Celibacy, Marriage, and the Hope of the Gospel

Last week the hearts of many Christian brothers and sisters broke as a humble, wise and authentic voice within Christianity announced her full support of same-sex relationships. Wesley Hill, another humble, wise and authentic voice rose to offer an apologetic of Rodger’s experience, a point he no doubt thought needed further understanding. (It may be helpful to read Hill’s essay here before moving forward.)

Hill does not attempt to discuss the orthodoxy behind Rodger’s position and to be fair, she did not appeal to any such position. Rather, he chooses to address her main point, that mandated celibacy was particularly crushing to the Christian that lives with same-sex attraction and the church often misunderstands and mistreats those within this difficult demographic.

I find Hill’s discussion, to be honest, thoughtful and sincere. However, I want to point out a possible distinction that may just make an incredible amount of difference. Hill introduces two main characters, Holly and Andrea, both of whom are Christian and celibate. However, Holly (a heterosexual) is constrained to be celibate by the teachings of the church since she is not married. Whereas, Andrea (same-sex attracted) is mandated into celibacy since she has no hope of marrying or as Hill notes, “at least not someone she is likely to be attracted to.”

The position of “mandated” celibacy, a position of several same-sex attracted Christian writers, needs to be evaluated in light of what the Bible teaches. When we evaluate the position in this light it does not seem to be in keeping with the teachings of God’s word. Celibacy is no doubt a biblical position, and a position that Hill and others articulate well. I fear we are giving too much away when we assume that same-sex attraction means a beautiful, covenant, life-giving, intimate relationship with the opposite sex, cannot (or most likely will not) exist.

Like Rodgers, many who point to the position of mandated celibacy, do so out of sincere belief that this is the only option or at least the most likely option. Yet, there is little biblical warrant to offer celibacy as a prescription, and no clear trail exists to say that it is descriptive.

When we make sexual attraction the primary formative aspect of a relationship, we cannot in turn tell the LGBT community that their sexual attractions are not the primary aspect of their identity. At least, we cannot make the argument without opening up a sincere and logical critique of the fruit of such a position.

The fact remains that many (perhaps not most) same-sex attracted Christians can and do experience vibrant, Christ-centered, intimate, and beautiful relationships and marriages with the opposite sex. This narrative gets very little play in the prevailing discussions within the Christian community and certainly not within the LGBT community.

It is most loving and biblically true to offer the full range of hope and participation to those living with same-sex attraction!

Many will argue practical considerations about sex and intimacy. This discussion is fair and appropriate, and it is important to be honest about the struggles couples can and do face in marriage. However, apart from the clear teachings of the scriptures, we are left with personal and practical objections.

Who among us does not know or understand that sex, compatibility, needs, and sexuality are not real struggles that all married couples face?

Same-sex attraction is one aspect of fallen humanity and no different than the sexual brokenness displayed in all image bearers. It is also true that sexuality and the many difficulties that come with it in marriage are also part of this fallen world. However, this is no reason to see no real possibilities for our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters.

Mandated celibacy leaves us with further difficulties as we attempt to express hope in a sovereign and glorious God!

God has and continues to honor the choices of Christians to remain celibate, due to their attraction, in spite of their desire for physical and emotional companionship. However, God has also honored the choices of same-sex attracted Christians to enter into a covenant marriage. The choice is not measured by the presence of relational difficulty and struggles over intimacy, rather, the choice is measured by the presence of joy, increasing intimacy, covenant, deep affectionate, and sacrificial love.

Covenant marriage is not the only choice or even the best choice but it is the design of God, a picture of God, and it is available as a possibility for all of us!

Having said that, it is important for the church to consider the other aspect of Hill’s argument, which strikes a pitch-perfect tone. Those who choose to remain celibate experience deep loneliness and at times alienation within our churches.

May it never be!

We should never feel comfortable losing voices like Julie Rodgers due (in part) to her “soul crushing” experiences within the church. Hill uses the narrative of the Ethiopian eunuch to express the beauty of choosing covenant, and Christ over physical and emotional relation on this earth. Instead, they find it in Christ and do so willingly for the cause of the kingdom.

Even if one does not land where Hill, Stott, and other seem to land on the issue of the eunuch, the beauty of their application should compel us to see their broader point. There are brothers and sisters living among us, in our communities of faith, which are choosing Christ and conviction over what would be practically much easier. How can we fail but to fully embrace them, love them, honor their choices, and bring them in close, rather than keep them at a distance?

Hill leaves the reader with the question of change. How will each of us have to change if we are to have communities that honor our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters? How will we have to change to believe these truths? I think it is important not to answer that for you. I do think it is important to tell you that we must consider our answer and ask if it reflects the fullness of Christ and his kingdom.

Christianity can and must be the place that offer’s marriage as a hope to all the broken among us, who desire the emotional and physical intimacy that is part of a good design. Christianity must be a place that protects and honors the choices of celibacy out of conviction to honor Christ and his kingdom.

Let Christianity be the space that neither honors marriage as an answer to same-sex attraction or mandates celibacy upon our brothers and sister. Let our communities of faith offer the fullness of God’s family to the single, celibate, and married alike!

When this vision is realized, Christianity and our churches will more fully reflect the beauty, hope and endless possibilities of the kingdom, and the Gospel that makes it all possible.