will rejoice and thank both God and you. Ask for a copy of my essay by email: rsbell@ameritech.net
May the peace of Christ be with you!
Comment by Loren J Golden on February 28, 2022 at 8:15 pm
Mr. Bell,
You have been espousing your essay in the comments section of numerous postings on the Juicy Ecumenism blog for nearly a decade. Get a blog of your own (e.g., blogspot, wordpress) and post it there. Until you publish it for public review and scrutiny, I, for one, have no interest in reading it.
Comment by Loren J Golden on March 5, 2022 at 5:07 pm
Mr. Bell, with regard to your points above:
1. Christians traditionally regard the Ten Commandments, not as the entirety of the moral law, but as its capstone. No respectable, Biblically grounded scholar in Church history held to a minimalist interpretation of the Ten Commandments, suggesting that other moral commands given in the Old Testament Law are not binding on the New Testament Church.
2. I fully agree with you on this point. But again, it is not solely adultery that is prohibited by the Seventh Commandment, but every sexual sin identified in Scripture. As the Lord Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt. 5.17-18) In his exposition of the Seventh Commandment in the Institutes, John Calvin wrote, “The purport of this commandment is, that as God loves chastity and purity, we ought to guard against all uncleanness. The substance of the commandment therefore is, that we must not defile ourselves with impurity or libidinous excess. To this corresponds the affirmative, that we must regulate every part of our conduct chastely and continently. The thing expressly forbidden is adultery, to which lust naturally tends, that its filthiness (being of a grosser and more palpable form, inasmuch as it casts a stain even on the body) may dispose us to abominate every form of lust.” (Institutes II.8.41) Lust is at the bottom of the Seventh Commandment, just as the prohibition of adultery is its capstone. As James writes, “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” (Jas. 1.14-15)
3. You might as well claim that the Seventh Commandment makes no “invidious distinction” of a man engaging in sexual intercourse with his stepmother (Lev. 18.8). Yet Paul calls it “sexual immorality…of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans,” and commanded the Corinthian Church to excommunicate a man found guilty of it (I Cor. 5.1-5). The whole of Leviticus 18 is a list of some of the sins prohibited by the Seventh Commandment (except v. 21, which is a violation of the Sixth). And v. 22 expressly states, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” thus expressly prohibiting male homosexuality. And the Lord caps this chapter off by stating, “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” (vv. 24-25) It was not for violations of the Ceremonial Law, such as eating pork or shellfish (Lev. 11), or wearing a garment made of two different materials (Lev. 19.19), that the Lord was evicting the Canaanites from the land; it was rather because of their incest, their adultery, their child sacrifice, their bestiality, and their homosexuality.
While the Lord Jesus made no mention, good or bad, about homosexuality during His earthly ministry (likely because it was not a problem among the Jews of His day), He did say, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 5.17-19) Further, He identified sexual immorality (Gk. πορνεία, from which we get our word pornography), along with adultery, among the sins that proceed from the heart and defile a person (Mt. 15.18-20). And He identified sexual immorality as the only reason that could justify divorce (Mt. 5.32, 19.9).
The Apostle Paul, however, who called himself “the apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11.13, Gal. 1.16, 2.7-8), and who recognized that what he spoke and taught was not his own word, but the Word of God (I Thess. 2.13), did speak of homosexuality in an “invidious” manner. In I Corinthians 6.9-11, he identifies “μαλακοὶ” and “ἀρσενοκοῖται” (the passive and active participants in male homosexuality, respectively) among those who “will (not) inherit the kingdom of God.” Likewise in I Timothy 1.8-11, he identifies “ἀρσενοκοῖται” among “the lawless and disobedient” against whom “the law is…laid down.” Now it has been observed that the word ἀρσενοκοίτης appears nowhere in Greek literature prior to its appearance in Paul’s epistles. He very likely coined the word, and it is not difficult to determine where it came from. The Greek Septuagint translates Leviticus 18.22 as, “Καὶ (And) μετὰ (with) ἄρσενος (a male) οὐ (not) κοιμηθήσῃ (you shall sleep) κοίτην (in a [marriage] bed) γυναικείαν (as of a woman), βδέλυγμα (a detestable) γάρ (for) ἐστι (it is).” The meaning is plain: An ἀρσενοκοίτης is a man who takes another male to bed for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse with him.
Likewise in Romans 1.24-28, when referring to those who knew God but neither honored nor gave thanks to Him, Paul writes, “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” Thus, what Paul is saying here is that male and female homosexuality is a curse laid down in judgment against individuals who knew God but neither honored nor gave thanks to Him.
Regarding traditional Christian interpretation of the Seventh Commandment, Calvin regarded homosexuality as a violation of it. In his Commentary on a Harmony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Calvin wrote an extensive commentary on the Decalogue. In his commentaries on the Seventh Commandment, immediately after addressing the specific texts forbidding adultery, Calvin turned to what he called “Supplements of the Seventh Commandment,” beginning with Leviticus 18.22-30. “We learn from these passages that the people were not only prohibited from adultery, but also from all sins which are repugnant to the modesty of nature itself. In order that all impurity may be the more detestable, He enumerates two species of unnatural lust (i.e., homosexuality and bestiality), from whence it is evident that when men indulge themselves by an impulse, which is more than beastly, to defile themselves by shameful wickedness. … It is plain, therefore, that they must be blinded in a horrible manner who so shamefully defile themselves as Paul says (Rom. 1.28).” (Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses, Vol. III, p. 73) Likewise, Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 139) includes “sodomy, and all unnatural lusts” among “the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment,” referencing Romans 1.24,26-27 among the prooftexts.
4. Chief among the reasons for why God established the covenant of marriage is to provide the framework necessary for the production and raising of children. “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1.28, 9.1,7) is still a creation ordinance, and the Lord still expects “godly offspring” from His children of the New Covenant no less than He expected from His children of the Old (Dt. 6.7, Prov. 22.6, Mal. 2.15, Eph. 6.4, I Tim. 2.15, 5.10).
5. “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast 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 not man separate.” (Mt. 19.4-6) God in the beginning, before the Fall, established marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman, to last as long as they live; only death breaks it. Consistently throughout Scripture, this is what God affirms. Polygamy was tolerated but regulated under the Old Covenant, likely for the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts (Mt. 19.8), but among the Lord’s New Covenant community, He has made it plain that He expects lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage to be the norm (I Tim. 3.2,12, 5.9, Tit. 1.6). Moreover, no mention—positive or negative—of homosexual couples is made anywhere in Scripture, and homosexuality is consistently condemned throughout as sin. Scripture does not contain a statement explicitly excluding homosexuals from the covenant of marriage, because the proposition is absurd. They were excluded from the definition given in Genesis 1-2 and reiterated by the Lord Jesus in the Gospels. Homosexual behavior is offensive to God—He said so Himself. It does not stand to reason, “that God wills marriage of homosexuals as God wills marriage of heterosexuals,” as you allege.