It wasn't too long ago that I first heard "Same Love" by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. It is a compelling song with lyrics that plead for love and acceptance for those who have and/or struggle with same sex attraction. It is a powerful message that resonates with many people. And it has become the anthem of the homosexual movement as evidenced by the recent Grammy awards in which the song was sung as 33 same sex couples said marriage vows in front of a national audience.
The notion of the song is that since same sex couples have the same kind of love that heterosexual couples do then there is ultimately no difference between them. It is the same love therefore it should be accepted as the same kind of marriage. "What's the difference?" the song would ask. And why would anyone, especially Christians who believe in love, fight it?
It's a good question…but it is based on a mistaken notion.
Christians do not have a problem with the love between two males or two females or between any group of people. We are all commanded to love. And the love described between two males or two females isn't any different than the love prescribed for a man and woman in marriage.
The Bible predominantly uses the Greek verb, agapao, to describe the love that we are to have for one another. Agapao describes an action of sacrificial love. It is a love given for the benefit of another person. Unselfish and other-centered. Characterized by patience, kindness, humility, graciousness, forgiveness, truth, acceptance, commitment, and loyalty (1 Corinthians 13; John 3:16; 1 John 3:16-18; Philippians 2:1-8).
This kind of love is a beautiful thing. Really an unnatural thing. It runs counter to every selfish gene that we have in our bodies.
And it is love that can be stronger between two men or two women than between a man and a woman.
For instance, the Bible describes the love between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18:1-4.
Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day, and would not let him go home to his father’s house anymore. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan took off the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, even to his sword and his bow and his belt.
David and Jonathan loved each other and even made a covenant of loyalty together. Jonathan, as King Saul's son, gave David his prince's robe, armor, and weapons as a sign that he recognized David's right to future kingship and would not fight him or oppose him. Later, when Jonathan died, David would lament in 2 Samuel 1:26:
I grieve over you, my brother Jonathan! You were very dear to me. Your love was more special to me than the love of women.
This kind of love is called friendship and its bond can potentially be closer than any familial bond. A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:23-24).
So what ultimately distinguishes marriage in the Bible is not the love. What ultimately distinguishes marriage is the sexual union and its purpose.
The institution of marriage is first described and defined in Genesis 2:24-25.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
God designed male and female as biologically different. They are two "other" and complementary beings. And He designed sexual intercourse between one man and one woman to be exclusive, beautiful, uniting, and life producing. This sexual union is so powerful, sacred, and special that it is to be protected within the lifelong security of a marriage covenant so that its vulnerability and intimacy cannot be misused or abused, so that its potential procreation of children would be in the stability of a family, and so that its picture of security and intimacy would reflect the union of Christ and His church.
This is what marriage is and should strive to be. And it is the sexual union which separates it from all other unions. If nothing else, even the objective non-theist would have to say that the biology of sex is intended and best designed for one man and one woman and that this is the only natural means for procreation.
So the issue is not really over love. It is over sex.
Are there any limits to sex? Are there any parameters? Is there a divine design for marriage and sex that is best for individuals, for families, for society? Or is it all open to individual interpretation, definition, gratification, and pleasure?
Can we redesign the design of the Designer to fit our own designs?
The recent Grammys show illustrated what happens when sex is preached and promoted apart from any divine design or limits.
The sexual act is imitated on stage for all to see. Intimacy is turned into voyeurism. Security is turned into self-gratification. Love is turned into lust. And sex is whatever I want it to be.
In this kind of society, everything is sexualized. Even friendship. The biblical story of David and Jonathan can't even be read without sexual implications. We can't imagine how a person could live without sex or how two people could have a committed, close friendship without it. Sex is our new god. And the old One who designed it must be mocked, disdained, and burned at the stake. This is not a new idea or a progressive movement. It is as old as biblical days when Baal was god and sex was the worship of choice for those who followed him.
But whether in an ancient society or in our own "modern" society today, the message of the Bible remains the same.
We are all broken, morally, sexually, spiritually. And we all need redemption, healing, restoration, and grace from the God who designed us (Psalm 139:13-14)…and died for us despite our sin and selfishness (Romans 5:8)…and rose again from the dead so that we could walk in holiness and newness of life (2 Corinthians 5:17-21).
And those who experience that kind of divine, gracious, sacrifical, transforming love are to show that same love to others.
