In the recent article, author Charlie Self postulates that “Every culture and nation must find common consent in public ethics, specifically on what is prohibited, permitted, and promoted for the common good. True toleration must include living peaceably with deep differences. Most Western nations have extended marital status to arrangements other than heterosexual monogamy. The wise Christian will affirm the legal right of consenting adults to order their lives without fear; yet that right doesn’t entail affirming the goodness of these arrangements. Believers can be good neighbors to all while diverging on some moral issues. This is the heart of a peaceful and pluralistic society.”
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-should-i-respond-to-a-colleagues-same-sex-wedding/
The key section I’d like to draw your attention is the underlined words in the middle.
“The wise Christian will affirm the legal right of consenting adults to order their lives without fear”
Wow, that’s a steaming pile of New York City garbage on a hot summer day.
1. Notice the authority that the author asserts for himself. He says “the wise Christian will”. With this dogmatic tone, the author diverges away from TGC’s usual hyper-nuanced approach, and makes an assertion that this is THEE wise, Christian action. That Christian action is affirmation. Affirm them or else. Or else what? Well, a number of repercussions may come, but speaking in the context of a theology blog for lay Christians, the “or else” means, if you don’t, you’re not a wise Christian. This reeks of Jonathan Leeman’s “cultural capital” diatribe against John MacArthur, some two years ago. I don’t know the extent of their connections, but Leeman’s style is very much in line with Tim Keller’s approach to politics and cultural engagement. Two years ago, Leeman said we needed to save our cultural capital for more important issues than corporate worship. If memory serves, sexual ethics was the ‘more important issue’ that we were belittled for not saving our fight to fight. Well, some of us fought the corporate worship battle two years ago, and we’re still standing and will fight for this issue as well. THE wise Christian will NOT affirm something just because Dr. Self says so.
2. Moving on: “affirm the legal right of consenting adults” – You use that word “affirm.” According to my very knowledgeable macbook “smart lookup” feature, that word means something like what I’ve copied and pasted below:
Affirm
af·firm [əˈfərm]
verb
verb:affirm, third person present:affirms, past tense:affirmed, past participle:affirmed, present participle:affirming
A. state as a fact; assert strongly and publicly:
"he affirmed the country's commitment to peace"
Synonyms declare, state, assert, aver, proclaim, pronounce, attest, swear, avow, vow, guarantee, promise, certify, pledge, give one's word, give an undertaking, asseverate
antonyms deny
B. offer (someone) emotional support or encouragement:
"there are five common ways parents fail to affirm their children"
So let’s be clear here: You want Christians to assert strongly and publicly that same-sex marriage is… what? Asserted? Do you want them to state it? Proclaim it? Pronounce, attest, avow, promise, certify, or pledge? Or, were you thinking of the second definition? You want Christians to offer emotional support or encouragement for same-sex marriage?
Sir, who let you in here? You’re in the wrong room. Oh wait, this is TGC, never mind.
3. “To order their lives without fear” You’re doing that thing, where you represent the person who holds the opposite position that you allegedly hold to, as though they are a victim of some ‘power structure’ that causes them to live in fear. You are literally “confessing” the other team’s position right now. It is commonly said that to confess something to God means to agree with God. So, for example, to confess sin means to agree with God about your sin. What you’re doing with this phraseology is confessing the legitimacy of the LGBT+ agenda while also attempting to assert yourself as not confessing their agenda. Sir, you must repent of this duplicitous manner of thinking, writing, and speaking. You can’t be a friend of the world and a friend of God at the same time. I read that somewhere important. I also read somewhere that we should not give approval to those who practice such things. No idea what that might have been talking about.
Dear Christian Reader,
May I present a simple, alternative approach.
You must not affirm that which God clearly teaches is offensive in His sight.
If God says no, who are you to say yes? Who do you think you are? What gives you the authority to sign off on something so clearly taught, not only in the Word of God, but in the light of nature, that Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, and Islam, all agree is wrong? This is not a fringe sectarian belief of radical extremists. This is a basic tenant of the religions of over 4 billion people from the above religious groups, which make up half the world’s population.
by Andy Woodard