“What Does the Bible Actually Say About Marriage?”
Greg Carey, a professor at Lancaster Theological Seminary, posted an article with the above title on the Huffington Post on July 7, 2011. He acknowledges that he is a member of the United Church of Christ (which bears no relationship to the Lord’s church). UCOC is not known for its respect for the Scriptures, and this article is no exception to their theology. He does not come out openly for homosexual marriage, but he says that he engages in debates on the subject. Considering his affiliation and the tenor of the article, it is probably safe to say that he supports both homosexuality and its alleged “marriages.”
What is despicable is that he disparages Bible passages in order to achieve his end. He takes issue with verses that are often used at marriage ceremonies as not being written for that purpose. The only one that he has a case for is the beautiful passage of Ruth’s profession of faithfulness to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16-17). Most preachers in the Lord’s church do not use that text because it does not involve a husband and wife.
But the other passages to which he objects are all legitimate. Many performing a wedding ceremony cite 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, but we usually mention that the context is not that of marriage. Nevertheless, it is a definition of love, which ought to be applied within the bounds of marriage. Certainly, most members of the church know the context of the verses—how that the Corinthians lacked these qualities, but it is entirely appropriate that love (in all of its various definitions) be applied within marriage as well as to brethren.
Carey also finds fault with the Lord’s teaching from Matthew 19:3-9, commenting, “I'd rather not hear about divorce at a wedding.” Apparently, he has a problem with positive teaching about marriage coming forth from a question about divorce. One wonders if he has ever used the beautiful verses of Philippians 3:13-14 or instead rejects them because they sprang from a rebuke of the Judaizing teachers. Both would be nonsensical. In answering the question about divorce, Jesus cited the pattern that God had at the beginning—one female for one male for life. Whoops! That would negate homosexual “marriage,” wouldn’t it? No wonder he does not like these traditional passages.
He thinks that Ephesians 5:22-33 is too problematic for today’s society because it mentions wives being in subjection to their husbands. The way he states it is:
Conservative Christians may try to explain away the offense of this passage, but there's no escaping its ugly reality. Ephesians calls wives to submit to their husbands just as children must obey their parents and slaves must obey their masters. See the larger context, Ephesians 5:21-6:9.
Conservative Christians do not consider the passage “ugly” and do not need to explain it away. Is it also “ugly” that children should obey their parents? Is it wrong for servants to obey their masters? These comments reveal that Carey has no respect for the Word of God. In a moment of rare graciousness, he does grant the use of Genesis 2:24 for marriage. Carey is not satisfied with even his own denomination’s liturgy for weddings, which appears below:
As this couple give themselves to each other today, we remember that at Cana in Galilee our Savior Jesus Christ made the wedding feast a sign of God's reign of love.
Notice that it does not say a man and a woman; however, Carey does not complain about that; he just wonders if that is the best that can be done. Admittedly, it is rather skimpy authority for marriage. Then the author reveals his true motive in writing the article—which is to attack the Scriptures and the proper use of them:
Unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about "biblical family values" as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let's be clear: There's no such thing as "biblical family values" because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently.
This entire paragraph is unadulterated hogwash! Bigotry has not been proven or demonstrated—only asserted. And the Bible has a clear and uniform policy concerning sexuality. Homosexuality is wrong under every covenant, and so is adultery. Carey simply has no respect for what the Bible teaches about morality.
Next, he observes that Jesus never married and that Paul advised brethren not to marry. (If this were true, then homosexuals ought to take a hint.) What Carey fails to consider is that Jesus has a bride—the church. Perhaps he should read Ephesians 5 again. Paul only suggested being single because of the present distress—and then only for those it would pose no problem of morality for. Otherwise couples should marry.
He says of Abraham that he exploited his slaves sexually, which is slanderous. Taking Hagar was Sarah’s idea, and Abraham did not make it a practice. After citing a law concerning rape (without considering the reason for the law), he asks, “Have the ‘biblical family values advocates’ actually read their Bibles?” Of course, we have, but it is obvious that Mr. Carey does not have the ability to distinguish between the old and the new covenants (Gal. 5:1-4). He finishes by saying that restrictive rules are the lowest common denominator of morality. Really? Apparently, he would simply have no rules at all. How fortunate Mr. Carey came along to advise God in this regard. Do you suppose He will listen?