There’s an increasing amount of cultural pressure to reject the traditional Christian teaching that sex and marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.
Compelling arguments abound. One I hear repeatedly is this:
God is big enough and loving enough to embrace all kinds of love, not just heterosexual love.
Almost every time I hear this, I find myself taken aback, stumbling a bit, questioning.
“Wait a second, why wouldn’t God be for all kinds of love?”
I don’t want to be a jerk. And I don’t want to make God into a smaller, less loving God than I know he is.
But here’s the reality: The disagreement isn’t about love. It never has been. God is for love.
He’s just not for all kinds of sex.
Just because God’s love is big and inclusive doesn’t mean God blesses all forms of sex. That’s just bad logic.
We may disagree about whether God should have any say in what we do with our bodies or how love should or should not be expressed.
But let’s agree on this: Love and sex are not the same thing.
For love,
Josh
Humble. Receptive.
»
Mark Good
Easy thinking, Josh. I’ve said for years, “people can only make love inside traditional marriage. Otherwise, it’s just sex. And, just for the record, animals have sex.”
Matt
Josh, the only way your argument makes any sense whatsoever is if we, as Christians, all say no to contraceptives, and yes to the conjugal meaning of the body. The body speaks a language of complete self-giving; contraception “says” (so to speak) the exact opposite.
Charlie
Excellent points! I am upset with sloppy, emotionalistic thinking. Proper distinctions lead to clarity, and clarity is needed for good, helpful decisions.