TTo update Leon Trotsky’s famous comment, you may not be interested in the sexual revolution, but the sexual revolution is interested in you. Some of us still have the privilege of being partly sheltered from this revolution. I consider myself as such, alongside those whose detachment from real pastoral situations apparently qualifies them sell political pedagogy to others. But as the progressive political class works to dismantle traditional sexual mores, it’s increasingly difficult to find a pastor or priest who hasn’t faced a tough question from the faithful about Christian obedience and their livelihood. Last week, a pastor friend told me about a member of his church who, as a director of a business, was ordered to integrate the toilets and is now facing complaints from the female staff who feel their safety and privacy have been compromised. It’s easy to denounce right-wing alarmism in the abstract, much harder to give advice to real people who have to make decisions that could cost them their careers.
The sexual revolution revolutionized everything, to the point where questions that once had simple answers became complicated. For example, the question “Can I attend a gay wedding?” comes up more and more often and proves less and less easy to answer, as Bethel McGrew suggests. last paragraphs in his recent World column indicates. It’s not hard to guess what reasons a Christian might give for attending a gay wedding: the desire to show the couple that you don’t hate them, or the desire to avoid offending or hurting them. But if one or the other has decisive weight in the decision, then something is wrong. A refusal to attend could very well be motivated by the couple’s hatred (although in such circumstances an invitation would seem an unlikely event), but it does not have to be so. To regard a refused invitation as necessarily a sign of hatred is to adopt the notion of “hate” as a simple refusal to affirm. This is the understanding of our secular age, not that of the Christian faith. A refusal to attend can also offend, but to make the act of offending itself a moral category is to replace the moral categories of good and evil with aesthetic categories of taste. The latter should always be subordinate to the former in the area of ethical issues.
There are also obvious reasons why a Christian should never attend a gay wedding. Many wedding liturgies, including that in the Book of Common Prayer, require the officiant to ask at the beginning of the service if anyone present knows of any reason why the couple should not be united in marriage. A Christian is then obliged to speak. I would venture to assume that such an intervention would be far more offensive than simply refusing to serve.
This issue also cannot be separated from the broader issue of sex, gender and human nature. If marriage is rooted in the complementarity of the sexes, then any marriage that denies this complementarity calls into question the Christian understanding of creation. It’s one thing for the world to do this. It is another thing for Christians to consent to it.
Additionally, the biblical analogy between Christ and the Church means that false marriages are a mockery of Christ himself. Of course, this applies beyond the issue of same-sex marriage. A marriage involving a person who has not divorced a previous spouse for biblical reasons implies that person is entering into an adulterous relationship. Nor should any Christian knowingly attend such a ceremony. As Francesca Murphy told First things A few years ago, losing sight of the religious dimension of marriage risked allowing people to commit “blasphemy against themselves and against God.” This means that Christians have a moral responsibility to stand firm on this issue. We are mistaken if we think that the bride and groom, as individuals, are the most important part of any marriage. They are not. Much more important is what their union symbolizes in relation to Christ and the Church.
Whatever supposed gains might be made by showing the couple a morally amorphous form of love or by avoiding offense, the price of courtship is enormous. Much has been made of the perplexity sown by the Pope’s recent statement on the blessing of same-sex couples. Equally important for individuals and churches may be the confusion caused by not thinking clearly about participation in same-sex marriages. After all, being present to show “love” or avoid giving offense is a form of blessing without even the name.
In short, attending a gay wedding means remaining silent when you should speak. This involves a concession on bodily sex that undermines any attempt to cling to the importance of the biological distinction between men and women. And that involves approving a ceremony that mocks a central teaching of the New Testament and of Christ himself. This is a very high price to avoid hurting anyone. And if Christians still think it’s worth paying, the future of the Church is truly bleak.
Carl Trueman is professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College and a member of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
First things depends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.
Click on here to make a donation.
Click on here to subscribe to First things.
Image of Edmond Leighton licensed via Creative Commons. Cropped image.
